[youtube]Ebu6Yvzs4Ls[/youtube]
Printable View
[youtube]Ebu6Yvzs4Ls[/youtube]
I've asked , and had accepted , that I may open another thread about this issue , and I'm hoping that we can discuss this further without this place getting too heated .
ShiftingGears posted a video that states many background facts about both of the participants .
(If he or Pino , or anyone else could post it for me , I would be grateful)
I don't wish to start a war , but I think some of the background given sheds a lot of new light on the situation .
Video added, now let's discuss it nicely and keep off personal comments/insults. Last chance for this topic and for some of you guys, do remember that !
OK, I'll start.
The jury reached the only possible conclusion they could have given the existing law and the testimony and evidence presented at the trial.
Some in the former thread argued that the finding was wrong. They are the ones in error and I'll tell you why. The Florida Stand Your Ground laws are quite clear. And, unfortunately for some, the laws mean what they say and not what you would like them to mean. The answer for those who believe that justice was not done is not to carp about the jury finding, but to work to get the laws changed so that they say and mean something closer to your viewpoint. (Others will work to retain said laws of course.) That's how rule of law works. Laws are not flexible things, meaning different things at different times and to different people. They mean what they say. That's a lesson for legislators everywhere - be very careful what you enact, as you're going to have to live with it.
Thanks for allowing the topic to continue Pino, and thanks for posing the question Bagwan. :)
To me this was an open and shut case that would have likely never happened without political influence at higher levels. It was well within Zimmermans rights to patrol his neighborhood and attempt to protect property. I've been amazed that so many oppose his actions and saw him as aggressive in any way.
We had some issues in our community years ago and people got involved in the same way. I found that if people had nothing to hide, they hid nothing. People that noticed we were keeping an eye on things (young and older) often approached us to ask what we were looking for, or why. When they realized what we were doing they often assisted in pointing out the "trouble makers" within the community. Even the kids that were up to some small scale illegal activity wanted to clear their names of any major wrong doing and as such avoided circumstances that would point to them as a source of major problems.
Even some of the kids that were major fools got the point, and after talking to them they started understanding how their actions would reflect on their parents and their neighborhood. And we also communicated with the kids, and found out why some of them were doing seemingly shady things at all hours of the night. In some cases, we found other outlets so kids could be kids without drawing the eyes of the adults.
I personally feel that Zimmerman has had his character assaulted from just about every angle possible. A "wanna be" cop... stated over and over. So is there a problem with someone having a desire to uphold the law? Or for that matter education themselves to the law?
Zimmerman a racist? By what standards this came to light I don't really understand at all. There was a great deal of evidence that he was far removed from being a racist, and I've yet to see any evidence that he was inclined towards being a racist in any way, shape or form.
And now Zimmerman will have to live with threats against him and his family for many years to come. He will also have to live with the fact that he took another humans life, even if justified by law. And many studies have concluded that doing such a thing has mental impacts that are lasting, more influenced by the reaction of society than the actual act of killing a person. IMO a great part of society has failed Zimmerman.
Let's start , Starter , with the idea that none of us , including the jury , had heard much of the background of either men , and drew our own conclusions .
For some , "stand your ground" can result in terrible tragedy , which , in this case was what was being portrayed by most of the press .
This , at least to some degree , is the result of the hyper-sensitivity that the US society has towards the issue of racism .
On the bare face of it , with a young man dead , and silenced about the affair , we all had little idea about the reasons behind what happened , and most made the step into one camp or the other .
Now knowing more of Trayvon , perhaps this can show the extent that we can be manipulated in the press .
This , of course , is not the mainstream press by any means , but seeing the video with some more background for each man puts new light on both the situation that occurred , and so , should not necessarily prompt derision towards those who believed it .
They were uninformed .
They were uninformed on purpose , or , at least it looks like it .
It opens up a lot of avenues for questions .
Was Obama informed before he made his stand ?
If not , Is it incompetence , or was someone looking to make him look foolish ?
If he knew , what was the point ?
Will the truth shown in the video ever make it to that mainstream ?
I personally think that in many cases they were misinformed on purpose. Without misinformation applied, or at a bare minimum selective truths, there was no real controversy to report. And lacking such controversy the "case" would never have happened IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
But on the flip side, I think much of society would draw conclusions quickly even if only the full facts were reported by the media. Many people see things in black and white and never look at gray area or put themselves in the situation yet remain mindful of facts presented. Like the song says, many people love "dirty laundry".
Others will accept facts as facts, but in this example possibly question the law. That is human nature, and opinions will always vary. Others will twist whatever facts they do come across to fit their already determined point of view. To me thing is pointless, and one of the reasons such people often don't even attempt to find what is known as fact. The previous thread had a great number of statements presented as fact that I've yet to find evidence were facts. But once again nature to some.... doing anything they can to justify their point of view.
As for Obama, I really can't for the life of me understand why he got involved. It was a no win situation for him, and will continue to be so.
As for the truths in the video, I saw the video before it was posted and checked out some of the statements made as I had no previously been aware of them. And I've yet to find anything that doesn't by all account appear to be true. I had previously (in the locked thread) stated that I thought the real civil rights leaders would be disgusted with how people twist the race issue these days. But in the long run I don't think any mainstream media would dare run something as fact based as this video. It contains far to many truths for the modern media to be interested.
"It contains far to many truths for the modern media to be interested."
But , doesn't it contain a wild number of questions , ripe to address ?
Perhaps the most obvious would be who stands to benefit from a race war .
But , there are many more from which to chose .
Was the media complicit , or were they duped as well ?
Since this video states that it was an easy task to acquire much more information about the two men involved , was it not obvious that this information would emerge eventually , if it was suppressed ?
When stuff like this happens , it makes me wonder why .
And , I'm not talking about either Martin or Zimmerman here .
Governments tend to work in rather Markabillian ways these days , and when the magician waves his hand , it's wise to look for where the other hand is .
It might be that they needed a distraction from another issue .
If a race war was the object , you'd think they'd be more careful with their choice of heroes to champion .
All this new stuff coming out , seemingly easily , puts me wondering if it all was a set-up , to discredit Obama , with potential to pi$$ off both the whites and the hispanics , by incorrectly identifying Zimmerman a racist , and the blacks , by using this punk to identify an example of a fine young black man .
It'll be interesting to see this all come to light , as it looks like it's just being let to stew in the background .
I don't understand why "stand your ground" is being brought up again and again in the news. Zimmerman should have been acquitted simply due to a simple self-defense argument even without stand your ground law. My theory is that the anti-gun lobby is using the Zimmerman case as an excuse to bash the stand your ground laws.
Bagwan,
All good questions, and I wish I had the true answers.
To be honest the more I sweep through media coverage in different regions of the world, the more I suspect that the media in general has a greater influence on the opinions of the population than I really ever suspected. I've found that the "spin" is often as regional as it is biased based on source. I've found information that may be swayed far left in one part of the world, far right in another, and fact checking tells me it's somewhere in the middle. But it's often difficult to find a media source anywhere in the world that deals with those facts without a slant one way or another.
I actually think a strongly fact based media source with higher standards and more accountability would be popular all over the world. It would take some getting used to depending on what spin a persons regular sources were slanted towards, but in time I think everyone would appreciate it. In most cases when I fact search/check I find stories that most media portray as black and white are in fact grey.
Zako85,
I really don't get it either. Even without specific laws in this case there is no evidence that Zimmerman didn't act in self defense. I personally think that some are taking the "stand your ground" laws out of context and are assuming that it implies you can start a confrontation and remain innocent regardless of outcome.
I'm 100% behind stand your ground and castle laws, including those that extend to vehicles. I think that the majority of people in the world would flee given the choice rather than take another persons life, but I don't think they should be expected to do so. To change the laws to force or expect people to flee is almost an invitation to greater crime IMO.
Given the ease with which this extra contrary info has come out , one has to at least consider that this was a trap for the anti-gun lobby in the form of an invitation to speak out , and be proven to be wrong in the most absolute way .Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
There are clever minds on both sides of the gun debate .
You don't have to shoot'em if you can get them to shoot themselves .
"Stand your ground" justifies gun sales . Gun guys win .
More gun crimes create more paranoia , and the public buys more guns .
Inject a little race tension , and guns sell again . The gun guys win again .
And , of course , the street cop needs to be armed to be able to meet the challenge of outgunning the common criminal , the innocent kid turned bad . The gun guys again .
Maybe the neighbourhood watch is past it's prime and there should be talk of uniformed police officers instead .
Those guys that supply the cops with all those weapons also supply the army with all theirs as well , so why not just supply the cops with the same weapons and gear ?
Hell , why not just use the army ?
Now , to be clear , I'm not suggesting this route , but merely trying to show it's not that many steps .
It perhaps shows that , what I understand as the original reasoning behind the second amendment in your constitution , the proliferation of arms is , in part , a protection against a government that is seen as moving against it's own people , as much of protection of the individual .
I hope I'm right about that , but one thing that I am pretty sure I am right about , is that the second amendment guarantees that the gun guys win every time .
The tax to support that would be unacceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Well , yeah , I know that .Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
It was just an illustration of steps towards a police state .
I was listening to CBC radio the other day(most CBC stuff in on NPR) , and they were talking about a recent long weekend where there were , I think , thirty-seven killings over a long weekend in Chicago .
Presumably , this Martin/Zimmerman thing was more sexy on the surface for the press to grab on , than the choice of one of the Chicago 37 .
Hold on a moment , Starter , but , that was the only aspect on which you chose to comment ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
I hope that doesn't mean you would accept the statement , "Hell , why not just use the army ?" , as less than it was -ie , an extreme degree .
I didn't say it because the tax for that would also be unacceptable. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
I thought I was pretty clear back in post #247 of the closed thread:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
I find it very difficult to have a lot of sympathy for the rantings of some of the black leaders (at least the ones who love the camera) who blame everything on the whites. If they spent half as much time tending to the issues in the black community, there would be a lot more black kids still alive now.Quote:
That's the part which I find most interesting. It's a true statement and has been true for many years. The same can not be said of the Asian, Hispanic, white or even indian populations. Why is that? And when are many of the so called black leaders going to wake up to the fact instead of blaming their woes on whites? It was said best in an old Pogo cartoon - "We have met the enemy and he is us.".
Even after watching the video, the most important point to stress is that there were only two direct eye witnesses to the beginning of the incident - Zimmerman and Martin. That's it. Every other witness brought into the case either did not directly see the beginning of the incident or was a character witness.Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
It's entirely possible that Zimmerman attacked first and that Martin could have been standing his ground. The thing is that Martin couldn't have mounted such a defence in court, owing to the fact that he is dead. However, no charges were brought against Marton because he is dead.
I still stand behind what I said in the first thread.
It was Mark O'Mara who summed up the crux of this the most succinctly:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/12/ju...html?hpt=hp_t1
"How many 'coulda beens' have you heard from the state in this case, How many 'what ifs' have you heard from the state in this case?"
- via CNN, 12th July 2013
"Onus probandi" of the burden of proof rests on the prosecution and because this was a criminal and not a civil case, 'coulda beens' and 'what ifs' although they might be reasonable where the standard is only on balance of probabilities, they are most certainly not in this case.
Personally I think that the law in question is stupid and the fact that there even was a gun probably added to the temperature of the climate of the incident but the law is as it stands and courts must apply laws as they stand, nothing more and nothing less.
The jury came up with the verdict , having seen loads of info on Zimmerman , but not having seen the info in the video about Martin .
Pretty much all of that info about Martin seems pretty pertinent to the issue , and since it wasn't used , we should be able to assume it wasn't admissible in court .
The video tosses rocks in many directions over the fact that those facts weren't used , not over the issue of whether they would have changed the verdict .
Whittle agrees with the verdict , but hints at a bigger picture .
The video is actually largely irrelevant , in regards to the trial , but , important for the general public to understand .
I recall many years ago being told by a young lawyer that "We have courts of law, not courts of justice". I think I'm beginning to understand what he meant (based on this and other cases).
I agree with this post in its entirety, and believe that Martin had no intention of confronting Zimm, until he himself was confronted/stalked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
By the same token, I'm sure Z had no intention of having a physical altercation with M, via fists, guns or other, until he was attacked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alca-Tazizzle
So what is the bigger offense, attacking someone or stalking someone? There were no innocent parties here.
Very true. We can never be certain who actually provoked the altercation. If "stalking" is defined as observing, following, and reporting what is taken as suspicious activity to authorities, then we know that Zimmerman did so. However "stalking" in that instance would also be a legal action, that would usually not provoke any time of altercation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
That seems likely , but it was his own suspicious behavior (his slowing to peer in windows) that prompted Zimmerman to suspect him , so possible to see him as the aggressor , especially having stashed some burglary tools .Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alca-Tazizzle
So , given these tools were away from the point of confrontation , we should be able to assume he had returned to confront him .
I agree , though , it aint black and white , pardon the expression .
Not necessarily Bag's,Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
it was not established in court that the tools were his, or were they?
As to Martin peering into windows, It's my understanding (I know I am quilty of fuzzy thinking now and again) Chubby was the only eyeball witness to this assertion. I'm not saying GZ is lying, only that dead men tell no tales.
As Starter so aptly put it:
They ain't no innocent parties up in here"
Here is part of the encounter described by Zimmerman:
"Zimmerman said he left his truck to find a street sign so he would be able to tell the police dispatcher where he was. He told investigators that he was not following Martin but was "just going in the same direction he was" to find an address, but admitted that he had also left his truck to try to see in which direction Martin had gone. The altercation began, he said, when Martin suddenly appeared while Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle. He described Martin at different points in the interviews as appearing "out of nowhere", "from the darkness", and as "jump[ing] out of the bushes". Zimmerman said that Martin asked, "You got a ****ing problem, homie?" Zimmerman replied no, then Martin said "You got a problem now" and punched Zimmerman. As they struggled on the ground, Zimmerman on his back with Martin on top of him, Zimmerman yelled for help "probably 50 times". Martin told him to "Shut the **** up," as he hit him in the face and pounded his head on a concrete sidewalk
Got an ass-whippin' for trying to sus out a brotha' :rolleyes: :fat:
Don't get me wrong, as I stated I agreed with the not guilty verdict in the way it was articulated by Rollo :bulb:
Funny stuff, he was protecting the neighborhood but he didn't know where he was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alca-Tazizzle
To me it looks like he was far from home looking for troubles.
Another misleading information from GZ, he wasn't following Martin, he was just slowly driving behind him! Good one, isn't it?! if he would have just drove at normal speed he would have found the address and wouldn't have had any issue with anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alca-Tazizzle
Mr. GZ read way too many cartoons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alca-Tazizzle
This time he was lucky, so he should hang up his gloves and stop playing Batman, he clearly isn't up to it.
I really need your help here. I confess to ignorance on this point - just exactly what law was Z breaking by following someone in his truck and not directly interacting with him? I guess, if he did it over several days, it could be classified as stalking, but I doubt any cop in the world would arrest someone for doing it once. So exactly what were the grounds for M to attack Z?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I think what it is that irks me a little is GZ was not even on neiborhood watch patrol at the time, he just saw someone he thought looked suspicious while he was out on the town packing heat!!!
I'm glad Martin kicked his ass. At least Mr Zimmerman has a better understanding of why he was rufused by the police force.Quote:
Zimmerman's father said that, while his son was not on duty that night as Neighborhood Watch captain, there had been many break-ins and he thought it suspicious that someone he didn't recognize was walking
Also I bet Martin afer he suprised chubby and beat him down, didn't say (asd Z has stated):
"Shut the F()ck up". This was around the time Z said he screamed for help "fifty times". I'd rather think (and do believe) Martin said as he pummeled him:
"Shut the f)(ck up Bitch!!"
You don't have to be even in a neighborhood watch to report crime, or to observe someone while doing so. Nor to carry a weapon for self defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alca-Tazizzle
You seem to take great delight in the fact that Martin got the best of Zimmerman... right up to the point it got him killed. Do you somehow see his as a winning situation?
No, I see Zimmerman getting "the bejezus" knocked out of him as a hurtin' situation.
IMO it's best that if you go around blowing children away it should be requisite that you've received from them, what is commonly referred to down here as a "thorough ass-whippin'"
Now , hold on ,Taz man .Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alca-Tazizzle
Can we assume that Zimmerman had a concealed carry permit , so "packing heat" would be his right ?
He didn't whip it out until he was underneath , being beaten up .
He didn't walk in "all cowboy" guns ablazing .
Would you feel like handing one of those out , though , to the guy who was casing your joint or the one trying to stop that happening ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alca-Tazizzle
So you are advocating assault and battery? Particularly since no children were blown away before the assault and no way to have known that Z had a weapon at all in order to justify said assault. It's going to be interesting in your town when your neighbors take up that philosophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alca-Tazizzle
Personally I wouldn't want that chubby, punk ass bitch in any aspect of my life:
I wouldn't want this freakin' guy lurking around my neighborhodd with a loaded piece.Quote:
•In 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” both which are third-degree felonies. The charge was reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program. Contemporaneous accounts indicate he shoved an officer who was questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking at an Orange County bar.
•In August 2005, Zimmerman’s ex-fiancee, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence.
This guy is packing heat? With that record I would disqualify him even if he got diversion (agreeing to get counseling for his alcoholism) which if the program is completed you receive a no conviction.
This ass-tard is a menace!
I'm glad he got the living bejesus knocked ourt of him. Perhaps now he will be a little more aware and respectful of other peoples "space", and rights.
If it's a choice between the two , though , who do you want in the neighbourhood , the guy who admittedly does a ragged job of looking after your interests , or the guy who , at 17 , already has notable liver damage , suspected of being a result of using illicit drugs that make one paranoid and aggressive , and is looking in windows ?
Don't get me wrong , Taz . This guy is a tool , and clearly can't handle the role he wants to play .
And , I actually don't believe the beating was a bad thing , in one sense .
If it knocks a little sense into him about when to stay back and not stick his nose in too far , then it was a good thing .
If you try for a moment to put aside his apparent desire to "impersonate an officer" , small man style , and you look at him as just a concerned citizen , he was only being vigilant about keeping his neighbourhood safe .
Perhaps he deserves a good smack for being stupid enough to walk into an ambush , but doesn't the presence of the burglary tools nearby cut him a little slack , as it seems he was likely right about his suspicions about the kid ?
It's good to have a little more background about Zimmerman , as it shows a little more of his character , or , perhaps lack thereof .
Perhaps he deserves that beating for the domestic violence , but I'm not so sure about this .
Quote:
So you are advocating assault and battery?
Thank you for answering my question that you do advocate assault and battery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alca-Tazizzle
Get off the "Lean" dude - It is bad for the brainQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alca-Tazizzle
You should be able to use the "Stand your Ground" in all situations. That clearly means that you can request someone stop from approaching you. So lets use this senario. You are out fishing in a remote canyon and some "shady looking character" is approaching you. At what point do you say stop? and and what point do you react? Of course you all know my reaction so lets hear what you would do.
Perhaps if Florida actually prosecuted one of the felony counts Z got arrested for when he assaulted a police officer this killing would not have happened, as I believe even The Great State of Florida does no issue conceiled weapons permits to convicted felons.
Bags, the only evidence their is of Martin looking into windows is Z's account, so I'll consider that for what I think it is worth.
Maybe if Z was denied a handgun because of his alcoholic agression against an officer of the law he may have learned how to use his fists and not have taken what is commonly referred to as a thorough ass-whippin' from Martin! :bounce: :bulb:
That is something that I had not heard of. The inference that Zimmerman was drinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alca-Tazizzle