or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

killing Trayvon - Page 327

post #4891 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NameBack View Post

And what actual facts are you suggesting don't matter, Harvey?

That Zimmerman committed no crime.
post #4892 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

If this encompassed the totality of the sentiments expressed by the majority of the "outraged" people I might agree it is not an unreasonable thing. However, this does not really describe the totality of the things being expressed. Millions, and I do mean millions, seem convinced Zimmerman is a proven racist, a proven murderer, and that either racism or a vast conspiracy are the only possible reasons he is not in jail. If the MSM and FB were not covered in this I would buy that all people wanted was a trial and that's "reasonable." However it's very clear the millions of people expect more and are holding non-factual positions as gospel truth.

You yourself have said that you believe Zimmerman bears a moral responsibility for what happened, right? So do many other people. Those people are dismayed or outraged that such a moral responsibility was not addressed by the state. I think that is fair and reasonable. You may disagree on the extent of the moral responsibility, but I think many people are indeed convinced, and not unreasonably so, that Zimmerman did something wrong, and that the system either could not or did not punish him for it. And that makes people sad and angry, and I think that's fair.

I think many people didn't follow the trial closely and don't know the law very well, and so the natural response is to say "obvious moral culpability" ----> "not guilty verdict" = "unfair application of the law" which many then say "due to racism."

I think, given their knowledge of events, this is not an unreasonable position. I find that, most of the people I know who are strident progressives and who are knowledgeable and informed are quite outraged by this event even though they understand the law was applied in a defensible and correct fashion. I think that many people who are convinced that Zimmerman walked only because of racism would be equally dismayed if they were shown how the law was applied fairly--their anger would just be directed at deficiencies in the law, not in its application. The moral wrong is not lessened, but the target is somewhat different.

Also, I think many people were hoping for jury nullification.
post #4893 of 6250
Guys:

The great and magnificent Obama has spoken.... I am Trayvon Martin.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/19/politics/obama-zimmerman/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
post #4894 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post

I think the civil rights era taught us that Southern small-town police departments don't always to the best job of investigating the deaths of black children.

The Sanford police conducted only the most cursory of investigations, the night of Trayvon Martin's killings. The people wanted a more thorough investigation. They got one. It lead to an arrest. Zimmerman had a fair trail, and was found not-guilty. You're upset that the case went to trial because you do not value Trayvon Martin's life. That is your problem.

The Sanford PD investigated what happened and deemed it a clear cut self defense case. There is absolutely no excuse for subverting due process by caving to the will of the people or for that matter any outside influence. The visual of the US legal system is a blind folded lady liberty holding a set of scales. All that matter is the facts and she weighs them without seeing anything else. Consider yourself lucky to have a legal system that works that way versus one run by a lynch mob made up of "the people".
post #4895 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

That Zimmerman committed no crime.

And so, because he committed no crime, there is no grounds for outrage, dismay, sadness? Because he committed no crime, there is no place for desire that such behavior be classified as criminal in the future? Because he committed no crime, there is no place for doubt as to whether the law would have been applied equally fairly to a black defendant? Because he committed no crime, it is impossible to suggest his actions were influenced by racial bias?
post #4896 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

List for me the "bad initial policework" in the Zimmerman case. Were eyewitnesses interviewed or not? Was Zimmerman interviewed or not (with at least one cop lying to him to try and trip his story up)? Was physical evidence examined?

Edit: There's no doubt the investigation was not the absolute most thorough. I guess that gives the conspiracy nuts at least a foothold in reality. However, it would seem a reasonable standard was met to determine it was self defense. I would think a two week investigation was long enough?

Pio, Trayvon Martin was on the phone moments before and posibly at the moment he was shot. In a case with no eye-wittnesses, the Police made no attempt to contact the person on the other end of that call.
post #4897 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NameBack View Post

You yourself have said that you believe Zimmerman bears a moral responsibility for what happened, right? So do many other people. Those people are dismayed or outraged that such a moral responsibility was not addressed by the state. I think that is fair and reasonable. You may disagree on the extent of the moral responsibility, but I think many people are indeed convinced, and not unreasonably so, that Zimmerman did something wrong, and that the system either could not or did not punish him for it. And that makes people sad and angry, and I think that's fair.

I think many people didn't follow the trial closely and don't know the law very well, and so the natural response is to say "obvious moral culpability" ----> "not guilty verdict" = "unfair application of the law" which many then say "due to racism."

I think, given their knowledge of events, this is not an unreasonable position. I find that, most of the people I know who are strident progressives and who are knowledgeable and informed are quite outraged by this event even though they understand the law was applied in a defensible and correct fashion. I think that many people who are convinced that Zimmerman walked only because of racism would be equally dismayed if they were shown how the law was applied fairly--their anger would just be directed at deficiencies in the law, not in its application. The moral wrong is not lessened, but the target is somewhat different.

Also, I think many people were hoping for jury nullification.

I think you are ignoring what I said. Let's be succinct:

People are making shit up in their heads. Nothing factual is dispelling this made up shit. People are consciously refusing to accept readily accessible facts. Millions and millions of people are doing this.

Go spend 20 minutes on DU and get back to me.
post #4898 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

Ok well now we're actually getting somewhere. What are the laws you would like to see, specifically? I see a lot of vague "repeal stand your ground" arguments, but they never seem to be fleshed out. I don't see how a duty to retreat would allow us to criminalize Zimmerman's behavior. Any ideas?

Well, I don't claim to be a legal expert, but it seems to me that a lot of the outrage originates with the notion that Zimmerman provoked the confrontation. That Martin felt the need to defend himself due to Zimmerman's unreasonable actions. I think people find the idea very distressing that you could theoretically cause an altercation, and then kill the person you provoked without being found legally culpable. It seems like a strange loophole. I'm not sure how to close that loophole, but perhaps by not allowing a self-defense argument if the provoked party is found to be reasonably provoked to defend themselves with force, due to the actions of the defendant.
post #4899 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NameBack View Post

I'm sort of shocked that people don't understand the basic idea here:

People clamored for a trial because they believed Zimmerman bore some moral culpability--which is not an unreasonable position. In fact, I think it's hard to argue that it is not the most reasonable position. It was not, as Harvey states, immediately certain that Zimmerman was innocent. The prosecutors knew that the case would be difficult and conviction would be unlikely--but that's not the same thing as a certainty. I think, because of the nature of the situation, and the sense of moral outrage, it made sense to at least conduct a trial to be sure of the situation.

Further, I find it hard to understand how someone can't empathize with the outrage post-acquittal. Was Zimmerman innocent of murder by Florida law and reasonable doubt? I think it's hard to argue otherwise. However, it seems deliberately myopic to suggest that the issue ends there; that there is no longer grounds for any kind of moral dismay. I find it especially odd because the people arguing that no outrage is acceptable or warranted in this case because the law is the law and he was found innocent by a jury have failed to suggest the same outlook in past trials where a suspect went free despite what most felt was a clear sense of moral culpability.

It wasn't immediately obvious that Zimmerman was innocent, but it was immediately obvious that Martin was, right? I am impressed that you can still call Martin an "innocent boy," as if Zimmerman killed him in an accident instead of self-defense. In fact, there's no reason to think Zimmerman was wrong when he said Martin looked suspicious or that Zimmerman wrongfully "provoked the confrontation."

It seems that pretty much everyone who is outraged about this has to have his own narrative that isn't supported by the facts, and you're no different.
post #4900 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NameBack View Post

Well, I don't claim to be a legal expert, but it seems to me that a lot of the outrage originates with the notion that Zimmerman provoked the confrontation. That Martin felt the need to defend himself due to Zimmerman's unreasonable actions. I think people find the idea very distressing that you could theoretically cause an altercation, and then kill the person you provoked without being found legally culpable. It seems like a strange loophole. I'm not sure how to close that loophole, but perhaps by not allowing a self-defense argument if the provoked party is found to be reasonably provoked to defend themselves with force, due to the actions of the defendant.

Where's the evidence to support this claim?
post #4901 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post

Pio, Trayvon Martin was on the phone moments before and posibly at the moment he was shot. In a case with no eye-wittnesses, the Police made no attempt to contact the person on the other end of that call.

No eye witness? Really?
Quote:
In cross-examination, Zimmerman attorney Mark O’Mara read from a statement Good gave to Sanford Police Department detective Chris Serino. Good told Serino, “It was a black man with a black hoodie on top of the other, either a white guy or now I found out I think it was a Hispanic guy with a red sweatshirt on the ground yelling out help!”

“It seemed like a tussle,” Good testified, adding that at first he thought he was witnessing a dog attack.

Good says he saw “downward movement,” but couldn’t confirm that he saw punches being thrown. He added that the person on top was “straddling” the person on bottom.

Good was careful not to speculate, but said he believed that the man on bottom was the one yelling for help. Asking whether he could state unequivocally who he heard screaming, Good replied, “100 percent? No.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/trayvon-martin-case-shadowed-by-police-missteps.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So now we have an investigation did happen and there was at least one eye witness to the fight.

I really do not know when or if the police call Rachel but I'm not going to go find out as you continue to post non-factual items.
post #4902 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I think you are ignoring what I said. Let's be succinct:

People are making shit up in their heads. Nothing factual is dispelling this made up shit. People are consciously refusing to accept readily accessible facts. Millions and millions of people are doing this.

Go spend 20 minutes on DU and get back to me.

I don't know what DU is.

I think many people are indeed convinced that Zimmerman is a murderer. I think they mean "murderer" by a different ontology than that which is defined in Florida law. I think people are not understanding why their definition of "murderer" did not result in the state rendering the legal verdict of "murderer."

But, hey, I mean, if you wanna call all those people stupid, then I guess that's your prerogative. I, personally, think it's not hard to empathize with them, but I'm not saying you're required to. Personally, I'm not sure why their outrage and their misunderstanding of some facts would warrant such fervent disdain, given that an understanding of said facts would not significantly mitigate their anger, and therefore would not particularly affect any practical outcomes, but, again, it's up to you.

I also can't really fathom why it seems that your disdain of uninformed people having natural, understandable reactions to this event is your focus, rather than the tragic nature of the event itself. It seems a case of misplaced priorities.
post #4903 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NameBack View Post

Well, I don't claim to be a legal expert, but it seems to me that a lot of the outrage originates with the notion that Zimmerman provoked the confrontation. That Martin felt the need to defend himself due to Zimmerman's unreasonable actions. I think people find the idea very distressing that you could theoretically cause an altercation, and then kill the person you provoked without being found legally culpable. It seems like a strange loophole. I'm not sure how to close that loophole, but perhaps by not allowing a self-defense argument if the provoked party is found to be reasonably provoked to defend themselves with force, due to the actions of the defendant.

Well provocation can cause you to lose your self defense claim. There just was no evidence in this case that Zimmerman provoked the other party.

If you are suggesting that Zimmerman was provoking him by his mere presence, then you are really heading down a rabbit hole if you ask me. Any law like that is going to apply to everyone. Presuming juries are racist (and they are; you won't get any argument on that point from me), you have to realize that is going to be used more often against minorities and poor people who can't afford good attorneys. The next generation will be protesting a verdict where a black guy is sent to prison because he "provoked" some white guy with his presence.
post #4904 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

It wasn't immediately obvious that Zimmerman was innocent, but it was immediately obvious that Martin was, right? I am impressed that you can still call Martin an "innocent boy," as if Zimmerman killed him in an accident instead of self-defense. In fact, there's no reason to think Zimmerman was wrong when he said Martin looked suspicious or that Zimmerman wrongfully "provoked the confrontation."

It seems that pretty much everyone who is outraged about this has to have his own narrative that isn't supported by the facts, and you're no different.

Well the fact is that Martin had a right to be where he was and was doing nothing illegal when Zimmerman begain tailing him and playing deputy. So, I would say that's a fair definition of "innocent."

Also, Zimmerman being justified of self-defense does not mean that Martin would have been found guilty of assault had he lived. Those are not congruent. That potential guilt would have to be determined separately, and I personally think it's unlikely a jury would have found Martin guilty of any such charge.
post #4905 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NameBack View Post

And so, because he committed no crime, there is no grounds for outrage, dismay, sadness?

Dismay and sadness, sure, I'm not a fan of people dying.

But outrage? Outrage at what?
Quote:
Because he committed no crime, there is no place for desire that such behavior be classified as criminal in the future?

Where was this desire? Are you referring to SYG? Because changing that law would not have changed the verdict in this case. So what specific behaviour of Zimmerman's would the progressives like to see classified as criminal?

Before you answer, understand that any new criminal law you create will be used disproportionately against blacks. Are you sure you still want to make that behaviour a criminal act?
Quote:
Because he committed no crime, there is no place for doubt as to whether the law would have been applied equally fairly to a black defendant?

Maybe for 15 seconds before you could check the statistics on google (as helpfully provided by Ata previously in this thread) which show the opposite. So to an ignorant person, or to a person unwilling to spend 15 seconds to actually check on the matter I suppose you're entitled to your anger and doubt.
Quote:
Because he committed no crime, it is impossible to suggest his actions were influenced by racial bias?

Impossible, no. Unreasonable, yes. There is no evidence to suggest his actions were influenced by a racial bias. And contrary to the false narrative that Z is a white racist pig the available evidence suggests Z is a friend of black people.

You can go back and check this thread when it started, before I watched the case develop I even bought into some of the lies. Some of my first posts showed a contempt for Zimmerman, clouded by my own hatred of HOAs and "neighbourhood watch busybodies." But then information started to get out, and rather than people recognize the correct information nearly every verifiable fact of this case was turned around by the media and by CRT proponents as it's gone along. Based on what was presented at trial the state had no business ever filing charges against Zimmerman. CRT progressives had no business blowing this up into a false narrative for their own political purposes. And the President had no business commenting on a local criminal prosecution in some shitty small town in FLA.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon