Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/20/12 05:04 PM, djack wrote: Those people don't go out looking for trouble when they carry their gun everywhere. They bring it with them because something might happen not because they're going out looking for criminals. Zimmerman was patrolling the streets looking for criminals when he brought his gun with him and he was chasing after someone he believed was a criminal when he left his truck but still brought his gun with him.

Keeping watch over a community is not the same as looking for trouble. You make it sound like Zimmerman wanted a violent confrontation when there's absolutely no evidence that was the case. Simply going up to someone and asking questions is not picking a fight.

Zimmerman had his gun with the intent of finding trouble and left his truck with the intent to confront Martin. That "previous incident" involved a vicious dog that was loose in the neighborhood and Zimmerman was only told that he shouldn't rely on pepper spray to stop a vicious dog, he could have gone out and bought a baseball bat for significantly less money and been just as safe from the dog.

Lol listen to you. Now you're trying to say Zimmerman was the bad guy merely for owning a gun.

It doesn't matter, anyway. A baseball bat is pretty effective at killing people, too, just like fists can be.

That depends on how you are defining reckless behavior. Is it reckless to walk down an alley in a skimpy short skirt? Yes. Does that mean it's your fault if you eventually get raped? No.

If you're walking down an alley in a skimpy skirt just to draw out a rapist so that you can shoot him it is your fault and you can be convicted of murder.

Is it? Was the person who got shot compelled to rape you? Did he not choose to commit a heinous crime?

Again, it's irrelevant because there's no reason to believe this is what Zimmerman intended to happen. It would be a fantastically elaborate scheme if Zimmerman, on the spot, decided to confront some guy and allow himself to suffer critical injuries just so he could kill him and claim self-defense.
Do you really think that's what happened?

At 5/19/12 06:54 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Yet you almost never see people being charged with in/voluntary manslaughter unless they were doing something that would get them charged with reckless driving in the first place.

We could all be talking about different meanings of "reckless" herendangerment e. I may be wrong, but I'd bet most criminal definitions of reckless as its used in charges like reckless endangerment or reckless driving involve the risk of injury upon others, whereas we might view picking up a hitchhiker or walking down inner-city Detroit at 2 am as risking injury upon oneself. The key difference is while the reckless charges involve inherently dangerous acts (driving erratically, firing a weapon into the air) the acts in personally reckless behavior are reckless in that they make a person vulnerable to other people.
We can say Zimmerman's behavior was reckless, not because he endangered other people, but because he potentially made himself vulnerable by getting involved. That may be stupid, but it's not criminal.

At 5/18/12 08:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote: And? That doesn't change that Zimmerman recklessly engaged in a very dangerous confrontation while armed.

Going up to someone and asking "what are you doing" is neither reckless or dangerous. Him being armed is irrelevant, unless he's waving the gun around while he does it.

There are two things here. Either Zimmerman brought a gun to a confrontation that very did not deserve one, thus upping the ante when the ante needed not be upped. Or Zimmerman actively knew how dangerous this could be and actively ignored it by engaging.

Bringing a gun doesn't up the ante. Carrying a gun is his constitutional right and does not count against him unless he starts threatening people with it.

According to who? The neighborhood watch committee? Those regulations discourage confrontation because they are potentially dangerous, not because they are inherently illegal.

Um any sane person?

You keep brining up "sane" and "reasonable" as if it's legally relevant. Zimmerman went up and talked to someone. That's it. The law doesn't care if you call a hulking black man a "n*gger." The law doesn't care if you insult an inebriated person. The law doesn't care if you confront someone verbally. Merely because violence is one conceivable outcome of an interaction does not make that interaction inherently reckless.

You can pretzel it all you want, but that dispatcher told him in a manner clear enough for the reasonable law abiding citizen to back the fuck off.

Hardly. If it were absolutely imperative that Zimmerman stay in his car and wait, they would have said, "stay in the car and wait." "You don't have to do that" is not a command, and it doesn't matter how many times you say "a reasonable person would do such and such."

And what if Martin had been a burgular or criminal with a violent history and things turned out the same, would you still demand Zimmerman be charged with murder?

At 5/19/12 09:55 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Like I keep saying, whether Zimmerman was doing something illegal when he followed Martin is not relevant.

It's entirely relevant because you're counting a conversation and bearing arms as reckless behavior when there's absolutely nothing wrong, legal or otherwise, with doing either of them.

Ah yeah because you know exactly how every human will react in a given situation. What's more dangerous than a gun? A threatening person holding a gun.

That's true, except there's no evidence that Zimmerman was brandishing or pointing his gun at Martin. You don't get a free pass to attack anyone who talks to you simply because he's armed.
Plus, if Martin knew there was a gun and felt threatened, why did Zimmerman still have it on him when he was getting the crap beat out of him? It seems Martin would have had plenty of time to disarm him, especially if Zimmerman had been pointing the gun at him at the start.

Youdon't get it. Zimmerman should not have even been in that situaation. This is the crux here. Zimmerman took a harmless situation, knew the risk (hence his packing) and decided to go against what a law abiding citizen would do, thus turining the situation violent and eventually fatal.

Law abiding citizens carry guns. Law abiding citizens talk to people. They even do both at the same time. His carrying is not evidence that he thought that confronting Martin was especially risky (some people carry guns all the time).

This probably will not be enough to convict on murder, but it is definitely enough to proceed to trial.

On top of that, it IS enough to succeed in a wrongful death suit against Zimmernman, and more thaan enough to hold Zimmerman morally responsible for the death.
Because, after all, Martin couldn't help but rain blows upon Zimmerman.

If only we knew what was going on at the time. Which we don't. So we need a trial to determine the facts.

You're supposed to be an attorney? A trial is a presentation of the facts before a jury. No state indicts or prosecutes someone with an "well he may be guilty, he may not, but what the hell let's go to trial and see what happens" attitude. By the time a case gets to trial, it's not a question of "did he do it" but "can he explain it away or muddy the waters enough for an acquital." And considering that probably everything Zimmerman's (successful) defense will show will be things the state already knew from the initial investigation, it never should have gone that far in the first place.

At 5/18/12 05:17 PM, Camarohusky wrote: But Zimmerman recklessly engaged in a confrontation that had a high chance of resulting in violence.

No, he didn't. There were a hundred different ways that confrontation could have ended that wouldn't involve violence. Martin was a human being, not some mindless wild animal. You're ignoring the fact that one of them chose to engage in violence.

Is something a fearless citizen would do.

Fearless but stupid.

Being stupid is not illegal.

Is something a fearless AND smart citizen would do.

Fearless and REALLY stupid.

What, protecting yourself in case something goes wrong is stupid? Counting on the potential criminal not to seriously hurt you is smart?

Which are completely and utterly irrelevant, as they are not legally binding and were devised by an arbitrarily formed organization. They can no more be used against Zimmerman than could the neighboorhood watch leader sue Zimmerman for not following them.

But the neighborhood watch regulations set the standard that a lawful person would not do.

According to who? The neighborhood watch committee? Those regulations discourage confrontation because they are potentially dangerous, not because they are inherently illegal.

Really? You're the one whose being stupid on this account. Who honestly thinks that that statement was not a avery clear attempt to get Zimmerman to stop? What do you think they were communicating with that statement? Why do you think they were communicating that?

They said that to make things easier for themselves. Cops don't want civilians getting in the way. If there's a crime in progress, police always recommend calling for help. But they don't forbid anyone from trying to put a stop to it because no authority states a person can't.

Zimmerman's actions were very much unreasonable and very much ignored or flat out blew off the very high risk of his actions.

And what if Martin had been a burgular or criminal with a violent history and things turned out the same, would you still demand Zimmerman be charged with murder? What if Martin were in the process of breaking into a house? Would you identify the burgular as the victim and the courageous citizen the aggressor and charge him with murder?

This is exactly the sentiment "Stand Your Ground" laws were meant to combat.

At 5/18/12 03:38 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Read any recent articles?

Yes.

You really cannot see any difference between four cases where the killers did not start the confrontation and one where the killer did start the confrontation?

I don't see a difference because there is no difference. Talk is cheap. I walk up to any black person at any time and call him a big-lipped you-know-what and if he punches me in the face, he's guilty of assault. There's no evidence that Martin was ever in any danger that would merit him attacking Zimmerman. There's no law against starting a verbal altercation.

Also, the standard for 2nd degree murder is not that high. Confronting someone you believe to be a criminal in the middle of the night

Is something a fearless citizen would do.

whilst armed

Is something a fearless AND smart citizen would do.

against neighborhood watch rules

Which are completely and utterly irrelevant, as they are not legally binding and were devised by an arbitrarily formed organization. They can no more be used against Zimmerman than could the neighboorhood watch leader sue Zimmerman for not following them.

and against 911 advice

Come on. You're not as stupid as the thousands of people who have trumpeted this line on the comment sections of every news article on this case. "You don't have to do that," the words the dispatcher used in response to Zimmerman wanting to follow Martin, is not the same as "don't do that," [and to cover myself] unless there's some other alleged advice you're referring to.

is extremely reckless. It is entirely possible that it can cover the killing for the mere fact that Zimmerman started the confrontation that led to him shootin Martin, regardless of whether Zimmerman was in extreme danger at the exact moment of the shooting.

Only if it could be proven that Zimmerman did something illegal (like make a violent threat) that would justify Martin's attack.

At 5/18/12 11:33 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

Old news. A great deal of other evidence has surfaced. I say you look at the articles less than 24 hours old, as the prosecution essentially had outlined much of its case plan an evidence in that period.

Like what, I'm looking at article after article that say pretty much the exact same thing as what I linked.
The only other thing I've read is some lame idea that Zimmerman could have "identified himself as a concerned citizen" which would have instantly defused the situation, the implication being that "What are you doing here" is code for "Get ready to die, you piece of trash."

Zimmerman shot Martin. Martin died. That is more than enough to proceed on 2nd degree murder. Self defense is an affirmative defense, by which Zimmerman must present prove at trial.

Not true.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=20000111&id=z TIfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0c8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=3187,4592337
http://www.register-pajaronian.com/v2_news_articles.php?head ing=0&page=72&story_id=12516
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19830204&id=X pIsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=dfsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7232,1168839
http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20120518/NEWS01/120518 008/Reynoldsburg-woman-fatally-shot-boyfriend-self-defense

Gee, I think I've been saying this all along.

Just remember, the defense is playing the media like crazy.

Ok, then, show me what evidence the prosecution has laid out publicly, as you said above.

First, read this:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/cops-witnesses-back-george-zimmerma ns-version/story?id=16371852#.T7ZgVsWiY41
There's testimony from a witness 30 feet away from the struggle that Martin was attacking Zimmerman moments before the gunshot, and the autopsy showed the bullet was fired from 1 to 18 inches away from Martin's body.

How does the state get second degree murder charges from this? I'm not seeing it.

Are they really going to pin the entire case on cell phone testimony from Martin's girlfriend, the only evidence we know of that could suggest Zimmerman started the fight?

At 5/11/12 04:42 PM, paganmist wrote: * Marriage is secular. Religious folks think they own marriage, but it's always been a business arrangement first and foremost.

What are you talking about? At the very least, the two concepts have been intertwined as far back as Roman times and probably earlier. A purely secular elopement, I'd bet (I'm no expert) is a very recent invention.

* Marriage has changed here in the United States before. Once upon a time, blacks couldn't marry whites, and people argued that's "how it's always been."

No, blacks COULD marry whites, it was just never done. Social attitudes change over time and the concept of what is "acceptable" is entirely subjective. You're mistaking cultural norms for some sort of continuous, progressive march towards some absolute and pure ideal. What you call "acceptable" is still even now scorned by a small segment of the population. They're only wrong in the sense that you and the majority believe them to be wrong. In most cases, that's good enough, but when the majority isn't on your side or it's evenly split, well, who knows?

* Gays are human beings and deserve equal life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - and marriage is one of the happiest experiences members of our society can participate in. Even if you personally hate the idea of marriage, there is no denying that in our society, marriage is viewed as one of those Big Events that defines a person's life in a joyful way.

That happiness derives from the love a couple, homo or hetero, share with each other and not from some official recognition of the relationship, or from legal or economic effects. If the government were to abstain from any involvement or recognition of marriage, would the couples be less happy together?

* Gays are citizens who pay taxes - not only are they entitled to equal and fair treatment by their birthright, they're entitled because they pay money as well. When the government subsidizes married couples by giving them tax breaks/credits, etc., those subsidies are coming out of gay pockets as well as straight. How screwed up is it that gays must pay taxes to benefit straight married couples who gladly take the tax break/tax credit from them, then turn around and try to block them from receiving those benefits?

By your logic, marriage has become an entitlement. After all, single people pay taxes, too. Why discriminate against those who can't find the right man or woman in their lives? Who's going to arrange the marriage that I deserve?

I'm not gay, but I'm engaged to get married to someone I've been dating/living with for six years and am certain I'll be spending the rest of my life with. It's exciting and amazing and scary and if someone decided to deny me the chance to experience this because my boyfriend and I are different races, I'd be devastated.

Listen to what you are saying: if other people didn't call our relationship "marriage," and if we didn't experience certain advantages (and disadvantages!) from our union, we couldn't be happy together.

The controversy has nothing to do with love or happiness, and I'd wager not so much about material consequences, but more so about perceived slights against a group of people that have learned to be hypersensitive.

At 5/11/12 12:19 AM, LordJaric wrote: This article blows the whole "marriage has always been traditionally between man and woman" out of the water.

Yeah, if you consider the practices of some obscure Indian and African tribes to have any bearing on what has been been done in Western civilization for the past 1000+ years.
I have no doubt you could cite the example of certain African and Native American peoples if I were to say that cannibalism has always been an abhorent and despicable practice.
Hell, you could even reference the Spartans to argue that killing babies is okay so long as they are undesirable. Or pedophillia, for that matter.

I've never quite understood why this is so incredibly important to gay people. The legal and economic benefits (and disadvantages) of marriage don't seem so substantial to merit a national controversy.
Looking at this list, marriage looks to be a mixed bag at the legal and economic level. The only real downside of not being married that would apply to most is the inability to be counted on your partner's health insurance.

So I really don't get why there's so much fuss. I don't exactly buy the notion that the people who've developed their own subculture really give a damn if they can't be a part of the same recognized social institution as everyone else.

At 5/3/12 07:25 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: No it was an atrocious crime against us. However, me taking off my shoes and having my e-mail stolen by the government doesn't make me safer, nor do my phones being tapped without warrant. You don't shoot your horse because it stumbled.

Because taking your shoes off is such an outrageous violation of your principles? It takes five seconds. Grow a pair.

Also, don't delude yourself into thinking the government gives a crap about your emails. You aren't that important. And even if you were, how would you be any less free?

I forgot; you think the evidence for WMDs was a giant conspiracy, too.

There was none.

Like I said.

Like what? The DOJ review said it was all pretty much agent error and poor record keeping, nothing malicious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_co ntroversy

I don't see anything there suggesting it's been used to further some oppressive end.

And in return, they sacrifice US assistance in their fight against an enemy that's killed thousands of Pakistani troops and civilians over the past several years. Their leaders want US help, they just don't want to admit it publicly. Killing bin Laden is obviously worth a month or two of non-critical supply hassles, and there's no evidence that it led to any formal Pakistani policy of arming and coordinating attacks against US troops. Their government is a mess; the Taliban sympathizers lurking in it don't need to wait for a political opportunity to do something they'd just deny anyway.

Pakistan created tons of these splinter groups because they were worried about India and having an Amero-Indian friendly state next to them. In fact, their intelligence agency has very close ties to the taliban & al qaeda.

That's true. But you're making the intelligience agency out to be just another extension of the central government when in fact, it's more like a independent entitity, with people who could support the Taliban or hide bin Laden without the political leadership's knowledge.

Which is why we've really buckled down against the taliban rather than entering negotiations with them and we're paying so much attention to Pakistan... right.

No one expects the negotiations to yield real peace. At best, some elements of the Taliban will peel off and give lukewarm support to the Afghan government.
The whole idea of the surge was to protect major population centers and give time to the Afghan security forces to improve. It wasn't to go after Al-Qaida or kill bin Laden.

At 5/2/12 06:35 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: No, it really hasn't. A serious threat to national security is a large invading force. Terrorists have always been around, have always caused problems, and have never been cause to revoke freedoms on a national level from ordinary citizens.

So 3000 dead is what, just part of the cost of freedom? I don't think so. There's plenty of middle ground, and even with the Patriot Act you are just as free now as you were before its passage.

Only if you think WMD proliferation has no impact on US security.

Right, because we found tons of WMDs in Iraq.

I forgot; you think the evidence for WMDs was a giant conspiracy, too.

And yet, there was tons of warrant-less wire tapping and abuses were found in investigations largely related to political activity of the non-terrorist sort.

Like what? The DOJ review said it was all pretty much agent error and poor record keeping, nothing malicious.

Then you don't understand foreign policy very much. When we botch something up in Pakistan, the Pakistani's stop our convoys and help set up raids on our service men.

And in return, they sacrifice US assistance in their fight against an enemy that's killed thousands of Pakistani troops and civilians over the past several years. Their leaders want US help, they just don't want to admit it publicly. Killing bin Laden is obviously worth a month or two of non-critical supply hassles, and there's no evidence that it led to any formal Pakistani policy of arming and coordinating attacks against US troops. Their government is a mess; the Taliban sympathizers lurking in it don't need to wait for a political opportunity to do something they'd just deny anyway.

Attacking a compound that way was way over the lines of anything we'd previously done (drone attacks)

Wrong.
http://www.thenation.com/article/secret-us-war-pakistan
http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-special-forces-in-pakistan-ra ids-20091222-lbsc.html

We were there to root out Al Qaeda. That was the motivator. He was in charge of the group. Taking out or capturing the leader of that group was of the highest priority if we wanted to actually destroy Al Qaeda.

Yeah, and by 2007, when Romney said that, the mission had obviously changed to helping Afghanistan fend for itself against the Taliban and so prevent it from becoming another haven for terrorists.

At 5/2/12 04:45 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: No, its not the truth value of something that makes the politics of fear wrong. In fact it was usually that the politics of fear weren't to scale of the problem.

Nor were we under direct threat of attack from some huge army.

9/11 wasn't caused by some huge army. The nature of a serious threat has changed since WWII.

Invading Iraq did nothing to improve US security.

Only if you think WMD proliferation has no impact on US security.

It is also contestable that the patriot act improves our security without simultaneously destroying our individual security.

After 9/11, I'd put the threat of a terrorist attack miles above the threat of some secret government conspiracy to blackmail me over what I whack off to or "disappear" me to Guantanamo.

Gates was against the move initially and they only had a 50/50 confidence on the issue. When you look at the consequences of failed moves like this into someone else's territory (The bay of pigs for instance lead up to our stand off with russia and the verge of nuclear war) it actually is a very gutsy move.

This wasn't the Bay of Pigs. Special forces teams had been operating in and out of Pakistan for years, often with Pakistan's tacit consent. Even killing Pakistani security forces by accident hasn't fundamentally changed our relationship, I doubt a raid that turned up empty handed would have somehow been more damaging.

Romney did say he didn't want to go after bin Laden.

No, he didn't. He said, "itâEUTMs not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person," and he's right. We aren't in Afghanistan solely to get bin Laden. It's a nice symbolic accomplishment, but it doesn't change our real objectives.

At 5/1/12 09:55 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Remember way back in 2004? When we had this sort of thing going on: Politics of Fear.

It's only "politics of fear" when it's inaccurate. The typical democrat position on foreign policy and counterterrorism in 2004 was to run away from Iraq, regardless of the consequences, repeal domestic security initiatives, even if they worked, and start treating terrorist detainees like normal soldiers. Regardless of whether you think these policies may have had other benefits, none of them furthered US security.

Where is the line drawn? Why is it ok, even expected, for republicans to be the foreign policy party and that no matter what they do its ok, but if a democrat does it its meant to divide the country?

When has it ever been ok? Don't you remember back in 2003 and 2004 how media people asked Bush or his spokesman if casualty reports weakened their resolve? Or how three or four reporters asked Bush if he had made any mistakes (ie "was going to Iraq a mistake") during that one press conference?
I myself haven't noticed any real difference in the war coverage, but I don't think it's bias for some reporters to question the wisdom of politicizing bin Laden. I don't think it's so easy to draw the line between what Bush did that helped get bin Laden and what Obama did. And I doubt voters will think it was a "gutsy call" to launch the raid (why have special forces at all if not for missions like that?).
Coupled with those stupid web ads suggesting that Romney wouldn't have gone after bin Laden, I don't think you have to be anti-Obama to point out the risks of seeming to take undue credit for his death.

At 4/28/12 12:26 PM, Feoric wrote: Can you tell me how this isn't just another addition to the list of acceptable purposes for which shared information can be used? I counted three (3) more valid uses: investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crime, protection of individuals, and protection of children. Originally, in the main bill, cispa allowed the government to use information for "cybersecurity" or "national security" purposes. Those purposes have not been limited or removed by this amendment (which, ironically, the whole purpose of the amendment was to LIMIT what the government could do). So now the tally is up to 5 acceptable purposes, all of which are vague.

Actually I'd be surprised if it offered specific reasons. The information the bill tries to safeguard can be used in any number of damaging ways: espionage, sabotage, blackmail, intellectual property theft, identify theft, etc. There's no reason for the bill to spell out every conceivable crime.
And even if you don't want to believe that, remember that national security legislation is not a black and white rule for action. Nowhere does it say that so-and-so has sole, unchecked authority to decide what constitutes a threat to cybersecurity or children. My guess is that the ISPs and government agencies involved already agree on what the potential threats could be and that this bill formally allows them to cooperate. So, while it's not impossible that this bill could allow the hundreds of people involved in any protective action to fulfill some shared malicious goal, the chances of that are far less likely (and the consequences arguably less damaging) than any of the crimes CISPA tries to prevent.

At what cost to citizens? I'm sorry but I don't have this "The Corporations: Our friends" mentality. With stuff like Room 641A (something retroactively made legal, AT&T & Verizon handing billions of records to the NSA, Verizon handing over records to the FBI without court orders, I can't see how these companies aren't deeply embedded into Washington. I'm not expecting these companies to be ethical with my privacy if the government wants them.

I don't think he meant "economic security" to mean personal information to be used for product development and advertising, but protecting against the financial costs of a cyberattack.

At 4/27/12 04:41 PM, johnathan-wrathborne wrote:

My favorite part is "the Government should offer incentives and, in some cases, require minimum security and resiliency standards for utilities that service critical infrastructure sectors."

So you're okay with a cybersecurity vulnerability that could conceivably allow a hacker or foreign government to wipe out power or communications across a large area of the country?

Utilities that service critical infrastructure sectors...like say, your ISP. This does not "enhance user confidence" in me knowing that what they're talking about leads towards ISP's having to meet federal standards. Especially when there are people out there trying to create independent ISP's that dont allow user data to be tracked by the government.

I don't see how mandating a certain level of internet security is the same as collecting user information from ISPs.

At 4/3/12 10:33 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Shooting a guy to death isn't illegal now? Wow...Florida has some crazy laws.

Don't be dense.

It's also why the whole "neighboorhood watch protocol" thing is irrelevant.

Oh, but it is if people are going to keep trying to push this ridiculous notion that Zimmerman was well within his rights to follow Martin with deadly weapons and confront him

No, it still isn't! Zimmerman can legally carry a concealed weapon. Zimmerman can legally drive a car. Zimmerman can legally get out of a car and talk to someone. You need to distinguish between what you personally don't like and what the law actually says.

As for the witnesses against him, I have to stipulate to the judgment of law enforcement.

So...if the cops don't investigate something, they're automatically right because they're cops? Because cops never fuck up, or do anything wrong at all? You realize how easy that is to disprove right?

So because "cops" have screwed up in the past, it's rational to presume that cops always screw up in the present? And you're talking about what can be disproven?
It'd be one thing if we could all experience it as the police did, seeing everything they saw and talking to everyone they did. Then, you might have some reason to dismiss their findings. But you don't; all we have are bits and pieces of an event. When witnesses give two different accounts and the police accept one of them, it tells me that one account was more credible. How could I believe otherwise without assuming that they are stupid, corrupt, racist, etc? Can't we agree that those are all unlikely scenarios?

They should have investigated the crime scene more, interviewed more witnesses, followed up.

Of course; they should have "done more." Not that you know with any certainty what they actually did or didn't do, but you're damn sure it was inadequate because the outcome displeases you. That's your argument in a nutshell, and it's the same argument that people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton use to rouse the mob for their own political gain. Do you really want to be like them?

At 4/2/12 07:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Because there's a question, let's believe the shooter, right?

The police seemed to.

So? Having strong motives to fabricate or alter increases the likelihood of such and thus Zimmerman's account must be taken with a grain of salt. His word is not gospel, as you treat it.

Agreed, and if the police had not talked to witnesses and got corroborating testimony, you would have something to complain about.

Well, Martin might have possibly been agressive with him, so the shooting must have been legal.

No one knows either way. What they do know is that witness testimony put Martin on top of Zimmerman beating the crap out of his head.

Seriously, do you think the police are all just idiots, or simply racists? It has to be one or the other if you're going to second guess their conclusions without having the same information.

At 4/1/12 11:53 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Following someone is not an act of aggression.

No, but one does have to ask what he's doing following someone when he is not a police officer, has two deadly weapons (his car, and a loaded gun), and was told there was no need (and thus no reason) for him to be following Martin.

He's making a stupid choice that has a very good chance of ending badly, and it did. But that's not illegal. It's also why the whole "neighboorhood watch protocol" thing is irrelevant.

Asking what someone is doing is not an act of aggression.

No, but following someone with two deadly weapons leading up to it...well, that looks more then a bit suspicious doesn't it? I think it does. Certainly it bears way more investigation then the Sanford PD was willing to do.

I don't think it's suspicious. Driving a car and carrying a gun does not mean that person is going out looking for trouble.

It doesn't indeed. However that IS what the testimony and witnesses against him are for...or did you mistakenly think that people are just assuming because of the following and the questioning that those are the only reasons people believe Zimmerman started the situation...

That's what's been proposed so far by the people here.
As for the witnesses against him, I have to stipulate to the judgment of law enforcement. For whatever reason, either the district attorney, the police, or both, did not think the testimony portraying Martin as the victim was solid enough to make an arrest. Was that their decision to make? I think it can be, if it's apparent that those witnesses were in no position to really see anything or offer contradictory details. I think the position of the body and the location of the bullet would say more about which person was on top of the other at the time of the shooting.

So those pesky witnesses and Treyvon's girlfriend who gave a sworn statement and will speak at trial are liars?

Not necessarily. I don't see how Treyvon's girlfriend's testimony would be useful, considering that she wasn't even there but had to interpret voices on a cell phone, plus nothing she could say would be verifiable.

There is actually from what I can see. Quite a bit. But hey, they at least could have brought him in for questioning, you don't need an arrest warrant for that.

They did; that's what the police video is from.

It did justify more questioning and investigation the the PD did in this case. Isn't that a fair statement?

Define "more." Do we even know exactly what steps the police took, what possibilities they considered? What should the police have done that they did not yet had reason to do?

...I think there's in general something also to be said for the fact that Zimmerman could have easily not gotten into this situation by simply ceasing his pursuit once he'd reported in to 911.

It can be said that it was a stupid move, but not an illegal one.

Huh? See, Racist's "points" about head smashing seem to stem from the idea that Zimmerman's story is 100% the truth. It assumes that Zimmerman is somehow incapable of lying and tells the truth always. You're on the one hand criticizing people from rushing to judgement before all the facts are in, and with a lack of evidence and then making a judgement, with a lack of evidence.

Not at all. I'm agreeing with the police's and Sentinel's (they interviewed the key witness that identified Martin beating Zimmerman into the ground) original reports of the situation. This incident wasn't handled by one yokel officer, nor was the choice not to arrest decided by one. It was a whole team of officers and investigators that handled this. I don't think that incompetence, corruption, or racism are plausible reasons to doubt the final decision. I'll believe that they were doing their job properly until I have reason to believe otherwise, and I haven't seen any yet.

At 4/1/12 11:19 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

No, but based on Zimmerman's aggressive following of Martin, I don't believe that Zimemrman is as helpless the victim as he would like us to believe. The lead up is important, and creates significant doubt to his story.

No, it doesn't. Following someone is not an act of aggression. Asking what someone is doing is not an act of aggression. Just because Zimmerman decided to do these things does not mean or even suggest that he started the fight, especially when there's no evidence showing he did. You can't arrest someone based on speculation of what he might have done. There has to be some corroborating testimony or evidence.

No, the lack of those facts means that we cannot default to Zimmerman being guilty because of it.

That is not what's being argued here.

The lack of evidence doesn't justify an arrest, either.

Who said any scenario? This is a specific scenario that involves no help being around, with your only option being to shoot, or pose a very serious risk of getting killed or paralyzed.

Oh, if (see you're iffing a lot too) those were the only facts...

You have facts to the contrary? That Zimmerman started the fight or that Zimmerman could have freed himself at any time but chose not to? Show us, then.
Saying that "they might exist" or "they would only magically appear once a trial started" is not an answer.

The reasonable belief must either be based on current serious injury (which there was hardly visible injury) or future injury. Nothing about his circumstances indicated that he was in imminent danger of serious injury or worse. Being beaten up ina fight you helped pick does not rise to those grounds.

There you go again. You didn't address any of Racist's points about headsmashing being potentially lethal or how it may not always leave giant bruises visible to some security camera. Now you're calling it a fight when it was a totally one-sided beating.

At 3/31/12 12:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Submission is not serious bodily injury...Like, knife, gun, baseball bat, or ganging up assault. 1 on 1 smashing of the head at the end of an altercation is not that high.

This was neither submission or a single head smash. This was repeated, over and over again, after he had already been taken out by a single punch. How many times should Zimmerman have allowed his head to be slammed before using force?

I don't see smashing the heasd of another during a fight as clear intent of that. It is intent to harm, but intent to cause serious harm? It's not definitive enough.

What difference does the intent make? How was Zimmerman supposed to know what Martin's intent was? Was Martin monologuing or something?

If head smashing was the threat, it has to be more than light. If it was light head smashibng,

Wow. Define "light head smashing." Gentle, slow tapping?
Your entire argument depends on this. You recognize that head smashing can cause serious or fatal injury, you acknowledge that Martin smashed Zimmerman's head, yet you insist that this sort of attack didn't merit Zimmerman's response based on the fact that his injuries are "light."

What me and Racist keep trying to tell you, which I don't think you've addressed directly, is that Zimmerman didn't have to wait and see if Martin decided to keep banging his skull to the point that half his brains started to fall out before shooting him.
You seem to think that if it were a threatening attack, Zimmerman would have had a serious brain injury after being slammed once or that it's impossible for repeated blows to do any real damage.

Zimmerman following Martin for a while at night after he was asked not to

You call me dense, yet you say things like this. "You don't have to do that" is not, I repeat, not the same as "Don't do that."

At 3/31/12 11:08 AM, RacistBassist wrote:

Zimmerman needs to go to trial. He doesn't need to be held in custody during the trial, but the victim, and the rest of the community deserve to have the facts brought up in front of a jury.

Good thing no one disputes that. I do agree that the victim should have all the facts come forward, and not have the media persecute him and make him might as well be guilty, with the whole 4 year old pictures, conveniently leaving out parts of the story like the part where Trayvon was smashing his head against the ground.

What? I dispute that, and so should you. The burden of proof on the state increases with each step in the legal process; first there's an arrest, then a preliminary hearing, then an indictment, and finally a trial. If there wasn't enough reason to arrest Zimmerman, how is he supposed to be put on trial?

At 3/31/12 12:11 AM, djack wrote:

All Zimmerman had to do was wipe some blood on the back of his head...blah blah crazy nonsense...

What the fuck, man? He has a shaved head and there's a giant freaking V-shaped scar on the back of it. You only see it at one point because it's dark colored and the light only shines directly on it for a moment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPMF9gfQm9g&feature=related
Ignore the moronic commentary, skip to 1:40; the cop looks right at it for a good 3-4 seconds. Keep watching and you'll see it show up.

I'd also like you to provide a source for who in the police department is still claiming that Zimmerman was injured.

...Do you honestly think that an entire police force would just stand by in the midst of a media firestorm and leak nothing while Zimmerman's lawyer repeatedly said he suffered a broken nose and cut head? Sources inside the department have already given confidental information to the Orlando Sentinel, including an exclusive interview with an eyewitness.

Aside from the report made by the first officer to arrive there are no medical or official records that show Zimmerman had a broken nose or even a minor head wound.

I doubt there's any official record besides the police report; there wasn't ever any need to make one because he wasn't arrested.
You won't see any medical records because they are private; hospitals don't give them away just because the media wants to see them. They'll probably be made available, if they exist, to whatever investigations are going on now.

You do realize that you don't have to think that he's guilty to believe that he should be put on trial, right?

God, I shouldn't be surprised that you don't understand how the legal system works, but I am. Here it goes.
The vast majority of people who go to criminal trials are already pretty much guilty in reality. Not only did police and prosecutors decide on an arrest, but the facts of the case alone convinced a grand jury that the suspect probably committed the crime. The actual trial is an opportunity for the suspect to give some sort of defense that explains away all the factors that led to his arrest and indictment. Not surprisingly, most criminal cases don't go to trial because the defendants and their lawyers know they don't have much of a chance.

Basically, a trial comes last, and its absurd to suggest Zimmerman should go to court when the police and district attorney didn't even have enough reason to make a simple arrest, much less an indictment.

At 3/30/12 11:11 PM, djack wrote: Against a hard surface with a real injury, yes. Against wet grass with no actual evidence of an injury (that shadow from one frame does not count as evidence of an injury), no. Guess which one is actually relevant to this case.

So, according to you, not only does the police officer in the video stare at the back of Zimmerman's head (where the magical moving "shadow" just happens to be) for no apparent reason, but whoever wrote the police report was lying about Zimmerman's injuries and somehow managed to coerce the entire department to go along with it, even now, a month later, when it's national news and even while police officials have already been forced to resign.

Is it even possible to argue against the least-probable explanation? How do you even begin to dispute the patently absurd?

I don't see how you can dispute that the attack, as he has described it and as the police report and video indicated, was potentially life threatening and so didn't merit a deadly response.

Don't you think that repeatedly bashing someone's head against the ground can cause serious injury or death? If you admit that it can, isn't it reasonable to believe that your life is in danger if someone starts doing it to you? And if so, do you not recognize that Florida law identifies a credible fear of serious injury or death as a legitmate reason for using deadly force?

Forget the racism and provocation for now, just answer that.

At 3/30/12 04:20 PM, djack wrote: It doesn't matter. He was still advised not to approach which makes the motive of his actions questionable and makes it possible that he instigated an avoidable conflict.

Get this through your head: "You don't have to" is not advice.
You have no evidence that Zimmerman picked a fight. Following is not provocation. Questioning is not provocation.

First, you don't know what Zimmerman did after exiting his truck. For all you know he could have gotten out and started shouting obscenities and threats. Second, I never implied that violence was the only outcome of his actions but had Zimmerman not followed then he never would have been in a position to shoot Martin. That is a fact. The best action Zimmerman could have taken was to not follow Martin

True, but in terms of law that doesn't matter. Going up to some hulking black thug and calling him a racial slur is not a wise decision. But it is not illegal. And if that black man attacks you merely for saying something, he is 100% at fault.

No it's not. The point of neighborhood watch protocol is to keep people out of harms way. The only reason Zimmerman could have for going after Martin is if he had a valid reason to suspect that Martin was on that street for the purpose of committing a violent crime. There was nothing to indicate that Martin was a criminal and Zimmerman's only reason for suspecting him was that he was a black kid in a hoodie.

So what? The community may decide not to recognize him as part of the watch anymore, which means jack shit. He doesn't answer to the neighboorhood watch board or whatever nonbinding, unauthoritative, and unrecognized group that the people living there decided to create.

Racism opens up the possibility that this is a hate crime and puts this case in a position where it should be put before a jury to determine whether it was a hate crime or real self defense.

It opens up the possiblity, sure, but there's nothing to support that it actually happened, and so no justification to make an arrest. The law doesn't care if he's a racist. For all we know, Martin took offense that some whitey would single him out and decided to make him pay for it. It's just as plausible because it's entirely speculative.

If that verbal confrontation caused the physical conflict then Zimmerman is responsible for the conflict no regardless of whether Martin threw the first punch or not.

Well, sorry, the law doesn't recognize verbal confrontation as a legitimate reason for a violent response. The only exception is spoken threats, and there isn't any evidence that Zimmerman made any, and therefore no reason to conclude or even suspect that Zimmerman picked the fight.

At 3/30/12 03:41 PM, Camarohusky wrote: In terms of self defense it is very relevant. He picked the fight, got a fight, and ended it with a gun.

You don't know that.

How about I break your nose and slam your head into the sidewalk? Then you can tell me that they are minor.

Well, if you broke my nose and slammed me into the sidewalk, but I wasn't injured enough to have a bruise or an ounce of blood visible on me...

Christ, are you an imbecile? First of all, you're referring to a grainy surveillance video which doesn't have the resolution to pick out a bruise on someone's skin. Second, that same video showed a giant streak in the back of Zimmerman's head, which is not just some graphic anomaly because it showed an officer going behind him and staring at the back of his head for several seconds. Third, do you honestly think that the police wouldn't at least let him wipe himself up before going to the police station? Fourth, the police on the scene reported that he had a broken nose and was bleeding from the back of his head (but you can't trust whitey, right? The popo always be lyin').

Attacker? Zimmerman picked the fight. All accounts have Zimmerman following an innocent boy and cornering him.

Cornering him against what? Yards? Show me any of those accounts.

Oh, and the person who doesn't know the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause would best not claim that the man who has prosecuted people for crimes before doesn't know the law.

If you think some crappy video is solid evidence, if you think that fists aren't enough to kill someone, if you ignore the findings of law enforcement on the scene in favor of your own third-hand speculation, then you are a shitty attorney and the only person sleeping on the job was whoever hired you to represent the government.

At 3/29/12 10:34 PM, djack wrote: His actions do provide probable cause. He followed Martin against the advice of the 911 dispatcher

We've been over this. The dispatcher did not say "don't follow him," but, "you don't have to do that." Even if the dispatcher gave direct advice, Zimmerman would not be legally obligated to follow it.
Plus, you're implying that violence was the only conceivable outcome of Zimmerman approaching Martin and asking him what he was doing. I can think of a dozen non-violent ends to that situation.

and against neighborhood watch protocol.

Which is totally meaningless in the context of actual law.

He has a history of racist behavior and quite possibly referred to Martin as a coon while speaking with the dispatcher.

Irrelevant (and debatable; I've read at least one article that referenced a speech expert who believed Zimmerman said "punk"). Racism doesn't automatically lead to violent behavior and it doesn't make sense as a motive for a shooting. A person driven by hatred and an intent to kill someone wouldn't call the police first and then allow himself to get beaten up in the hope that it would look like self-defense afterwards.

At some point he left his truck for unknown reasons that directly led to an easily avoidable shooting.

No they didn't. A verbal confrontation is not illegal, nor does it always or even often lead to violence. The law doesn't care if Zimmerman left his truck to yell at Martin. Martin's physical attack predicated the shooting.

At 3/30/12 03:19 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/29/12 10:06 PM, adrshepard wrote: This is the law in Florida. Maybe what you're saying about all shootings mandate an arrest applies elsewhere, but not in this case.
So can we move past "this has to be put before a jury" and other claims?

Let's take a peek at FLA 776.012, which your link references to.
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony"
That resonably believes part? Yeah, that has to be proven by a jury. This makes the law completely circular and thus meaningless.

No, it doesn't. The justice system begins with the discretion of the police and prosecutors, who have to decide if there's reason enough to believe a person has committed a crime and proceed accordingly. The officers and investigators determined that Zimmerman could reasonably believe his life was in danger, and the critical portion of his account, the actual attack, was confirmed by at least one witness that we know of.

The fact that Zimmerman followed Martin; that Zimmerman initiated the contact;

I dont' see how either is relevant.

the extremely minor injuries to Zimmerman;

How about I break your nose and slam your head into the sidewalk? Then you can tell me that they are minor.
What do you expect someone to do in that situation? Sit back and hope the attacker doesn't strike hard enough to crack his skull? What if you had a gun and I decided to systematically break each of your fingers? If you couldn't escape, would you do nothing? A broken fingers isn't life-threatening, right?

the eye-witness claims.

Whose claims? The only person as far as I know who's said that Zimmerman struck first is Martin's girlfriend, which she didn't actually see but inferred through a freaking cell phone.

Even in light of some evidence to the contrary, this presents more than probable cause to proceed on a charge of some form of criminal homicide. Heck, the fatcs in the light most favorable to Zimmerman still rise to probable cause.

You clearly have no idea what probable cause is. Probable cause requires some indication of illegal activity. They didn't find it then and still haven't now. Unless you want to adopt some ridiculous conspiracy theory about the police secretly manipulating evidence , that's it. Case closed.

At 3/29/12 07:50 PM, MrFlopz wrote: Zimmerman confessed to shooting Martin. Innocent until proven guilty no longer applies. He did it. Now let's see if the defense can prove that he was in danger and defended himself accordingly.

At 3/29/12 08:35 PM, Camarohusky wrote: First off, the burden for arrest is probable cause.
Second, Zimmerman admitted he shot Martin. If that isn't probable cause for some level of criminal homicide, I don't know what is.

I can only guess neither of you checked my link. This is right from there:
According to Florida Statute 776.032 :

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the
use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the
person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the
force that was used was unlawful.

This is the law in Florida. Maybe what you're saying about all shootings mandate an arrest applies elsewhere, but not in this case.
So can we move past "this has to be put before a jury" and other claims?

At 3/29/12 03:50 PM, djack wrote:

Hard to say exactly without all the records being out but for one thing they never questioned Martin's girlfriend despite her being on the phone with Martin until shortly before he got shot which means that she could help clear up the question as to who instigated the initial conflict that led to Martin being shot.

Perhaps, but she probably couldn't be counted on as an objective witness, plus so much would depend on what she thought she heard on a cell phone. Zimmerman's call to the police has been recorded and no one can even tell with certainty if he said "coons" or "punks."

There's also the question of what evidence (if there is any) did they document that supports Zimmerman's claim of self defense. The video of Zimmerman at the police station fails to show any signs of him being in a struggle which completely contradicts both Zimmerman's claim of self defense and the eye witnesses statement that Martin was on top of Zimmerman attacking him.

Not true. http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/police-surveillance-video-
of-zimmerman-may-show-head-injury/
I don't know what people expected to see, as if the police would question him while blood flowed freely from his injuries.

...Zimmerman was allowed to clean up after the fight removing evidence that as far as the rest of us know was never actually documented.

The police report said he was injured and he was taken to a hospital or medical center later before being questioned. That's evidence enough.

Even assuming that he really was defending himself and this isn't a hate crime (a rather large assumption given Zimmerman's history of racist behavior) that's still something that should be determined in a court of law by a jury...

That's not how it works. There has to be a certain level of proof before an arrest can be made. According to the police chief, there had to be reasonable suspicion to arrest Zimmerman in the first place, and there wasn't.

Also, I don't see how it could possibly be seen as a hate crime, given that profiling, following, and questioning aren't crimes, no matter what their motivation, and because Zimmerman has the physical injuries and corroborating testimony that supports a self-defense claim.

...cop who simply assumes that Zimmerman was telling the truth.

Why do you assume that's what happened? Don't you think they looked around the scene, cased the neighboorhood, and interviewed witnesses?

Zimmerman was told not to follow Martin, but he ignored the dispatcher's advice and chased Martin down with his truck. Zimmerman approached Martin while armed with a gun, either Zimmerman believed Martin was dangerous and shouldn't have followed or he didn't consider Martin a threat in which case the gun was unnecessary.

Nothing you've described is illegal. Zimmerman is not legally obligated to follow the advice of a dispatcher (and it wasn't phrased as a directive, but as an neutral suggestion--"You don't have to do that"), nor it is illegal to follow someone who you think is suspicious or potentially dangerous.

Maybe some anti-Zimmerman zealot can clear this up for me:

What exactly did the police not do in their investigation that they should have done, according to Florida law?
Why was Zimmerman at the police station if not because he was questioned as part of an investigation?

I just have a bit of trouble understanding the basis for people's insistence that there was no investigation or that it was improperly executed. The only specific detail I've heard is that the police didn't test Zimmerman for drugs and alcohol, which to me, is pretty much irrelevant (I think the police would know if he was high or drunk at the time).