OT- Zimmerman v. Martin

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote]Unlike you, I was there.[/quote]

Yeah, you were “there.” So were you in South Central, or were you in the westside, sitting on the couch and watching it on TV like everyone else in America?

[quote=CA Renter]the blacks threatened to riot[/quote]

“the blacks”

Ok.

[quote]It’s sickening to note that you think the officers were acquitted because “white people are racist” and incapable of determining whether or not a crime has occurred.[/quote]

Given that I’m white myself, your claim is beyond idiotic.

Perhaps you forgot: White people did determine that a crime occurred. The thug cops were convicted by a jury with white people on it.

[quote]There was NO WAY IN HELL those officers were going to get a fair trial the second time around.[/quote]

How was the trial not fair?

Did the cops not get a defense?

Only two blacks on the jury. Several jurors, even white ones, wanted a longer sentence.

Indicted, tried, and convicted by a jury of peers. The very definition of criminal.

But you seem to have a different definition of “criminal” – not based upon the law and the outcome of due process, but simply based upon the profession and/or skin color of the convicted.

So maybe you’re the one that should move – perhaps Mississippi or Alabama? They still have active KKK chapters there. You’d fit right in.[/quote]

ALL of LA was affected, not just South Central. People were going around shooting and vandalizing places all across LA, it was just far more severe in downtown LA. Multiple shots were fired in front of our place at the time, and there was a gang-related murder that occurred just a couple of doors away from us. At the time, I was not living in an “upper-middle class” neighborhood.

Yes, the blacks threatened to riot. They weren’t white, Asian, Hispanic, etc. In case you missed it, there was a clear racial divide here. It doesn’t mean that all blacks rioted, but almost all of the rioters were indeed black.

You, yourself, claimed that the first jury didn’t convict them because they were white. Those are YOUR words, not mine.

But let’s go back to your post here:

[quote=CA renter][quote=pri_dk][quote=zk]A hypothetical is exactly what that is. What you describe is not what happened in this case.

Passing judgement from a civil, air-conditioned office is exactly what you’re doing.[/quote]

The cops were convicted. Looks like I’m not the only one that “passed judgement.”

Oh…the convictions were wrong?

So the legal system is legitimate when it’s beating the crap out of someone on the street, but not when due process is applied in an air-conditioned courtroom?

But let’s get back to the “hypothetical.” Cuz you avoided an answer to my question:

What would you do?

56 baton blows and six kicks

From people trained in the use of force.

Fifty six baton blows.

So when was King supposed to think that the blows were going to stop?

After the first ten?

After the next twenty?

Not exactly “love taps.” Those cops were winding up for each swing!

Ten more blows…we are barely half way there…

“Oh yeah, sure the pain is excruciating, but I’m sure they’ll stop beating me. Probably sometime before I’m dead…”

Since you know the situation so well, the answer should be easy:

What would you have done?[/quote]

The first jury did NOT convict them. The second jury did — and that trial came about as a result of the riots. Blacks all across LA were threatening to riot again if the jury didn’t convict. You think that was a fair trial?

“Four LAPD officers were later tried in a state court for the beating; three were acquitted and the jury failed to reach a verdict for the fourth. The announcement of the acquittals sparked the 1992 Los Angeles riots. A later federal trial for civil rights violations ended with two of the officers found guilty and sent to prison and the other two officers acquitted.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King%5B/quote%5D
……………….

If the legal system works, based on what you said, then why do you think the first trial wasn’t as valid as the second — the first trial NOT being affected by the emotional rhetoric and rioting that had occurred before the second trial? The jury in the first trial WAS a jury of the officers’ peers and they saw the evidence and didn’t convict. Does the legal system only work when it suits you?

Based on your post here, it looks like you didn’t even know that there was a first trial — and that the jury did NOT convict the officers.

BTW, the second trial was one of the few trials where people were fighting to get on the jury, all because they wanted blood. Under no circumstances was that a fair trial. There was NO chance that those cops were going to be acquitted because thousands of people were preparing to riot if that were to happen, and everybody knew it.

You are a total idiot, Pri. You no nothing about European socialism (you’ve already lost that battle in another thread), and you know nothing about race relations in LA. You also know nothing about this case but, as usual, your lack of knowledge doesn’t stop you from spewing your totally uninformed nonsense.

Once again, you resort to name-calling and personal attacks whenever you find yourself unable to debate intelligently — which happens more often than not.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]If the legal system works, based on what you said, then why do you think the first trial wasn’t as valid as the second — the first trial NOT being affected by the emotional rhetoric and rioting that had occurred before the second trial? The jury in the first trial WAS a jury of the officers’ peers and they saw the evidence and didn’t convict. Does the legal system only work when it suits you?[/quote]

Let me spell it out, real slow:

I never said the first trial was invalid or less valid.

Both trials were valid.

The cops were acquitted of most the charges in the first trial, and the jury hung on one charge. I don’t dispute the validity of the outcome.

But there was another trial, to address separate charges, and they were convicted in the second trial.

Both trials were valid. Get it?

Why were there two trials? Because some charges were for crimes at the state level (assault, etc.), and some charges were for crimes at the federal level (civil rights.) Do you remember civics class from the 8th grade or so?

It is common that defendants can be accused of state crimes and federal crimes for the same act. And they are often tried in two separate trials.

Remember Timothy McVeigh? Convicted of federal offenses (murder of federal agents and explosives) in one trial and then set to be tried in an Oklahoma court for state (murder) offenses (he choose to be executed before the state trail ever proceeded.) All for the same act.

Now, you seem to be claiming that one trial somehow negates the other. It don’t work that way. Someone acquitted of armed robbery in one trial and convicted of rape in another is still a criminal.

These cops are criminals.

It’s you that wants to pretend that one of the trials never happened.

Maybe you don’t think federal civil rights laws should be enforced. Based on your posting history about this issue and illegal immigration, I can tell that civil rights aren’t really that important to you. Fortunately, the civilized majority in this country disagrees.

Also, I never said the first jury was all white (it wasn’t.) I cited a source that said it was not “racially mixed” – specifically that it didn’t have blacks. Someone with superior logic skills – like you routinely claim to have – should be able to grasp this nuance.

Your argument that the whole thing was to appease “the blacks” just doesn’t hold water. Crimes were committed, and the justice system did what it was supposed to do.

Still waiting for the name of one socialist country in Europe…

[Anonymous]

dup

[CA renter]

You missed the entire point about WHY the second trial was held. If not for the riots and flaming hate speech coming from various political panderers, there would never have been a second trial. It was a witch hunt, and there was no chance of those cops getting a fair trial.

Already addressed the issue of European socialism in the other thread. Perhaps you missed it, but I’m not threadjacking here.

BTW, my opinions about illegal immigration have nothing at all to do with civil rights. We cannot afford to have generous social programs while allowing unchecked numbers of immigrants from other countries to enter the system and become entitled, from day one, to many of the benefits of these social programs. That is a fact, whether you like it or not.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]You missed the entire point about WHY the second trial was held.[/quote]

The trial was held because the federal prosecutor believed a crime was committed. The same reason any trial is held.

Your long-winded cut/paste of an opinion as to what may have motivated the trial has no value.

Even if the motivation for the trial was misguided, the conviction demonstrates that the defendants were, in fact, guilty.

I already posted a link from an LA times article where the entire jury stood by their decision years after the fact, when there was no risk of riots.

Other than what you simply want to believe, and the gossip you have heard because you “were there,” there is no hint of legitimate evidence supporting the idea that the trial was “unfair.”

Funny you use the term “witch hunt” – a phrase referring to punishing people for being something that doesn’t exist. You actually believe that cops who commit crimes do not exist. You are really that delusional?

You live in a bizarre world, where people convicted of federal crimes are not criminals; where Europe – home to some of the biggest private corporations on earth – is socialist; and where Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers never actually existed, because everything of value was invented by government employees.

And I did miss where you proved me wrong by listing those European socialist countries, but now that the thread has already been jacked, you really can’t use that pathetic excuse.

So we can keep it short: name just one country…start another thread if you want to…just one country and you can really prove me wrong!

[CA renter]

You’ve already lost your ass on this argument here:

http://piggington.com/2012_edition_what039s_your_raise_this_year?page=2

I refuse to hijack another thread.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]I refuse to hijack another thread.[/quote]

It’s so very noble, not hijacking the thread.

I really just want to learn…after all I “know nothing about Europe.” (your words.)

But not only is she so wise and informed, she stands on a pedestal of the highest standard of internet decorum!

Although she could so easily prove me wrong – just by naming one country – just by typing a dozen letters or so (maybe less!) – she will not let her high standards for internet decency be compromised.

She will not allow this thread to be hijacked!

Oh, what brave and selfless sacrifice!

Who needs credibility…when you have honor?!?!

(Too bad she’s so stubborn that she continues to insist Europe is socialist and yet can’t name a single country…)

[briansd1]

All my European friends say that American cops act like thugs. Very different over there.

Immigration has everything to do with civil rights. CA renter must be part of the government employee wing of the Tea Party.

[Coronita]

Well, since we’re all over the map on this thread…

let’s talk about another interesting topic….

Marion Barry…

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/05/marion-barrys-remarks-on-asians-dirty-shops-ignite-criticism-after-primary-win/?hpt=hp_t3

You think Al Shapiro and Jesse J. is gonna come rushing to defend “asian dirty shop owners”?

Gotta love the double standards…

[briansd1]

Nothing to do with double standards, flu.

Each case is different. You can choose to take interest in it or not.

[Anonymous]

Sharpton and Jackson are clowns.

We all agree on that. There’s no debate. Why are we talking about them?

The fact that they pick and choose where to perform their circus acts with regard to some issues should not alter the merits of anybody’s positions.

Some people want to use their presence as “evidence” for their argument. Logic fail. Just because an idiot happens to agree with a position, doesn’t automatically make it wrong.

BTW, This is quite good and pretty much demolishes the whole Fox-engineered “black on black” distraction:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-april-4-2012-jack-l–goldsmith

Starts at 7:08

The guest that follows is very good also (he talks about another topic that has come up here from time to time.)

[ocrenter]

Well, Zimmerman is taking to the blogosphere:

Home

I felt so inspired to donate afterward, especially seeing all that red, white, and blue! He seem like a real patriot! NOT!

[briansd1]

Back to Zimmerman.

The more I read about this case, and ignoring all the sensational national news, the more I think it stinks.

I believe that after Zimmerman killed Martin, he phoned call to his dad, a retired judge (that’s what I would do in that situation). The dad, the judge who understand the criminal system, then started to work overtime to protect his son.

We shall see if the phone records become public.

And we shall see from the phone records if Trayvon Martin was indeed talking to his girlfriend when he was killed.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=briansd1]Back to Zimmerman.

The more I read about this case, and ignoring all the sensational national news, the more I think it stinks.

I believe that after Zimmerman killed Martin, he phoned call to his dad, a retired judge (that’s what I would do in that situation). The dad, the judge who understand the criminal system, then started to work overtime to protect his son.

We shall see if the phone records become public.

And we shall see from the phone records if Trayvon Martin was indeed talking to his girlfriend when he was killed.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c1%5B/quote%5D
Bottom line, I’m glad there will be a trial. Whatever the verdict, this is clearly a situation where it was appropriate for charges to be filed and the legal process to occur.

Ultimately, I think it’s going to come down to a question of if the Jury accepts that Stand Your Ground can be applied to a case where the person claiming self defense followed the person killed.

[NotCranky]

Where did you find a predominantly rational discussion of this case, Brian?

[Author]

Posts