- This topic has 120 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 9 months ago by
NotCranky.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 12, 2012 at 7:38 PM #741575April 12, 2012 at 8:34 PM #741576
ltsddd
Participant[quote=zk][quote=svelte]This is not a clear cut case.
Rodney King, with the beating caught on tape, that was clear cut.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t call the Rodney King case clear cut at all. The beating was caught on tape, but not what led up to it. King throwing two officers at a time off his back and charging them. A strong, enraged, violent man on the attack. That wasn’t shown on the tape.[/quote]
I think everyone in King’s situation would have reacted the same way. The difference is that most of us probably would not have survived the beating. When you’re beat into submission and down in a prone position and the beating continued then your survival instinct is going to kick in and that is either to fight or to run. And in order to do either of that one will need to get off of that prone position. And of course that’s just give the cops more ammunition to dish out more punishment.
April 12, 2012 at 8:42 PM #741577Participant[quote=svelte]The jury found Officer Laurence Powell and Sergeant Stacey Koon guilty, and they were subsequently sentenced to 30 months in prison, while Timothy Wind and Theodore Briseño were acquitted of all charges.
[/quote]I actually saw Powell at a local computer store on Clairemont Mesa Blvd soon after his release. He was working as the store assistant manager. Couldn’t believe my eyes, but wasn’t really sure it was him until one of the store employees shouted out “Larry” and asked the guy a question. “Larry” responded in this somewhat feminine voice and at that point I knew that it got to be him. If you watch the trials at all back then and if you’re like me Powell’s voice stood out.
April 12, 2012 at 11:33 PM #741589briansd1
Guest[quote=Jacarandoso]Where did you find a predominantly rational discussion of this case, Brian?[/quote]
I had a discussion about this with my brother and he was conflationg all kinds of issues.
Nothwistanding the sensational news coverage, the bottom line is that the police gave Zimmerman a break. I believe because clearly they didn’t care that a Black kid was killed. It was a racist decision by the police chief to let Zimmerman go.
Zimmerman was not tested for alcohol or drugs. The police did not interview him under camera or photograph him, that I know of. After the killing, Zimmerman went into hiding for weeks, likely so that traces of drugs would disappear and so that there would be no physical evidence of the injuries he claims to have suffered.
At this point, Zimmerman can claim anything without having the burden proof. Are we just to believe him?
If you’re badly injured in a fight, don’t you want to get some medical help and x-rays?
Because of the way the police mishandled the case, Zimmerman will not get the full punishment he deserves.
To tie this story to real estate, the Homeowners Association was clearly negligent in allowing a vigilante to act as its security agent.
http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20120404_trayvonmartin.htmOn the issue of popular outrage, I think that rioting is in order when great injustices are perpetrated. The people need a way to express their anger.
I would understand if rioters were to burn down the police headquarters and City Hall in Sanford. Remember, as Americans, we support uprisings in Lybia, Syria, China, Russia, etc… Why not right here, at home?
April 13, 2012 at 6:56 AM #741598ocrenter
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Jacarandoso]Where did you find a predominantly rational discussion of this case, Brian?[/quote]
I had a discussion about this with my brother and he was conflationg all kinds of issues.
Nothwistanding the sensational news coverage, the bottom line is that the police gave Zimmerman a break. I believe because clearly they didn’t care that a Black kid was killed. It was a racist decision by the police chief to let Zimmerman go.
Zimmerman was not tested for alcohol or drugs. The police did not interview him under camera or photograph him, that I know of. After the killing, Zimmerman went into hiding for weeks, likely so that traces of drugs would disappear and so that there would be no physical evidence of the injuries he claims to have suffered.
At this point, Zimmerman can claim anything without having the burden proof. Are we just to believe him?
If you’re badly injured in a fight, don’t you want to get some medical help and x-rays?
Because of the way the police mishandled the case, Zimmerman will not get the full punishment he deserves.
To tie this story to real estate, the Homeowners Association was clearly negligent in allowing a vigilante to act as its security agent.
http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20120404_trayvonmartin.htmOn the issue of popular outrage, I think that rioting is in order when great injustices are perpetrated. The people need a way to express their anger.
I would understand if rioters were to burn down the police headquarters and City Hall in Sanford. Remember, as Americans, we support uprisings in Lybia, Syria, China, Russia, etc… Why not right here, at home?[/quote]
Your views have always been very extreme, this is another fine example.
You would think after this last few years of the political firestorm ignited by the extremists from the political right, you would recognize persistent extremism is not the way to go.
April 13, 2012 at 8:15 AM #741601NotCranky
ParticipantBrian, I agree that you have things at least as muddled as anyone else. Maybe as much as Al Sharpton.
According to Florida law this is not a clear case of racism by the police. The police cannot arrest someone who claims stand your ground defense(self defense) unless they were in the commission of a crime at the time of the events. There is a lot of armchair quarter backing going on all this and you are doing that too(as opposed to having some tight rational understanding).
It seems that “profiling” is going to be the crime that the prosecution attempts to use to negate what would otherwise be Zimmerman’s, not punishable by law, use of deadly force(if his story holds up or there is a lack of evidence to prove otherwise, or reasonable doubt).
It also seems that O’mara took the case being fairly confident that it is winnable. He is the sharpest looking tack so far. While I don’t exactly take George’s side, it appears that aside from this “profiling” thing that he should walk. I don’t like the “profiling” emphasis either.
While I think that George was overzealous in protecting his neighborhood and the death of teenagers is serious, this profiling thing really bothers me. If George were, or is proven a white Hispanic supremacist or something like that it wouldn’t. I don’t think that is the case. If we are going to be told we can’t decide who is suspicious or not or try to confirm or deny those suspicion in a non- violent manner when the person could possibly be lighter or darker skinned than you that’s wrong.
The good thing now is that this can get beyond what was probably a completely unnecessary and dangerous and divisive circus and stay on a fair trial track.
April 13, 2012 at 9:39 AM #741607poorgradstudent
Participant[quote=briansd1]To tie this story to real estate, the Homeowners Association was clearly negligent in allowing a vigilante to act as its security agent.
http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20120404_trayvonmartin.htm%5B/quote%5D
I’m skeptical they would actually be found negligent, but I’ll admit I don’t have a law degree, and am not familiar with Florida law. I agree with the linked article they’ll probably have to spend a pretty penny defending themselves from a civil suit, but it doesn’t seem remotely like a slam dunk case.April 13, 2012 at 10:02 AM #741609Anonymous
Guest[quote=briansd1]On the issue of popular outrage, I think that rioting is in order when great injustices are perpetrated. The people need a way to express their anger.[/quote]
Widespread and systemic injustice can explain why riots occur.
But it does not not justify those who riot.
Just like US intervention in the Middle East can explain why terrorism occurs, it does not justify the terrorists.
It’s a subtle but important distinction. From a policy standpoint, we may want to think about the cause and effect – the explanations for why things happen. As a nation we may want to change our policies so that we can influence outcomes.
But, even if we change our policies to avoid inciting bad behavior, we should NOT forgive rioters or terrorists. They are criminals no matter what their motivations.
April 13, 2012 at 11:46 AM #741618all
Participant[quote=briansd1]After the killing, Zimmerman went into hiding for weeks, likely so that traces of drugs would disappear and so that there would be no physical evidence of the injuries he claims to have suffered. [/quote]
Why is it likely? Because he looks guilty, or because Spike Lee says so?
April 13, 2012 at 12:22 PM #741623Guest[quote=pri_dk][quote=briansd1]On the issue of popular outrage, I think that rioting is in order when great injustices are perpetrated. The people need a way to express their anger.[/quote]
Widespread and systemic injustice can explain why riots occur.
But it does not not justify those who riot.
Just like US intervention in the Middle East can explain why terrorism occurs, it does not justify the terrorists.
It’s a subtle but important distinction. From a policy standpoint, we may want to think about the cause and effect – the explanations for why things happen. As a nation we may want to change our policies so that we can influence outcomes.
But, even if we change our policies to avoid inciting bad behavior, we should NOT forgive rioters or terrorists. They are criminals no matter what their motivations.[/quote]
I pretty much agree with you.
After the fact, the prosecutors have the discretion to bring charges.
As you said the key is to change policies to influence the outcomes for the better.
April 13, 2012 at 12:25 PM #741624Guest[quote=captcha][quote=briansd1]After the killing, Zimmerman went into hiding for weeks, likely so that traces of drugs would disappear and so that there would be no physical evidence of the injuries he claims to have suffered. [/quote]
Why is it likely? Because he looks guilty, or because Spike Lee says so?[/quote]
Why likely? Because Zimmerman claims to have been beaten by Martin. But there is no physical evidence to prove his claims — no medical exam, no drug test, nothing…
April 13, 2012 at 12:40 PM #741625paramount
ParticipantThis special prosecutor Angela Corely reminds me of Bonnie Dumanis – with outcomes or the pursuit of cases largely politically motivated.
On top of that, how would Zimmerman get a fair trial? I think jurors would have to recruited from another planet.
This whole circus may amount to little more than mob rules.
And as far as the so-called justice system (more accurately legal system) is concerned two names come to mind: Richard Jewell and OJ.
April 13, 2012 at 12:54 PM #741626Guest[quote=Jacarandoso]
According to Florida law this is not a clear case of racism by the police. The police cannot arrest someone who claims stand your ground defense(self defense) [/quote]Jacarandoso, you should not able to kill someone and walk away just by claiming self-defense. Can you follow someone, provoke a confrontation, then claim self-defense? I don’t think so.
For example, I follow a woman too closely on the street at night. She’s worried; turns around and pepper sprays me. Can I then shoot her in self-defense? Clearly, I was attacked first.
Besides, how do you draw the conclusion that Zimmerman was defending himself from unarmed Martin? Don’t you think that he would have gone to an urgent care center if he was injured? Did he at least stop at a pharmacy to buy some ointment to treat his injuries?
I think that the retired judge was coaching his son.
And why did the police let Zimmerman go without a drug test? It all screams racist good ol’ boys’ club on the part of the police to me.
April 13, 2012 at 1:39 PM #741629ParticipantBrian, Let the trial or dismissal play out. There will be reviews of stand you ground. As you know the courts have to work with precedent and logical interpretation based on standing laws at the time of the event.
I think it is you, as much as you say it was your brother, who is conflating hypothetical issues with an alleged crime and trial that have specific laws and evidence to that case at that place and time.
Getting sprayed with pepper spray by a girl for being too close is different than being on the ground getting your butt kicked. I don’t want to debate that too much because the court will.
When it first came out I was very much leaning towards Zimmerman’s guilt. There was a lot of misinformation and manipulated info in the press. As time as passed I think it potentially looks better for him in a legit trial.
His father, the ex Judge, is another armchair quarterback at this time. He certainly is powerless at this point. At best he helped George not to do self incriminating things.
This is a really dramatic thing that happened, do you think George would be out eating snow cones and playing tennis? Doesn’t make sense to complain about his laying low. He cooperated with the law 100% up to his incarceration.
BTW I noticed you clipped my comment to read totally different from what I wrote. Work for MSNBC much?
April 13, 2012 at 2:30 PM #741631Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=captcha][quote=briansd1]After the killing, Zimmerman went into hiding for weeks, likely so that traces of drugs would disappear and so that there would be no physical evidence of the injuries he claims to have suffered. [/quote]
Why is it likely? Because he looks guilty, or because Spike Lee says so?[/quote]
Why likely? Because Zimmerman claims to have been beaten by Martin. But there is no physical evidence to prove his claims — no medical exam, no drug test, nothing…[/quote]
I just don’t see why you think it is likely that he took sabbatical to get the drugs out of his body. Does he have a history of drug-induced aggression? Do you think he has issues with substance abuse because his mother is Latino and we all know Latinos do drugs and kill people?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.