Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by johnny karate
From Florida State Attorney Norm Wolfinger:
I'm not sure why an "adequate" and "thorough" investigation would require further investigation. Perhaps you could offer some insight, and maybe even offer another example of something that could be described as "adequate" and "thorough", and also requiring more work.

Yeah, you are completely unaware of the race hustlers screaming in the media that GZ was let off without an investigation, and demanding that GZ be arrested, and placing a $10K bounty on GZ's head which they said would be raised to $1M.

I'm sure you missed all the pressure that was put on SPD and the SA by the traditional race hustler group that claims to represent blacks.

 

[GWCarver]

As already pointed out, complete with Supreme Court references, the bond hearing theatrics don't mean squat.
The posturing that lawyers do for the media should never be mistaken for the reality.
If O'mara tries those childish word games in a real trial, any judge with a spine will slap him down.

You feel free to channel Nancy Grace all you want, I'll stick to reality.

Childish word games? If you want to take the position that which words are used in a probable cause affidavit accusing a person of murder are irrelevant, it is all yours.

Please, in the future if you feel the need to insult me, say I'm channeling Pol Pot or some other infamous evil-doer, anyone except Nancy Grace.

 

[GWCarver]

Yes, and that's a long-standing issue that civil rights groups have also been involved in. However, NYC mayor Bloomberg continues to defend it as lowering crime, despite a n investigation finding that at least one police precinct (the 81st in Bed-Stuy) deliberately frisked innocent people and underreported crime rates in order to give the higher-ups the numbers they wanted.

But this isn't very on topic, is it?

I am beginning to get the feeling that any supporting data that really hits home is declared off-topic. I think more young black males being stopped and frisked in NYC in the past year than the total number of young black males who actually live there shows that "profiling" young black males is the rule, not the exception there.

Zimmerman, whose father is white and mother is Hispanic, has been accused by many of committing a hate crime for "profiling" a young black male and suspecting he was up to no good. My question is, do you think the entire NYC police force, the largest in the country, is comprised of 100% racist cops?

BTW, don't mistake my reporting what is going on in NYC for an endorsement. I'll look into the Florida stats later, when I get back to Tennessee.

 

[Ammonitida]

I am beginning to get the feeling that any supporting data that really hits home is declared off-topic. I think more young black males being stopped and frisked in NYC in the past year than the total number of young black males who actually live there shows that "profiling" young black males is the rule, not the exception there.

Zimmerman, whose father is white and mother is Hispanic, has been accused by many of committing a hate crime for "profiling" a young black male and suspecting he was up to no good. My question is, do you think the entire NYC police force, the largest in the country, is comprised of 100% racist cops?

BTW, don't mistake my reporting what is going on in NYC for an endorsement. I'll look into the Florida stats later, when I get back to Tennessee.

The NYPD is mostly made up of non-whites. The reason for the disproportionate black "stop and frisk" rate is because the NYPD are ordered to conduct their frisks in high crime areas -- most of which just happen to be majority black.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I think this is exactly right. Certain words are loaded, and "pursue" is one. To pursue is not to just follow, the two words are not interchangable synonyms, because to pursue is to follow with an aim of getting the person being followed. This is why there there can be an issue with the semantics and it's not just quibbling. When you use a word that is loaded with a specific meaning, then you deserve to get called on it especially when it is used repeatedly.

We know that GZ did follow TM that night, we can even say that he ran after TM, but to use words such as "Pursued" or "Chased" idicates more, that GZ was in fact trying to catch up with TM to get him, and of that there is no evidence, in fact the evidence we have says that it wasn't the case, as he lost track of him.

It's similar to using words like "assaulted" and "shoved" when describing a push. Consider the following and think of what occured as you read it...

• John battered the police officer who stood in his way.
• John assualted the police officer who stood in his way.
• John shoved the police officer who stood in his way.
• John pushed the police officer who stood in his way.
• John jostled the police officer who stood in his way.
• John bumped the police officer who stood in his way.

As you read each of these, do you perceive what happened the same way?

Good post.

 

[crimresearch]

Childish word games? If you want to take the position that which words are used in a probable cause affidavit accusing a person of murder are irrelevant, it is all yours.

Please, in the future if you feel the need to insult me, say I'm channeling Pol Pot or some other infamous evil-doer, anyone except Nancy Grace.

I'm not in the least bit interested in insulting you. My posting style may indicate such, and I do from time to time, try to work on that.. usually not successfully. My apologies.


I'm mildly interested (and losing it rapidly), in expressing skepticism of the tidal wave of misinformation from the media, as it multiplies from poster to poster here.

 

[LTC8K6]

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, Fla. - A Hillsborough County judge has ruled that a Valrico man cannot use Florida's Stand Your Ground defense in the shooting death of a man in September 2010.

Dooley is charged with manslaughter in James’ death.

According to Monday's ruling, "...the evidence showed that Mr. James had not been threatening or aggressive in any way toward Defendant, although he did appear to be shocked, defensive, loud, upset and agitated. It was not until Defendant reached for and pulled out his weapon - indicating an intent to escalate from an argument to violence - that Mr. James exerted and used physical force against Defendant."

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...death-of-david-james-in-valrico#ixzz1urbCX2W0

This is where GZ's wounds will come in. Or lack thereof.

Note that the charge is manslaughter.

 

[johnny karate]

I know you like to argue semantics and seems to be unable to explain your self.

But as i stated before and will continue to do so.

The SPD gathers the witness statements and the physical evidence available at the crime scene.

Why would the further analysis of that be the responsibility of the SPD?

I know, asking you a direct question is unlikely to produce results, but I know you can answer.

Why wouldn't further analysis be the responsibility of the Sanford PD? They are the ones investigating the crime. I'm not suggesting they do the analysis themselves. I'm suggesting they use that analysis in their investigation.

Let me offer a generic example.

Suppose there has been a murder. Police gather forensic evidence such as blood, fingerprints, hair, and bullet casings. This evidence is sent to a lab to be analyzed.

What happens next?

Does the crime lab send their results to some other investigative body besides the police?

Analysis of the evidence gathered is different than the gathering of evidence. Is forensic analysis of the physical evidence in a laboratory the same as the original police investigation?

The SPD gathers the witness statements and the physical evidence available at the crime scene.

And then what happens? Suppose the analysis of the forensic evidence yields positive results or even points to a suspect. What's the next step in the process if those results are not sent to the police for them to continue their investigation?

I know you like to pretend that you are trolling but you could at least try to be have in your more rational mode.

I never stated that there was further evidence being gathered, I have meant to state, and may not have done so directly that there is the further analysis of the evidence gathered. Such as the powder burns and ballistic data.

You actually did state further evidence was being gathered:

Now the analogy here is that the SPD gathers evidence, they then make a multi-layered decision to arrest based upon that evidence. the case is then closed and transferred, while evidence is still being gathered.

If you want to backpedal from your previous statements, that's certainly your prerogative. And since they contradict the facts, I don't blame you. But please don't accuse me of semantic arguments or trolling, or pretend it's a misapprehension on my part when I can directly quote you saying the things you claim not to have said.

It only seems fair that you actually explain what exactly you feel was left out of the investigation by the SPD and how this is part of SOP for police departments.

So what evidence was the SPD to gather that you feel was lacking in their investigation?

Then perhaps you can explain your reasoning in why analysis of the evidence in a lab someplace else is part of the SPD's investigation?

According to what you are saying about it, what was left out of the Sanford PD investigation is, quite obviously, the forensic evidence.

My reasoning for thinking the Sanford PD would use this evidence in their investigation is because I cannot for the life of me fathom why they wouldn't.

You seem to be suggesting that the police merely gather evidence and do absolutely no follow-up work beyond that.

If the police find a fingerprint at the scene of the crime, apparently they simply turn that in for analysis and walk away forever, never to find out what that fingerprint analysis yielded.

I honestly have no idea how this makes any sense.

 

[johnny karate]

"Detectives should complete their investigation next week at the latest, he said, and will let the state attorney's office decide whether to file criminal charges."
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...g-police-headquarters-investigation-next-week

"That is why I directed the expeditious review of the investigation which was delivered by the Sanford Police Department one week ago today..."
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/state-attorney-case-will-be-given-grand-jury-shoot/nLX9c/

 

[johnny karate]

Have you completely dismissed the idea that it's simply political pandering and an effort to pacify the public ? That, at the time, Wolfinger thought the SPD did an "adequate" and "thorough" investigation, but because there was such an outcry, he "identified" areas to be further investigated.

So the alternate theory is that Wolfinger is a panderer who was only going to go through the motions of further investigation? I guess it's a good thing they brought someone else in.

Or perhaps he actually identified an area where the SPD didn't do a stellar investigation, and instead of publicly calling them out for it, made them aware of it in a less obvious and direct way. I think that's less likely than the former, but possible.

Kind of the point of this whole debate, isn't it?

 

[johnny karate]

Yeah, you are completely unaware of the race hustlers screaming in the media that GZ was let off without an investigation, and demanding that GZ be arrested, and placing a $10K bounty on GZ's head which they said would be raised to $1M.

I'm sure you missed all the pressure that was put on SPD and the SA by the traditional race hustler group that claims to represent blacks.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are sticking with your claim that the Sanford PD did a thorough and adequate investigation, but only went through the motions of further investigation to appease public outcry?

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are sticking with your claim that the Sanford PD did a thorough and adequate investigation, but only went through the motions of further investigation to appease public outcry?

I didn't say any such thing, of course.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.baynews9.com/content/new...icles/cfn/2012/5/14/george_zimmerman_doc.html

O'mara to get evidence today.

 

[BenBurch]

From the "Just when you think you have seen the world's most tasteless product" file;

http://www.wtxl.com/content/state/s...sheets-resembling/wEXZYqGxrUCH5dGs5cmkrg.cspx

SANFORD, Fla. (CNN/WKMG) -- An anonymous retailer is apparently trying to make money off the death of Trayvon Martin.

There's no face inside the hoodie, but the bag of Skittles and the bottle of iced tea makes it clear that the paper target designed for shooting practice is supposed to be Trayvon Martin.

<SNIP>

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So the alternate theory is that Wolfinger is a panderer who was only going to go through the motions of further investigation? I guess it's a good thing they brought someone else in.
Kind of the point of this whole debate, isn't it?

An alternate theory. Wolfinger could be full well convinced the work was done correctly and professionally, but wants to reassure the public by having them check again. Reassuring != pandering, although you are welcome to pick words with whatever connotation fits the story you want to believe.

More to the point, I don't think you'll be able to demonstrate what the real reasons are by linking to newspaper stories.

 

[Xulld]

From the "Just when you think you have seen the world's most tasteless product" file;

http://www.wtxl.com/content/state/s...sheets-resembling/wEXZYqGxrUCH5dGs5cmkrg.cspx

"I hope there's a crime that we can charge that person who made that with," O'Mara said. "I'm not sure what it is, but we need to come up with one, because that's disgusting.

Very poor taste, yet . . .

Far more troubling to me is the idea that expression we disagree with should be made illegal.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Very poor taste, yet . . .

Far more troubling to me is the idea that expression we disagree with should be made illegal.

1. This is another media invention. Basically any ******* now knows if they do something outrageous enough, the media will report it. Never mind whether only 6 people in the entire nation have bought one, it's a story! Now if people were buying the things left and right, I'd agree there's a media story there as that would actually say something about our society.

2. That any attorney would say such a thing is terrifying. I just lost a lot of respect for Omara even if he is grandstanding. We don't arrest people in this country for selling things that are distasteful or bigoted.

 

[LTC8K6]

1. This is another media invention. Basically any ******* now knows if they do something outrageous enough, the media will report it. Never mind whether only 6 people in the entire nation have bought one, it's a story! Now if people were buying the things left and right, I'd agree there's a media story there as that would actually say something about our society.

2. That any attorney would say such a thing is terrifying. I just lost a lot of respect for Omara even if he is grandstanding. We don't arrest people in this country for selling things that are distasteful or bigoted.

I think Crumb could make it fit into "hate crime".

 

[johnny karate]

An alternate theory. Wolfinger could be full well convinced the work was done correctly and professionally, but wants to reassure the public by having them check again. Reassuring != pandering, although you are welcome to pick words with whatever connotation fits the story you want to believe.

"Pandering" was your word:

Have you completely dismissed the idea that it's simply political pandering and an effort to pacify the public ?

If you find it so disagreeable, maybe you shouldn't have used it in the first place. Because it's getting kind of ridiculous if the list of "loaded" words includes words only you can use but I can't.

More to the point, I don't think you'll be able to demonstrate what the real reasons are by linking to newspaper stories.

"Real reasons". That's hilarious.

If it is argued that the Sanford PD investigation was less than "thorough" and "adequate", and cites as evidence Wolfinger stating that, upon review of their work, "areas for further investigation have been identified"... it's dismissed because we don't know the "real reasons" he has for stating that.

 

[johnny karate]

I didn't say any such thing, of course.

Which is why it was in the form a question prefaced by stating "I'm not sure what your point is here".

That would be your cue to tell me what your point actually is.