Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[TheL8Elvis]

Judge Lester to Ponder $200K Raised by Zimmerman’s Website

I think it's more about the fact his lawyer spent the better part of the morning in the Bond hearing trying to declare Z near indigent, and questioned his family even about being able to liquidate to get funds up for bail....etc. etc..

and all the while knowing there was 200,000k+ that was not disclosed.

That's sort of an issue.

Part of the reason he was able to get a low bond was because of his sadly lil financial status.

Courts don't like that kind of ****.

It's worthy of a sanction, in the opinion of many.

Some judges would revoke bond (though I doubt this one, he appears very sympathetic to the defense) .
...

Is there ever to be any kind of ruling on this, does anyone know ? Coming up on 3 weeks ...

 

[WildCat]

I thought the SPD had a fairly disgusting history of botched investigations.

They do?

 

[Cylinder]

Is there ever to be any kind of ruling on this, does anyone know ? Coming up on 3 weeks ...

The state has yet to file a motion to adjust bail, so no. I guess I should say that the court hasn't published any motion to adjust bail. You can find a list of pleadings here The last word was that O'Mara would provide the state and court a detailed list of assests before Lester made any ruling.

 

[LTC8K6]

You are in a much better position to spot the error. when someone shows a strong confirmation bias tendency, they will be able to read their own post over and over and each time see exactly what they had intended to write and not see the typo. With a fresh set of eyes you will see the inconsistency so you need to help them out by highlighting the specific word or phrase to force them to read it out of context. Only then will they see that it wasn't what they meant.

I see some thread cleanup has occurred.

Well, a person could ask about the post before jumping to the accusation.
One need not assume malice. I think there's a saying about that.

I just heard about this assault, it features a sucker punch, generally similar, I think, to what GZ is claiming Trayvon did to him.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories...-Army-soldier-brutally-beaten-in-South-Tampa-

 

[LTC8K6]

Yea, the timing seems to point to a summary of discovery rather than a witness list, though there's no real certainty which it is until it gets published.

It's just everything and everyone possible that might conceivably be used.

Likely, a large percentage of it won't.

 

[AlBell]

Being armed is very different than simply being a woman. I will say it again, a person with a fire arm must bear responsibility for that fire arm and should avoid unnecessary situations that could lead to harm.

Yup. GZ should have stayed in bed.

If you drive a car you have responsibility to ensure you minimize risk to others. Don't drink and drive. Likewise, if you have a firearm and see a suspicious person and you are scared of that person, stay in your ******* car.

I'm not sure how that is not getting through.

I at least find the analogy lacking in value. Having a CCW and carrying is not similar in any way to drunken driving.

 

[LTC8K6]

I am waiting for the evidence leaks now.

 

[AlBell]

I have no idea what happened. There's enough conjecture and spinning in this thread to make me think "reasonable doubt" isn't going to be overcome. I'll wait for the trial and even then I'll still wonder about some details. Life is like that.

I wonder if the attorneys involved are reading these 2,000 9000+ posts for ideas.

ftfy.

I hope they are reading along ; but suspect not.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The state has yet to file a motion to adjust bail, so no. I guess I should say that the court hasn't published any motion to adjust bail. You can find a list of pleadings here The last word was that O'Mara would provide the state and court a detailed list of assests before Lester made any ruling.

Thanks. I didn't realize it required the state to file a motion to adjust bail, I thought Lester could review the circumstances of the financial situation and determine if ... he was mislead or whatever ... on his own. Maybe he did, and determined unless the state asked for a change, it was fine.

 

[GWCarver]

Thomas Sowell weighs in on the Virginia newspaper that attempted to not cover the story of two of its own white reporters being attacked by 30 blacks in an article titled, "A Censored Race War".

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299918/censored-race-war-thomas-sowell#

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Another update:
FBI seeks to charge George Zimmerman with hate crime
WFTV has learned charges against George Zimmerman could be getting more serious.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...h-hate-crime-charge-in-trayvon-martin-death/1

Update at 12:28 p.m. ET: USA TODAY's Kevin Johnson reports the Justice Department has been investigating all aspects of Trayvon's shooting since March -- from whether the Sanford police acted properly to whether hate crime charges should be brought against Zimmerman.

"The independent investigation remains ongoing, and we continue to provide support and resources to the local prosecution,'' Justice spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle said Tuesday.

That doesn't sound like they are getting ready to charge anyone with anything... again - what are they waiting for ?

 

[johnny karate]

You are in a much better position to spot the error. when someone shows a strong confirmation bias tendency, they will be able to read their own post over and over and each time see exactly what they had intended to write and not see the typo. With a fresh set of eyes you will see the inconsistency so you need to help them out by highlighting the specific word or phrase to force them to read it out of context. Only then will they see that it wasn't what they meant.

I asked "How was I supposed to know those were typos?".

Nothing in your post answers that question.

Well, a person could ask about the post before jumping to the accusation.
One need not assume malice. I think there's a saying about that.

I think the saying you're looking for is "Please use your psychic powers to translate my inaccurate posts". Granted, it's not a very common one.

But I think you're right. The error is completely mine. What I'll do every night from now on is compile your posts from that day and run them through the Magic Word Dejumbler 3000 and have all the words you typed replaced with the words you really meant to type. I'll then submit the results to a team of linguistics experts to have them carefully examined. (Unfortunately, the MWJ 3000 is still a little buggy. I can't wait for the release of the 4000.) A second team of experts will be brought in to doublecheck the work of the first team. Upon completeion, both teams will be summarily executed. Finally, a report will be drafted and messengered to you for final approval. Should it not be to your liking, the process will begin again, and be repreated until you are satisfied.

I sincerely hope this will alleviate the risk of repeating my grave errors, and again offer my apologies for foolishly assuming that the words in your posts were not actually meant to be completely different words.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, a person could ask about the post before jumping to the accusation.
One need not assume malice. I think there's a saying about that.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Various

...

 

[johnny karate]

This is what you said:

The SPD investigation was still going on.

At what point do you feel I attributed malice to that statement?

 

[Dan O.]

I asked "How was I supposed to know those were typos?".

Nothing in your post answers that question.

I was simply offering what I hoped would be a helpfull comment. We all have the same goal here of searching for the truth and watching that justice is properly served. There's no point in deliberately trying to deceive since the facts will eventually come out and the Internet has a long memory.


If you see what you believe is a mistake, there is no harm in presuming it might be a typo and asking for clarification (assuming you verified your own position first). You may miss a gotcha moment. But who needs gotcha's when you're right.

 

[LTC8K6]

This is what you said:


At what point do you feel I attributed malice to that statement?

It's a common generic quote. There are many versions of it. It basically means you shouldn't jump to conclusions.

You know darn well I was talking about the Crumb typo anyway.

I was making fun of myself. Calling myself stupid. But your remark about my "Crumb" typo was certainly close to an accusation of malice

I give up on you ever understanding anything I post. You seem to take everything in the worst possible way.

Well, evidently it must be me. I must not be communicating well with you. So I'll just bow out of conversations with you, and move on with the discussion.

 

[Mumbles]

Thomas Sowell weighs in on the Virginia newspaper that attempted to not cover the story of two of its own white reporters being attacked by 30 blacks in an article titled, "A Censored Race War".

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299918/censored-race-war-thomas-sowell#

I find the hysterical response to the beating of the two reporters to be interesting. It's pretty easy to find data that the two did not require or seek any sort of medical response, and that the group's motivation is unknown - the entire "revenge for Trayvon" angle comes from a single tweet from someone who wasn't actually involved. The actual number of attackers is pretty unclear as well, although unlikely to be all that high, given the relatively minor injuries suffered. I'm sure the two had a bad time of it, but this is a pretty minor crime, as far as cities go, and not the sort of thing that gets major headline coverage in a sizable community in the US, so I don't see how it's actually evidence of a coverup.

The Matthew Owens beating (which turned out to be a long-running neighborhood dispute) and that guy that was robbed and stripped in Baltimore were hyped up in the same way, along with the same anger at Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton that is seen in Sowell's column. Yes, these are all crimes. No, these are not the sorts of crimes that get national attention. And for that matter, the only reason why the Martin case got national attention, was because the police refused to arrest the shooter, despite his confession, his story being rather odd, and his own police call showing Martin trying to get away from him.

Now, is there some sort of national conspiracy to hide news of evils done by black people? Well, consider the story of the 11-year old Hispanic girl who was gang-raped in Texas, that broke last year. There was no real hush-up, no attempt to hide the fact that the suspects were black, and the community's response, as well as the involvement of the always-absurd NBPP, were all covered in national news. And clearly, gang-raping a child is far more heinous than some robbery or street fight.

Meanwhile, it's simple to find Internet sites that have videos of people of various races and genders knocking one another out - I refuse to provide links to these sites. However, none of the videos of white guys beating up some black guy get national attention, either. Again, these simply aren't big stories. But why are many conservatives enraged when the national media doesn't cover some black people beating up a white person, but are uninterested when the media doesn't cover some white guys beating up a black person?

 

[johnny karate]

I was simply offering what I hoped would be a helpfull comment. We all have the same goal here of searching for the truth and watching that justice is properly served. There's no point in deliberately trying to deceive since the facts will eventually come out and the Internet has a long memory.

If you see what you believe is a mistake, there is no harm in presuming it might be a typo and asking for clarification (assuming you verified your own position first). You may miss a gotcha moment. But who needs gotcha's when you're right.

I'm not looking for a "gotcha moment", and LTC8K6 was afforded multiple opportunities to clarify his typo after the numerous times I quoted it. What I don't appreciate is being insulted because someone else made a mistake.

You know darn well I was talking about the Crumb typo anyway.

No, I didn't:

No, I typed SPD when I meant SA.

What is wrong with you?

I was making fun of myself. Calling myself stupid. But your remark about my "Crumb" typo was certainly close to an accusation of malice

And you'll notice once that clarification was established, the subject was dropped. I'm not sure why you would even consider that to still be an issue. I certainly don't.

I give up on you ever understanding anything I post. You seem to take everything in the worst possible way.

I take things as they are communicated. Like when you said this:

What is wrong with you?

I took that as an insult and a personal attack. Perhaps you could tell me in what innocuous way you really meant it.

Well, evidently it must be me. I must not be communicating well with you. So I'll just bow out of conversations with you, and move on with the discussion.

You made typo when you confused "SA" for "SPD". I quoted this typo several times with no clarification from you. Finally, you make the claim it was a typo and level a personal attack at me for not knowing this.

People make mistakes. I have no problem acknowledging my own, or being gracious towards others when they acknowledge theirs.

However, you took your mistake and used it as an opportunity to denigrate me for not being prescient enough to realize you had made a mistake. This is unfair, uncivil, and unappreciated.

/derail

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

This goes back to Phantom Wolfs outstanding post earlier about how people repeatedly try to bias and poison the well with the language they use. I've bolded the language that is meant to distort rather than add understanding.

And for that matter, the only reason why the Martin case got national attention, was because the police refused to arrest the shooter, despite his confession, his story being rather odd, and his own police call showing Martin trying to get away from him.

Just to use the first example, one might instead say "the police decided not to arrest GZ and that a case could not be made for manslaughter". But that would require not embellishing.

And no, the reason the case got national attention was because of a concerted effort on the part of certain people to distort nearly every aspect of the case. Just as you have above.

 

[GWCarver]

Now, is there some sort of national conspiracy to hide news of evils done by black people?

Why do you think it is now the policy of most major newspapers around the country not to identify the race of individuals involved in most crimes that are reported?