Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[johnny karate]

I see. The point of my post is Corey can put anyone in jail she feels like, for whatever charge she feels like, and there is nothing to stop her.

Yeah, because that's exactly what happened here. Zimmerman didn't do a thing wrong and got thrown into jail for no reason whatsoever. Give me a break.

No one should feel comfortable with that. The people in North Korea have to live with that kind of justice system, but I'll bet they don't like it. No one knows their opinion, though, because the government has so much power they are afraid to talk.

Remember that break I asked for earlier? I'm going to need another one.

Note that Dershowitz spoke out against Corey, and what did she do? According to Dershowitz, she tried to silence him with every threat available to her, quietly, by going through his employer.

Yes, it's hard to forget that story considering how it set the news world on fire.

When The Jewish Press and the Florida Times-Union pick up on a story, you know it must be true!

The fact that you endorse what Corey is doing is puzzling, to say the least.

The fact that you endorse the idea that people should just get to shoot and kill other people without being put through the legal system to account for their actions is puzzling, to say the least.

 

[GWCarver]

In North Korea, (or Nazi Germany, since you want to Godwin the thread) you have a justice system in which you get imprisoned when not doing anything wrong.

George Zimmerman shot and killed another human being.

The fact that you can't see the difference is puzzling, to say the least.

It is entirely possible Zimmerman did nothing wrong. However, no judge examined the exculpatory evidence, and Corey says she is not required to put it in the probable cause affidavit. That means there are no checks and balances in Florida for what she does. Once an innocent person is in the belly of the beast for murder 2, it is hard to come out without either being convicted or scared into pleading guilty to a lesser charge to avoid taking a chance on getting life in prison.

I thought only grade school kids did the mockingbird thing. Guess I was wrong about that. Oh well, live and learn...

 

[GWCarver]

The fact that you endorse the idea that people should just get to shoot and kill other people without being put through the legal system to account for their actions is puzzling, to say the least.

This statement is complete nonsense. I never stated or implied any such thing.

 

[Unabogie]

It is entirely possible Zimmerman did nothing wrong. However, no judge examined the exculpatory evidence, and Corey says she is not required to put it in the probable cause affidavit. That means there are no checks and balances in Florida for what she does. Once an innocent person is in the belly of the beast for murder 2, it is hard to come out without either being convicted or scared into pleading guilty to a lesser charge to avoid taking a chance on getting life in prison.

I thought only grade school kids did the mockingbird thing. Guess I was wrong about that. Oh well, live and learn...

You brought it on yourself by a) Godwin-ing the thread, and b) making such a hamfisted appeal to emotion. Zimmerman killed someone. And that person was unarmed and had every right to be where he was. The inconvenience of having to justify a KILLING doesn't seem to be egregious in any way. I'd hope this is the standard for everyone. You kill, you have to justify why in court.

Seems pretty reasonable to me and hardly analogous to some sort of tyrannical dystopia.

 

[AlBell]

In North Korea, (or Nazi Germany, since you want to Godwin the thread) you have a justice system in which you get imprisoned when not doing anything wrong.

George Zimmerman shot and killed another human being.

The fact that you can't see the difference is puzzling, to say the least.

And prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich. Now we'll see how they do with guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not a worry in places like NK or China.

 

[Unabogie]

And prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich. Now we'll see how they do with guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not a worry in places like NK or China.

Great! Let's hear his justification, just for ***** and giggles then. Do you also feel that asking him to justify why he shot an unarmed person, in court, with witnesses, is too much to ask?

Or do you think we should just take people's word for it when they claim self defense? Because I find that an odd standard and one I doubt you'd apply equally to other people or other crimes.

 

[GWCarver]

You brought it on yourself by a) Godwin-ing the thread, and b) making such a hamfisted appeal to emotion. Zimmerman killed someone. And that person was unarmed and had every right to be where he was. The inconvenience of having to justify a KILLING doesn't seem to be egregious in any way. I'd hope this is the standard for everyone. You kill, you have to justify why in court.

Seems pretty reasonable to me and hardly analogous to some sort of tyrannical dystopia.

Your words, your choice, your straw man. Neither you or Johnny Karate are talking about the same thing I am, and I don't know what a "Godwin" is and don't care.

I am talking about problems with due process in Florida, and ya'll are talking about whatever you feel like. Florida is the most corrupt state, you know...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ntry_n_1577571.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

 

[LTC8K6]

I think if they had gone to a GJ with this, it would have been much better, whichever way it came out.

Either way, critics would be much more subdued.

 

[LTC8K6]

Great! Let's hear his justification, just for ***** and giggles then. Do you also feel that asking him to justify why he shot an unarmed person, in court, with witnesses, is too much to ask?

Or do you think we should just take people's word for it when they claim self defense? Because I find that an odd standard and one I doubt you'd apply equally to other people or other crimes.

GZ doesn't have to answer...a higher power thinks it's too much to ask...

 

[johnny karate]

This statement is complete nonsense. I never stated or implied any such thing.

Nor did I state or imply that I condoned Corey's actions. Don't you hate it when someone puts words in your mouth?

Your words, your choice, your straw man. Neither you or Johnny Karate are talking about the same thing I am, and I don't know what a "Godwin" is and don't care.

I am talking about problems with due process in Florida, and ya'll are talking about whatever you feel like. Florida is the most corrupt state, you know...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ntry_n_1577571.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

In what way is Zimmerman not getting due process? Please be specific.

 

[AlBell]

Great! Let's hear his justification, just for ***** and giggles then. Do you also feel that asking him to justify why he shot an unarmed person, in court, with witnesses, is too much to ask?

If he & his lawyers decide a self defense hearing is the way to go, we may. Otherwise last I knew the prosecution has a beyond reasonable doubt problem.

Or do you think we should just take people's word for it when they claim self defense? Because I find that an odd standard and one I doubt you'd apply equally to other people or other crimes.

No I don't. Unfortunately I don't see a Murder 2 conviction here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The injuries exist.

The pictures of GZ don't show all those injuries you claim. The bloody nose seems confirmed by the police report. The two small abrasions on the back of the head are apparent.

You can hit something pretty damn hard multiple times without gross injury to the knuckles or fingers.

By what mechanism would an adult human hand hitting an adult human face create more injury on the face than on the fist? Both are skin and tissue over bone, and both would experience the same amount of force.

The autopsy shows a "1/4 by 1/8 inch abrasion on the left forth finger". The diagram shows the scratch on the base of the ring finger, not on the knuckles. No bruise is noted. Period, end of report on hand injuries. All the word of mouth changes to that description call it on the knuckles, plural, and I've seen it described as bruises. While TM reaches in his left pocket with his left hand in this video everything else he does shows him to be right handed.

Hell, many of us has been in fistfights - your knuckles turn red, hurt like hell for about five minutes or so, then the redness and soreness kind of fades...

And autopsy practitioners know full well what that looks like on a cadaver.

ETA: You do realize that the lack of injury to Martin's hands make Zimmerman's claim stronger, right? It's pretty good evidence against the just a fistfight claim.

You lost me. What, "just a fistfight" claim?

 

[Unabogie]

Your words, your choice, your straw man. Neither you or Johnny Karate are talking about the same thing I am, and I don't know what a "Godwin" is and don't care.

I am talking about problems with due process in Florida, and ya'll are talking about whatever you feel like. Florida is the most corrupt state, you know...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ntry_n_1577571.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

You should look up "Godwin".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies[1][2]) is an observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes some comparison to Hitler and the Nazis.

In your case it was North Korea, but the same rule applies. In no way is a murder charge, after ADMITTING TO SHOOTING SOMEONE, analogous to totalitarianism. You invited a rhetorical slapdown.

 

[Unabogie]

If he & his lawyers decide a self defense hearing is the way to go, we may. Otherwise last I knew the prosecution has a beyond reasonable doubt problem.


No I don't. Unfortunately I don't see a Murder 2 conviction here.

And you may be right. But I don't see why a trial in a courtroom with a jury isn't the proper forum to make that determination.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

You should look up "Godwin".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

In your case it was North Korea, but the same rule applies. In no way is a murder charge, after ADMITTING TO SHOOTING SOMEONE, analogous to totalitarianism. You invited a rhetorical slapdown.

So who are you proposing should give him one? The only slap down I've seen you give is of the type below.

 

[GWCarver]

You should look up "Godwin".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law



In your case it was North Korea, but the same rule applies. In no way is a murder charge, after ADMITTING TO SHOOTING SOMEONE, analogous to totalitarianism. You invited a rhetorical slapdown.

You brought up the Third Reich, not I. That has been verboten in forums for years, so it is something I don't do. Perhaps one day you will catch up.

WRT my views on the lack of due process in this case, they are detailed in my posts at the beginning of this particular discussion. Note that I said this was a legal railroad. I spent some time coming to that conclusion.

 

[LTC8K6]

How did the laceration(s) on the back of GZ's head become only abrasions?

The abrasions are on his forehead.

Both according to the EMT report.

 

[johnny karate]

WRT my views on the lack of due process in this case, they are detailed in my posts at the beginning of this particular discussion. Note that I said this was a legal railroad. I spent some time coming to that conclusion.

So you want people to comb through your previous posts for evidence of your claims? I call shenanigans.

You said there are "problems with due process".

I would like to know the specifics of those "problems".

 

[Giordano]

I had requested a clarification of the stand your ground law, and self-defense, and I appreciate the replies I received.

One more question, still hypothetical because we do not know many specifics of the events on that night: If Martin encountered Zimmerman following him, and Zimmerman began to pull out his gun, did Martin have a right to try to grab the gun, punch Zimmerman, and wrestle with him on the ground in self-defense to try to take the gun away? Remember, one proposed scenario is that Martin only saw Zimmerman as a weird, possibly threatening guy who was following him. Did Zimmerman's status as a private patrol officer give him any extra rights in that encounter, and would he have to have identified himself verbally to Martin to overcome Martin's own right of self defense?

 

[LTC8K6]

One would think TM would mention a gun if he saw one. He's on the phone, so he can speak immediately.