Mock

(05-09-2012, 03:04 PM)IMaDick Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-09-2012, 02:59 PM)Disciple Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-09-2012, 02:27 PM)Kip Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder what would have happened in the same circumstances if Zimmerman hadn't been armed. If the bystander who saw TM on top of GZ had intervened, or if the cops had arrived and saw TM on GZ, they would have found TM with no injuries (at least according to the mortician) and GZ with a cut and bloodied head. What charges would have been filed in that case?

Some might say that GZ wouldn't have followed TM if he hadn't been armed. Possibly. Or he might have. People get fed up with their homes being burglarized. There have been a lot of burglaries in my daughter's neighborhood. One of her neighbor's, a 40-something woman saw two guys trying to kick in another neighbor's door. She yelled and them and chased them down the road where they got into a car with a driver waiting for them. (She got a partial license plate.) Probably not the wisest thing for this woman to do - she's glad she didn't catch up to them (!) - but people are just fed up with this stuff. When the story first came out, I didn't understand GZ not following the 911 dispatcher's direction to stop following the guy. But after reading about all the burglaries in the neighborhood, I understand why he'd want to keep a potential suspect in sight.

Not only was Zimmerman disregarding the 911 Dispatcher's directions, he disregarded the Neighborhood Watch instructions he received from the police.

From Wikipedia:

Sanford Police volunteer program coordinator Wendy Dorival, told the Miami Herald that she met Zimmerman in September, 2011 at a community neighborhood watch presentation. Dorival stated that she gave a warning to participants at the presentation: “I said, ‘If it’s someone you don’t recognize, call us. We’ll figure it out,’ ” Dorival said. “‘Observe from a safe location."

Actually, Kip, my initial reaction to your question took off in an entirely different direction from what you posted.

My thought was, if Zimmerman had been unarmed?

They would both still be alive.

Please tell me in your experiance where would have been a safe location to observe from?

Dick, I have no experience in this area, so I can't answer your question.

I will note, however, that this would have been a DAMNED good question for Zimmerman to have asked the Neighborhood Watch Coordinator.

(05-09-2012, 02:59 PM)Disciple Wrote: [ -> ]....Not only was Zimmerman disregarding the 911 Dispatcher's directions, he disregarded the Neighborhood Watch instructions he received from the police.
....
Actually, Kip, my initial reaction to your question took off in an entirely different direction from what you posted.

My thought was, if Zimmerman had been unarmed?

They would both still be alive.

Possibly both alive. Would depend on how many times GZ's head was slammed into the ground. But, I agree, they very likely would both be alive.

And, yes, GZ disregarded instructions. That's not breaking the law, and I understand his motivation.

In the example I gave about my daughter's neighborhood, it's like GZ's neighborhood. There have been a rash of burglaries, then you see somebody lurking around and call the cops and the guys are always gone by the time the cops arrive. If my daughter's neighbor had called 911, she would have been told not to follow these guys (it would have been good advice for her own safety). She, in fact, thinks she was stupid to have done what she did; she acted instinctively. She fortunately wasn't injured and her actions resulted in arrests and the recovery of a lot of stolen property.

When I first read about the killing of TM, I was ready to convict GZ and give him the DP. But as more information has come out, it's turned into a very complex case.

(05-09-2012, 01:26 PM)Lady Cop Wrote: [ -> ]Disciple: BTW: here in leftist NY, the Judge, when charging the jury, will charge them on nullification if asked.


in a nutshell, what are the jury instructions on nullification in NY?

Lady Cop, I confess.

I erred.

The Judge will not instruct the jury in nullification, an attorney friend informs me.

Sneaky defense attorneys hint at it, plant the seed and hope it takes root.

So, what do I do now?

Throw myself on the mercy of LAW ENFORCEMENT?

Oxymoron of the highest degree.

(05-09-2012, 03:04 PM)IMaDick Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-09-2012, 02:59 PM)Disciple Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-09-2012, 02:27 PM)Kip Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder what would have happened in the same circumstances if Zimmerman hadn't been armed. If the bystander who saw TM on top of GZ had intervened, or if the cops had arrived and saw TM on GZ, they would have found TM with no injuries (at least according to the mortician) and GZ with a cut and bloodied head. What charges would have been filed in that case?

Some might say that GZ wouldn't have followed TM if he hadn't been armed. Possibly. Or he might have. People get fed up with their homes being burglarized. There have been a lot of burglaries in my daughter's neighborhood. One of her neighbor's, a 40-something woman saw two guys trying to kick in another neighbor's door. She yelled and them and chased them down the road where they got into a car with a driver waiting for them. (She got a partial license plate.) Probably not the wisest thing for this woman to do - she's glad she didn't catch up to them (!) - but people are just fed up with this stuff. When the story first came out, I didn't understand GZ not following the 911 dispatcher's direction to stop following the guy. But after reading about all the burglaries in the neighborhood, I understand why he'd want to keep a potential suspect in sight.

Not only was Zimmerman disregarding the 911 Dispatcher's directions, he disregarded the Neighborhood Watch instructions he received from the police.

From Wikipedia:

Sanford Police volunteer program coordinator Wendy Dorival, told the Miami Herald that she met Zimmerman in September, 2011 at a community neighborhood watch presentation. Dorival stated that she gave a warning to participants at the presentation: “I said, ‘If it’s someone you don’t recognize, call us. We’ll figure it out,’ ” Dorival said. “‘Observe from a safe location."

Actually, Kip, my initial reaction to your question took off in an entirely different direction from what you posted.

My thought was, if Zimmerman had been unarmed?

They would both still be alive.

Please tell me in your experience where would have been a safe location to observe from?

The first place that comes to mind would be in the Vehicle he got out of, the one he was in when the 911 operator told him not to chace the 200 lb spook

I'm sorry, Disciple, I don't know what that last sentence means. Help me out.

Yes, I was implying that about New York and any other place that expects victims to retreat. While someone may choose to retreat, out of fear, not everyone will, nor should they. I think of the many instances of women being advised to kick a guy in the nads and fight back, in an assault. I guess NY would arrest HER. It's completely up to each individual to gage the danger they're in and if they feel comfortable fighting back or if their life depends on it. The retreat bullshit puts a burden on the victim! I have no doubt, whatsoever, that the left would love to see the entire US brought under laws like they have in the UK where crime victims go to prison for defending their own lives.

What I mean about the People having the final say is that government and the legal system are inferior to the People. They are created to serve us, not the other way around. I will certainly grant you that that has been turned on it's head. I'm really talking about ideally, in the sense of what of what the framers created. Obviously, over a couple of hundred years, things have changed. That doesn't mean that I accept that change. In fact, I think most of it is downright criminal. You must know that there is a constant struggle between people of different ideologies. I'm a strict constructionist and see the role of government and law as our framers did. They even saw a difference between "legal" and "lawful", the latter having having to do with natural law and a higher authority and the former being a system of written law, subject to extreme corruption. I mean, you know that the US congress has passed all kinds of laws that fly in the face of the constitution. The PATRIOT Act, the NDAA, etc. When the criminals are in charge, they always write laws to protect themselves. That criminal establishment, all of whom took oaths to uphold and defend the constitution and daily violate that oath, wants America disarmed. And, yes, they will push that agenda as far as they think they can get away with it. Look at the article I just posted. There is nothing more basic to your liberty than the right to defend your own life (which I feel Trayvon was doing, btw). That anyone would be legally required to retreat from an assailant isn't just stupid but it's evil. It's a fundamental violation of a natural right.

I want to stress, again, that I only said I would be reluctant to convict Zimmerman because of the bad actors trying to use this case to violate MY rights. I'm really sympathetic to Trayvon and I think he had every right to kick Zimmerman's ass. BTW, retreat laws like NY has would criminalize Trayvon for defending himself from a crazy stalker.

The bottom line is that the law should make common sense. Anything that runs counter to that is unjust. It's as simple as that.

Just typing this to you gets me very pissed about Zimmerman and these political assholes that have used the unjust death of an innocent person to try and attack the rights of all Americans. That is extremely convoluted. If we ever have another revolution, I hope those bastards are the first to get 'justice'. If history is any indication, it will come to that and THAT is why our framers gave us the second amendment.

Really appreciate your well thought out posts, Disciple.

Oh, I want to add this about a line from the article:

"'Shoot-first' laws have already cost too many lives. In Florida alone, deaths due to self-defense have tripled since the law was enacted. Federal money shouldn't be spent supporting states with laws that endanger their own people," said Reps. Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the two Democrats who are offering the legislation.

Those two Democrats represent two ethnic groups who have statistically higher percentages of criminals. Do you think that's just a coincidence?! Fuck no, it's not.

(05-09-2012, 06:38 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-09-2012, 03:04 PM)IMaDick Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-09-2012, 02:59 PM)Disciple Wrote: [ -> ]Not only was Zimmerman disregarding the 911 Dispatcher's directions, he disregarded the Neighborhood Watch instructions he received from the police.

Sanford Police volunteer program coordinator Wendy Dorival, told the Miami Herald that she met Zimmerman in September, 2011 at a community neighborhood watch presentation. Dorival stated that she gave a warning to participants at the presentation: “I said, ‘If it’s someone you don’t recognize, call us. We’ll figure it out,’ ” Dorival said. “‘Observe from a safe location."

Please tell me in your experience where would have been a safe location to observe from?

The first place that comes to mind would be in the Vehicle he got out of, the one he was in when the 911 operator told him not to chace (sp) the 200 (150) lb spook (coon/punk)

In order to do that, Zimmerman would have had to turn around, drive back toward the front gate passed the mailboxes and the Clubhouse, make a left before he got to the gate and continued on in his vehicle toward the back gate, loosing those precious 90 seconds that it took Zimmerman to follow on foot, meet up with the suspect, and shoot him dead.

(05-09-2012, 03:50 PM)Kip Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-09-2012, 02:59 PM)Disciple Wrote: [ -> ]....Not only was Zimmerman disregarding the 911 Dispatcher's directions, he disregarded the Neighborhood Watch instructions he received from the police.
....
Actually, Kip, my initial reaction to your question took off in an entirely different direction from what you posted.

My thought was, if Zimmerman had been unarmed?

They would both still be alive.

Possibly both alive. Would depend on how many times GZ's head was slammed into the ground. But, I agree, they very likely would both be alive.

And, yes, GZ disregarded instructions. That's not breaking the law, and I understand his motivation.

In the example I gave about my daughter's neighborhood, it's like GZ's neighborhood. There have been a rash of burglaries, then you see somebody lurking around and call the cops and the guys are always gone by the time the cops arrive. If my daughter's neighbor had called 911, she would have been told not to follow these guys (it would have been good advice for her own safety). She, in fact, thinks she was stupid to have done what she did; she acted instinctively. She fortunately wasn't injured and her actions resulted in arrests and the recovery of a lot of stolen property.

When I first read about the killing of TM, I was ready to convict GZ and give him the DP. But as more information has come out, it's turned into a very complex case.

We can agree that Zimmerman ignored two sets of instructions, one about how to conduct himself as a Neighborhood Watch Officer in general and one about how to conduct himself with respect to Martin.

We can also agree that his actions were not illegal.

But shall we now consider WHY he was told what he was told?

Because following someone - anyone - so closely that the suspect/ultimate homicide victim asked him why he (Z) was following him (M) WAS SIMPLY NOT HIS JOB.

THAT is what we have law enforcement for: trained and paid to take risks, rely upon experience and judgment, handle things professionally and to protect the community.

What do you think the 911 Dispatcher would have said if he had known that Zimmerman was armed? I doubt that the instructions would have changed. More like amplified and put into unambiguous plain English: "Stay away from him before someone gets hurt. We'll handle this."

Ilegal? No.

Criminally stupid? Absolutely.

Common sense is many things. Unfortunately, it is not common.

(05-09-2012, 07:10 PM)shitstorm Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sorry, Disciple, I don't know what that last sentence means. Help me out.

Yes, I was implying that about New York and any other place that expects victims to retreat. While someone may choose to retreat, out of fear, not everyone will, nor should they. I think of the many instances of women being advised to kick a guy in the nads and fight back, in an assault. I guess NY would arrest HER. It's completely up to each individual to gage the danger they're in and if they feel comfortable fighting back or if their life depends on it. The retreat bullshit puts a burden on the victim! I have no doubt, whatsoever, that the left would love to see the entire US brought under laws like they have in the UK where crime victims go to prison for defending their own lives.

What I mean about the People having the final say is that government and the legal system are inferior to the People. They are created to serve us, not the other way around. I will certainly grant you that that has been turned on it's head. I'm really talking about ideally, in the sense of what of what the framers created. Obviously, over a couple of hundred years, things have changed. That doesn't mean that I accept that change. In fact, I think most of it is downright criminal. You must know that there is a constant struggle between people of different ideologies. I'm a strict constructionist and see the role of government and law as our framers did. They even saw a difference between "legal" and "lawful", the latter having having to do with natural law and a higher authority and the former being a system of written law, subject to extreme corruption. I mean, you know that the US congress has passed all kinds of laws that fly in the face of the constitution. The PATRIOT Act, the NDAA, etc. When the criminals are in charge, they always write laws to protect themselves. That criminal establishment, all of whom took oaths to uphold and defend the constitution and daily violate that oath, wants America disarmed. And, yes, they will push that agenda as far as they think they can get away with it. Look at the article I just posted. There is nothing more basic to your liberty than the right to defend your own life (which I feel Trayvon was doing, btw). That anyone would be legally required to retreat from an assailant isn't just stupid but it's evil. It's a fundamental violation of a natural right.

I want to stress, again, that I only said I would be reluctant to convict Zimmerman because of the bad actors trying to use this case to violate MY rights. I'm really sympathetic to Trayvon and I think he had every right to kick Zimmerman's ass. BTW, retreat laws like NY has would criminalize Trayvon for defending himself from a crazy stalker.

The bottom line is that the law should make common sense. Anything that runs counter to that is unjust. It's as simple as that.

Just typing this to you gets me very pissed about Zimmerman and these political assholes that have used the unjust death of an innocent person to try and attack the rights of all Americans. That is extremely convoluted. If we ever have another revolution, I hope those bastards are the first to get 'justice'. If history is any indication, it will come to that and THAT is why our framers gave us the second amendment.

Really appreciate your well thought out posts, Disciple.

Shitstorm, the more you write and explain, the better I understand you.

As I believe I said (if not, I should have), the duty is to ATTEMPT to retreat. Obviously, it is not always practical. The law does not require you to suffer injury - simply to TRY to extradite yourself. The law is written this way to distinguish between self defense and "mutually agreed upon combat". All other things being equal (such as two survivors), the one who doesn't get arrested is the one who says "I told him I didn't want to fight. I tried to get away but he attacked me. That's why he's lying there in a bloody puddle."

I agree its likely that Martin was merely attempting to defend himself. HE wasn't stalking anyone. If I had been in his shoes, I'd have ripped Zimmerman's arm off and beaten him with it until he offered no further resistance. Zimmerman was Neighborhood Watch. Nobody whose authority I (or, I would argue, Martin) had any obligation to acknowledge.

[Kip, IMHO, it doesn't matter how many times Martin smashed Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk. The answer to the "who was the aggressor" question is the same as "who was following whom and who had the right to feel threatened".]

I disagree with those who hold to strict constuctionism. The Constituion of the United States is a living, breathing document that is meant to be consulted centuries after it was written. Myself, I am a social progressive and staunch defender of civil liberties. Also, I believe that Govermnment is too big and expanding its powers to our detriment daily. People who say that Government is too big but that there should be laws about what consenting adults can and cannot do are simply schizophrenic, in my view.

That being said, I agree with your assessment of where the country stands today. Do people realize that the Patriot Act had been bound together in one package mere HOURS before the vote was held and that NOBODY, I MEAN NOBODY, knew what was in it (except the masterminds) when it was voted upon and passed with great acclaim and fanfare? Like pigs celebrating the barbeque.

Grounds for Impeachment and Recall, IMHO.

I also agree with your assessment that our Founding Fathers would have looked upon our current state of affairs with great dismay. I believe it possible, if not likely, that there would be a call for a Second American Revolution. Make no mistake. Unless the Powers That Be allow change to occur peacefully (which means: 1. Them giving up power - not very likely unless they are staring down the barrels of an armed populace or 2. The Peaceful Revolution already at work becoming more effective [here I note the blind fools who laugh at the Wall Street Movement - how foolish did the Boston Tea Party seem to the British and their running dogs?] ) there WILL be another Revolution. Probably Worldwide. Perhaps in my lifetime.

Now that I understand what you meant by the "People", I wholeheartedly agree. People who have not read J.J. Rouseau's "The Social Contract" should do so - it is the basis of Western democracy - a contract of rights and responsibilities of both the government and the governed, who voluntarily empower the goverment to act on our collective behalf. However, appealing to the people is not a practical solution to immediate problems since we/they have so far to go to get mobilized. I appreciate an idealist, though, Shitstorm.

Lastly, I thank you for your compliment. See you on the barricades.

And to all a good night.

(05-09-2012, 10:06 PM)Lady Cop Wrote: [ -> ]Disciple: THAT is what we have law enforcement for: trained and paid to take risks, rely upon experience and judgment, handle things professionally and to protect the community.

What do you think the 911 Dispatcher would have said if he had known that Zimmerman was armed? I doubt that the instructions would have changed. More like amplified and put into unambiguous plain English: "Stay away from him before someone gets hurt. We'll handle this."


HOLY SHIT, WE AGREE??

What can I say?

When you're not wrong (for a change), you're not wrong, Boss Lady.

(05-09-2012, 10:06 PM)Lady Cop Wrote: [ -> ]Disciple: THAT is what we have law enforcement for: trained and paid to take risks, rely upon experience and judgment, handle things professionally and to protect the community.

What do you think the 911 Dispatcher would have said if he had known that Zimmerman was armed? I doubt that the instructions would have changed. More like amplified and put into unambiguous plain English: "Stay away from him before someone gets hurt. We'll handle this."


HOLY SHIT, WE AGREE??

Besides, to whom else could we turn to handle unruly 6 year old girls and other such desperados?

(05-09-2012, 10:52 PM)Disciple Wrote: [ -> ]And to all a good night.

Santa? Is that you?

wow

http://mockforums.net/thread-7939.html

when pigs fly!!


SANFORD, Fla. —

WFTV has learned charges against George Zimmerman could be getting more serious.

State prosecutors said Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman, profiled and stalked 17-year-old Trayvon Martin before killing him, so the FBI is now looking into charging him with a hate crime.

Zimmerman admitted to killing Martin in February during a confrontation. However, he claims the shooting was in self-defense. He's facing a second-degree murder charge, which carries a maximum possible sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. But if Zimmerman is charged and found guilty of a federal hate crime involving murder, he could face the death penalty.

LC, we won't likely get to read the details of Trayvon's autopsy report until trial, right?

LC, how much credence do you give that report?

I was in an accident once and other people in the car had a harebrained idea to sue. I briefly met with a doctor who was willing to state how horrible my injuries were (spinal etc.). I didn't go through with it but it showed me how corrupt and dishonest doctors can be in that regard.