Forum Index » Chaff » Zimmerman?


Display Avatars Sort By:
jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Zimmerman? on 07/17/2013 08:47:01 MDT Print View

Nobody has an opinion about Zimmerman?

I agree with verdict, can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that he committed crime, although I would have voted for manslaughter.

What it does show, is that the solution to crime isn't "good guys with guns".

I want the gun toters to be well trained, like the police, so innocent kids aren't killed on the way home from the store.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
My first instinct was to not feed the troll, but what the heck! Chaff, right? on 07/17/2013 09:45:08 MDT Print View

I agree that the verdict was correct in that I doubt that murder could have possibly been proven. I'll go further and say that I doubt that manslaughter could have been proven, too. I even suspect that Martin's family will lose the wrongful-death suit. This is why the police never initially arrested Zimmerman (though they detained and interrogated him for five or six hours)- because they knew this was a losing case. They and the prosecutor are allowed to make that call. But instead they were pressured into prosecuting when it was very clear to almost everyone involved that it was a waste of taxpayer money. I mean, heck, the lead detective resigned and asked to be reassigned to patrol duty (!) because he felt that prosecuting with as little evidence as they had was so ridiculous and was only being done because of political pressure.

As for what actually happened? Clearly we will never know. Heck, Zimmerman might even be (*gasp!*) telling the truth. That's sort of the nature of reasonable doubt.

Zimmerman's story (and we clearly don't have Martin's side of things, but that alone does not prove wrongdoing on Zimmerman's part) is self-defense. People try make a lot of his continuing to follow Martin after his conversation with the police dispatcher, but in fact the dispatcher did NOT tell him not to follow. They said "you don't have to do that". Zimmerman then says that he lost sight of Martin, anyway, and tried to return to his car. Following someone isn't criminal, and would not excuse his being attacked. On the way back to his car Zimmerman claims that Martin approached him from behind and did exactly that- attacked him, after challenging him. Several witnesses (with one dissenting) testified that they saw Martin standing over a supine Zimmerman, and a few specified that Martin was beating him. Zimmerman did have injuries to his face and the back of his head. Zimmerman says that he then shot Martin while fearing for his life- which is not beyond reason if his story of being attacked and knocked down is true, given that Martin was an athletic 5'11" and 160-lbs while Zimmerman was a clinically obese 5'7" and 200 pounds. Martin's only injury was the single gunshot wound and a skinned pinky finger- he was not nearly as beaten up as Zimmerman. The medical examiner testified that Martin's wound was most consistent with being shot while looming over his shooter.

All of Zimmerman's testimony fit the evidence and was consistent from the first moment he spoke to the police. That adds up to at least reasonable doubt, since self-defense is a viable affirmative defense to murder and/or manslaughter. Ergo, I'm agreeing that the verdict was probably "correct." True is a different matter- who can know? Given what very little we know of the character of the individuals involved I think that one can reasonably believe any number of proposed scenarios, with either or both of them in the wrong. Zimmerman is a somewhat looney cop-wannabe and Martin was clearly not a lily-white choir-boy as his family and the media tried to present him. Both had histories of aggressive behavior, albeit tenuous in both cases.

Granted, it's very hard to wrap your brain about ANY emotional legal case when your only source is the media. We (the public who are being so vocal about this case) really have little idea what evidence was presented to the jury and how it was presented. I guess that's why we ostensibly don't try cases in the media. After all, this is the media that kept showing clearly biased photos of both men and falsified the police dispatch recording to make Zimmerman sound like a racist, undoubtedly because that would make for a juicier story that would sell more eyeballs.

Don't get me started on my loathing of the fourth estate. They are lucky that they are so important for a free society.

Edited by acrosome on 07/17/2013 12:03:15 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: My first instinct was to not feed the troll, but what the heck! Chaff, right? on 07/17/2013 10:27:01 MDT Print View

I thought the 911 operator said "we don't need you to do that", but it could have been immediately before Martin hit him.

Zimmerman should have stayed in car.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
slate on 07/17/2013 11:02:44 MDT Print View

"His death wasn’t about race, guns, or your pet issue. It was about misjudgment and overreaction—exactly what we’re doing now to the verdict."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecution_and_other_overreactions.html

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: My first instinct was to not feed the troll, but what the heck! Chaff, right? on 07/17/2013 11:43:30 MDT Print View

Yes, if he had any sense he would have stayed in the car- but because following someone that you already suspect is Up To No Good is dangerous, not because it is immoral, illegal, or provocative. Foolish, but not those things.

Which actually brings up the only valid area of debate in this whole case, IMO. To whit- what constitutes "provoking a fight"?

Because clearly, if you carry a gun then you necessarily impose a somewhat higher standard of behavior upon yourself, both legally and morally.

For instance, if someone is carrying a gun and starts a fistfight with someone else, then proceeds to lose the fight and starts getting severely beaten, but then pulls out the gun and shoots the other party, well, clearly he cannot claim self-defense. He started the fight.

So, is following someone tantamount to provoking a fight?

At least the way the Zimmerman describes the events of that night- and remember that witnesses and evidence at least don't refute his version- I don't think it would be. But in slightly different circumstances it very well could be. His actions were foolish- no doubt- but probably not criminal. That's why we have juries. Thus, as I said, "correct" verdict.

EDIT-- That link is GREAT, Dave. Especially when the reporter says "I almost joined the frenzy... [But then] I sat down and watched the closing arguments: nearly seven hours of video..." (A great example of what journalists are capable of in the rare instances that they actually look up some facts.) Then it well lays out much of what I just said- Zimmerman was foolish, but not convictable.

Edited by acrosome on 07/17/2013 12:04:55 MDT.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Zimmerman on 07/17/2013 11:44:21 MDT Print View

Agreed that Zimmerman does not have the personality, maturity, etc etc to play the neighborhood Cherub of Justice. He presumably has no training in how to deescalate a volatile situation; in all likelihood the only reason the situation was volatile in the first place was probably because Zimmerman made it that way.

I'm sure Traavon is no angel but Zimmerman was the one with the gun and Traavon wasn't.

The jury is given very specific instructions to determine what the elements of the various crimes are. For purposes of man slaughter, they were also (presumably) given instructions on how to determine if the prosecution could prove beyond a reasonable doubt if Zimmerman's actions met the threshold of reckless, negligent, etc.

This was a difficult case to prove especially with the key witness being dead.

Bottom line is that there are too many holes in this case to make an informed armchair quarterback opinion of it but it was still very sad, tragic, and avoidable.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Zimmerman on 07/17/2013 11:52:24 MDT Print View

"Bottom line is that there are too many holes in this case to make an informed armchair quarterback opinion of it but it was still very sad, tragic, and avoidable."

Last night my 17 year old daughter said just that. She was able to express her sadness, the possibility of injustice even though due process seems to have occurred. She commented on how many people are convinced either way and know so little.
All and all it was a sad and discouraging conversation but I am proud of her.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Re: Zimmerman? on 07/17/2013 12:16:19 MDT Print View

"I want the gun toters to be well trained, like the police, so innocent kids aren't killed on the way home from the store."

To unpack that statement, what would a policeperson have done in a similar situation? Seems like at each step of the way
different choices would have different outcomes. At the point of altercation I don't know if a police trained person would have acted differently.

Things I learned as a teen, part of the boy code..

You don't enter a fight with a weapon in your pocket.
When you have someone on the ground, you stop fighting.
Otherwise you will be acting criminally.
Of course as an adult, your are given much less legal leeway.

Cultural differences likely came into play, and the culture of my youth has changed in regards to fisticuffs and assault.

Edited by oware on 07/17/2013 12:30:37 MDT.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Zimmerman on 07/17/2013 12:31:31 MDT Print View

"To unpack that statement, what would a policeperson have done in a similar situation? Seems like at each step of the way
different choices would have different outcomes. At the point of altercation I don't know if a police trained person would have acted differently."

To me the case would hinge on this. Did Traavon behave in a way to give an officer reasonable suspicion (below that of probable cause) that a crime had transpired which would justify stopping him? Was Zimmerman behaving belligerently in such a way to goad Traavon into a fight? Too many unknowns and for the most part, only Zimmerman's word to go by.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Zimmerman on 07/17/2013 14:17:10 MDT Print View

Thanks for the link Dave, that was a great piece. Unfortunately, many of the commenters to it obviously just don't get it. Kinda like what happens on BPL sometimes.

I think one thing worth discussing/pondering is if Zimmerman would have ever gotten out of his car and followed Martin if Zimmerman hadn't had a gun.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Zimmerman on 07/18/2013 22:55:24 MDT Print View

"Too many unknowns and for the most part, only Zimmerman's word to go by."

Which equals reasonable doubt. What I said.

This is why- as heartless as this sounds- but if you are put in the unfortunate position where you are forced to shoot someone you are in a FAR better legal position if you kill them than if you wound them. If you kill them then they don't get to make up some story about how it was all your fault, get YOU thrown in jail, and then sue you. Numerous use-of-force experts have said this. Their family can still sue you, but again their case is more difficult. (To be clear- I'm not advocating "finishing off" someone who has stopped being an active threat. There is a technical word for that- murder.)

Of course this works the other way around. If you kill someone for non-justifiable reasons then they can't refute the false story that YOU cook up.

That's sort of the crux of this case. Which version was it? Just because Martin died and can't give his side, that doesn't mean that he's a victim. And just because Zimmerman claimed he was attacked doesn't mean HE was the victim and within his rights to defend himself lethally. None of the rest of us will ever know with any certainty- that's just the nature of cases such as this- and anyone who claims otherwise clearly has an agenda of some sort. (Like all of the more rabid folks still calling Zimmerman a "child murderer.")

Reasonable doubt.

Edited by acrosome on 07/18/2013 23:17:40 MDT.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Zimmerman on 07/18/2013 23:31:15 MDT Print View

"Which equals reasonable doubt. What I said"

I wasn't arguing with you Dean. Just sharing my thoughts.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Zimmerman on 07/19/2013 07:31:41 MDT Print View

+1 Dean

but, the crux of the case is I want the people carrying guns to be trained police. Don't "profile" innocent kids coming home from store. If you have to stop and question him you know how to constrain the person without having to shoot him.

not that it should be illegal for Zimmerman to carry gun, just lots of public education that people shouldn't take law into their own hands

I think Zimmerman's life is probably ruined, even though he was found not guilty, sort of like O.J. Let that be a lesson to people that want to shoot people.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Speech on 07/19/2013 18:45:15 MDT Print View

I found the President's speech very relevant and quite powerful.
I think he addressed "the crux", Jerry.

Edited by Kat_P on 07/19/2013 19:19:54 MDT.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Re: Re: Re: Zimmerman on 07/19/2013 19:26:23 MDT Print View

"but, the crux of the case is I want the people carrying guns to be trained police. Don't "profile" innocent kids coming home from store. If you have to stop and question him you know how to constrain the person without having to shoot him.

not that it should be illegal for Zimmerman to carry gun, just lots of public education that people shouldn't take law into their own hands

I think Zimmerman's life is probably ruined, even though he was found not guilty, sort of like O.J. Let that be a lesson to people that want to shoot people."

You assume a lot and none of it was found to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. The verdict points to a kid in the process of commiting aggravated assault, potentially attempted murder, being shot by someone who probably should have been minding his own business.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Zimmerman on 07/19/2013 20:11:51 MDT Print View

You're the one assuming - that verdict "points to a kid in process of committing aggravated assault...". We will never know what actually happened.

Why did Zimmerman get out of his car with his gun? To determine where Martin went? I think neighborhood watch people should stay in their house or car, call police, and let them aprehend the possible criminal.

And I don't think there's any question this is a tragedy for Zimmerman. His lawyer saying he's in hiding because of death threats. Said that Zimmerman will probably never be able to work or anything because of the notoriety.

If you could have it done over again would you recommend to Zimmerman go ahaed and do what he did, or would you tell him to stay in his car?

spelt !
(spelt) - F

Locale: SW/C PA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Zimmerman on 07/20/2013 08:40:46 MDT Print View

Ha, tragedy.

I hope he is looking over his shoulder every waking moment for the rest of of his miserable life.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Zimmerman on 07/20/2013 15:29:47 MDT Print View

"If you could have it done over again would you recommend to Zimmerman go ahaed and do what he did, or would you tell him to stay in his car?"

What did I say previously?

A culture of "ground and pound" meets gun culture. Both sides lose. Wonder if the president ever practiced MMA on the streets?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Zimmerman on 07/20/2013 15:48:56 MDT Print View

Policemen are trained to control the suspect without having to shoot him.

Was Trevon a trained MMA person?

Jeff M.
(Catalyst)

Locale: Costa Mesa, CA
Re: Zimmerman? on 07/20/2013 21:00:37 MDT Print View

"I agree with verdict, can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that he committed crime, although I would have voted for manslaughter."

Jerry, not sure I understand that statement. Are you saying you would have voted guilty for manslaughter even though it couldn't have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt or that murder couldn't be proven, but you think there was enough evidence of manslaughter and you would have voted for that?

For my part, I think the scariest part of the case is what happened in the media. It's already been said but no one but Zimmerman knows what happened. We don't know if Trayvon was an innocent kid, or some punk kid who got more than he bargained for. We don't know if Zimmerman acted in self defense or murdered the kid. The evidence appears to back up his story, but we just don't know and never will. Just too many unknowns. I'm tired of hearing about all the outrage regarding the verdict in the news.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Zimmerman? on 07/20/2013 21:40:23 MDT Print View

Not that it matters, but if I was on the jury I would have voted for manslaughter, but I accept that the jury concluded it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt. That one juror said that initially, 2 of the 6 thought he was guilty of manslaughter and another thought he was guilty of 2nd degree murder so I think it was a close call.

Zimmerman told the 911 operator that Trevon was a criminal and Zimmerman wouldn't let him get away with it. Zimmerman got out of the car to follow Trevon. This was reckless in my opinion and as a result Trevon was killed, thus guilty of manslaughter.

Trevon was walking home from the store. He had smoked marijuana, had some problems in school, etc, but no evidence that he was committing any crime like breaking into a house. He was between the store and his house and had stuff with him that he bought at the store.

Some creep was following him in a car and got out. Trevon should have run away, not hit Zimmerman. That confuses things.

I think for 2nd degree murder, Zimmerman would have had to intend to kill Trevon, but I think he just intended to aprehend him, so not guilty of this.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Re: Re: Zimmerman? on 07/20/2013 22:16:23 MDT Print View

"Zimmerman told the 911 operator that Trevon was a criminal and Zimmerman wouldn't let him get away with it."

Perhaps you should read the transcript of the 911 call instead of some left leaning writer's take on the transcript.

And Jerry, did you watch all of the trial, every second of it? Because that's the only way you could form an educated opinion on how you would have voted, unless you made up your mind before the trial even started.....

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Zimmerman? on 07/20/2013 22:45:56 MDT Print View

No, I only watched a little

Mostly I heard the mainstream media accounts because it was so saturated

If I made up my mind before hand from liberal sources I would think Zimmerman was a racist and guilty of 2nd degree murder : )

Okay, I listened to the transcript. He said things like Trevon was up to no good, suspicious looking. Something about criminals getting away with it. 911 told him they didn't need Zimmerman to follow him. Zimmerman was breathing hard so he must have gotten out of his car looking for Trevon while he was talking to 911. There was more than a minute after 911 told Zimmerman they didn't need Zimmerman to follow Trevon before call ended.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Zimmerman? on 07/20/2013 22:50:53 MDT Print View

There you go with that 'criminal' word again. He never said Martin was a criminal. Words matter.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Zimmerman? on 07/20/2013 23:15:44 MDT Print View

"These assholes, they always get away"

Yeah, words matter : )

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Zimmerman? on 07/21/2013 07:51:17 MDT Print View

They do, Jerry, glad to see you finally got them right. :-)

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Zimmerman? on 07/21/2013 09:03:39 MDT Print View

I forgot, Doug is a secret liberal trying to help me out : )

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Creepy on 07/21/2013 09:28:49 MDT Print View

Kind of like "creepy a$$ cracker"

Two idiots go head to head.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Creepy on 07/21/2013 09:43:02 MDT Print View

There were definitely poor choices by both Zimmerman and Martin. Either of them probably could have prevented this tragedy if either or both of them had made different decisions that night.

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Re: Creepy on 07/21/2013 11:30:04 MDT Print View

For me, it all boils down to why Zimmerman got out of his car and followed him. The 911 operator said "you don't need to do that," as a neighborhood watch guy he didn't need to do that...just call the police and let them handle it.

The definition of manslaughter is if the defendants actions recklessly caused the death of another; Zimmerman never even denied that he got out of his car to follow the kid.

So to me, whether or not I watched the trial...if Zimmerman just left it to the cops like he was supposed to Martin would still be alive.

Not sure what else matters...

By the way, there is a great case in Florida right now where a house burglar shot the homeowner who was coming after him...then claimed stand your ground...that the burglar had a right to defend himself against the aggressor (the homeowner). How is this any different from the Zimmerman case?

Lets just say Zimmerman was defending himself...it he was the one following Martin, wouldn't Martin have a right to defend himself from this "creepy guy" following him in the neighborhood? How was Martin supposed to know that Zimmerman was a good guy? Didn't Martin have the right to defend HIMSELF?

Just asking....

Ryan Smith
(ViolentGreen) - M

Locale: Southeast
Re: Re: Re: Creepy on 07/21/2013 12:18:39 MDT Print View

Those are good questions Jennifer. Ones I don't have great answers to. Just to play devil's advocate though - Does Zimmerman following him justify Martin assaulting Zimmerman? This is assuming Zimmerman did nothing else to provoke it if course. While Zimmerman made a poor decision in following Martin, is it illegal or reckless to do so? I wouldn't think so?

I wish there was a way to know what actually happened. Most folks would embellish the story once the police got involved. I do feel bad for all involved. Poor decisions on both sides led to a tragedy.

Ryan

Edited by ViolentGreen on 07/21/2013 12:27:13 MDT.

Jeff M.
(Catalyst)

Locale: Costa Mesa, CA
Re: Re: Re: Creepy on 07/21/2013 12:22:56 MDT Print View

"The definition of manslaughter is if the defendants actions recklessly caused the death of another; Zimmerman never even denied that he got out of his car to follow the kid."

"Reckelssly" is the key word there and is a higher standard than some might think. His actions weren't close to reckless, in my opinion, legally speaking.


"So to me, whether or not I watched the trial...if Zimmerman just left it to the cops like he was supposed to Martin would still be alive.

Not sure what else matters..."

He was "supposed" to leave it to the cops? Because you think so? Not trying to attack, just pointing out that is your opinion. Putting myself in that situation, I think I probably would have gotten out of the car too. People are making a big deal about him following the kid. If I saw a suspicious person and I was working as neighborhood watch, I'd want to know where he was headed so I could tell the cops. I'd also probably want to get a half decent look at him so I could describe him later in case something happened, especially if there had been break ins in the past. That's just me though.

What I think is more important is whether Martin came up behind Zimmerman and attacked him like he claims. If so, that's why he's dead. If not, Zimmerman's likely a liar and a murderer. But, blaming him because he got out of the car seems a little silly to me. There are other more key actions taken by both of them that likely contributed to the death - it's just hard because no one knows what they are for sure.


"Lets just say Zimmerman was defending himself...it he was the one following Martin, wouldn't Martin have a right to defend himself from this "creepy guy" following him in the neighborhood? How was Martin supposed to know that Zimmerman was a good guy? Didn't Martin have the right to defend HIMSELF?"

Self defense law is all about the specific actions of each person. In one moment a person can gain or lose the right to self defense depending on their actions and the situation. Just following someone doesn't give you the right to attack them. If Zimmerman tried to grab or handle Martin in some way, then I'd say yes.

The other FL case you mention is interesting and a good example showing how self defense law can get tricky.

Edited by Catalyst on 07/21/2013 12:24:28 MDT.

spelt !
(spelt) - F

Locale: SW/C PA
Re: Re: Re: Creepy on 07/21/2013 12:24:07 MDT Print View

I'd love to see some answers too, Jen. What was Martin supposed to do, exactly? For those claiming poor choices were made on both sides* , complete the following sentence:

"In order to stay alive, Trayvon Martin should have _________."

*the exact sort of false equivalency I mentioned in my last foray into Chaff...hopefully I will learn the virtue of choosing my battles sooner rather than later.

Ryan Smith
(ViolentGreen) - M

Locale: Southeast
Re: Re: Re: Re: Creepy on 07/21/2013 12:32:14 MDT Print View

In order to stay alive, Trayvon Martin should not have attacked Zimmerman without provocation. We have to assume he did so since the only witness still living is Zimmerman.

Ryan

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Creepy on 07/21/2013 12:39:33 MDT Print View

"While Zimmerman made a poor decision in following Martin, is it illegal or reckless to do so? I wouldn't think so?"

I think Zimmerman carrying gun, following Martin in car, and getting out of car to follow Martin on foot were together reckless. And his comments to 911 like assholes getting away.

spelt !
(spelt) - F

Locale: SW/C PA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creepy on 07/21/2013 12:39:53 MDT Print View

So to be clear, Trayvon should have submitted himself to a stranger with a gun.

spelt !
(spelt) - F

Locale: SW/C PA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creepy on 07/21/2013 12:42:56 MDT Print View

Also curious why we are under obligation to assume the witness is telling the truth just because he is the alive one of the two. Does that automatically make him credible somehow?

Jeff M.
(Catalyst)

Locale: Costa Mesa, CA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creepy on 07/21/2013 12:43:04 MDT Print View

"So to be clear, Trayvon should have submitted himself to a stranger with a gun."

Was the alternative better? We can probably assume he didn't know Zimmerman even had a gun.

Edited by Catalyst on 07/21/2013 12:44:45 MDT.

spelt !
(spelt) - F

Locale: SW/C PA
Submission on 07/21/2013 12:46:42 MDT Print View

Have you ever seen the chain emails about women can "protect" themselves from rape? The ones that say to carry your keys poking through your fist and be prepared to fight and scream for help? Curious why it is common cultural "wisdom" to expect women to fight back against a potential attacker but that is not the case for a young man.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Creepy on 07/21/2013 12:51:00 MDT Print View

I don't want people with guns identifying suspicious people, getting out of car and following them.

Neighborhood watch people should stay in car or house and call police.

The police should be the ones following suspects.

My opinion is based on this case.

Jeff M.
(Catalyst)

Locale: Costa Mesa, CA
Re: Submission on 07/21/2013 12:51:42 MDT Print View

"Have you ever seen the chain emails about women can "protect" themselves from rape? The ones that say to carry your keys poking through your fist and be prepared to fight and scream for help? Curious why it is common cultural "wisdom" to expect women to fight back against a potential attacker but that is not the case for a young man."

Fighting back is the key word there. I don't think anyone thinks that Martin shouldn't have fought back if he was attacked first.

spelt !
(spelt) - F

Locale: SW/C PA
Neighborhood Watch on 07/21/2013 12:53:46 MDT Print View

Not Neighborhood Follow
Not Neighborhood Attempt to Apprehend
Not Neighborhood Physically Confront

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Submission on 07/21/2013 12:54:14 MDT Print View

If Zimmerman was walking down the street and Martin attacked him, then Zimmerman would have been justified.

The problem is that Zimmerman was following Martin who he falsely suspected of being a criminal.

spelt !
(spelt) - F

Locale: SW/C PA
Re: Re: Submission on 07/21/2013 12:55:13 MDT Print View

Again why is Zimmerman's story credible here? "Because he is alive to tell it," is not a convincing answer.

Jeff M.
(Catalyst)

Locale: Costa Mesa, CA
Re: Re: Creepy on 07/21/2013 12:57:21 MDT Print View

"I don't want people with guns identifying suspicious people, getting out of car and following them.

Neighborhood watch people should stay in car or house and call police.

The police should be the ones following suspects.

My opinion is based on this case."

I'm with you on that. If a neighborhood watch person is going to carry, there needs to be substantial training to prevent situations like this. I don't have a problem with him getting out of the car, but we just feel differently on that.

Ryan Smith
(ViolentGreen) - M

Locale: Southeast
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creepy on 07/21/2013 13:01:09 MDT Print View

Does Zimmerman being alive make him less credible or more credible? Neither of course. But what is the alternative? An investigation found no holes in his story, and from a legal stand point you must have evidence to convict.

There is also no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story about being snuck up on and assaulted. What about following someone justifies assault? Assuming that's all that Zimmerman did. There was no need for "submission" as you say, and if Trayvon knew Zimmerman had a gun you can bet he would not have assaulted him.

@ Jerry - The law does not agree. Poor decisions do not necessarily constitute recklessness. If that was the case, you would see manslaughter charges for car wrecks, etc

P.S.- My thoughts in this discussion come only from the perspective of the trial, legal case, etc. In other words, only what can be proven. I agree that its very possible Zimmerman is a cold blooded murderer.

Ryan

Edited by ViolentGreen on 07/21/2013 13:11:19 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Creepy on 07/21/2013 13:06:51 MDT Print View

"If a neighborhood watch person is going to carry, there needs to be substantial training to prevent situations like this. I don't have a problem with him getting out of the car, but we just feel differently on that."

Maybe a proper training period. I sort of like the training period that police get. Even they get into problems killing people improperly.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
"No $%!+ there I was" on 07/21/2013 13:15:09 MDT Print View

My neighborhood is a couple miles outside of town but located near a highway where someone can make a quick getaway. The neighborhood is built around a small park and playground. We have a neighborhood watch in this community.

Last month, a ~ 25 y/o male who has never been seen here before or since was in the playground and made several attempts to strike up a conversation with the children there. No apparent violation of the law but behaving very suspiciously according to those who saw him.

What would you do in this situation?

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Re: Re: Re: Creepy on 07/21/2013 13:20:03 MDT Print View

""In order to stay alive, Trayvon Martin should have _________.""

Ah, spelt, you talk of false equivalencies, and then want folks who refuse to take sides to answer a loaded question. Sorry, but I won't be dragged into that.

"For those claiming poor choices were made on both sides*"

Well now, since I'm one of them, let's talk a bit about your false equivalencies statement. Saying that each could have made different decisions, and if they had done so, the outcome would probably have been different, is not a false equivalency. I didn't say they were equally responsible for the tragedy. I didn't say their decisions were of equal weight. So, intended or not, you're misusing the term.

I'd reword your sentence to be less loaded, and answer you thus: if Trayvon Martin had called 911 when he was first being followed, he might (MIGHT) still be alive. If Trayvon Martin had continued running back to his father's house, he might still be alive (I can't believe Zimmerman could have kept up with him). I'm sure there are probably other decisions along the timeline of events that could have changed the course of what happened. And, obviously, Zimmerman could (and, in my opinion should) have made different decisions in the timeline of events.

This does not mean I blame Martin for his death - I don't. I blame Zimmerman for Martin's death.

Jeff M.
(Catalyst)

Locale: Costa Mesa, CA
Re: "No $%!+ there I was" on 07/21/2013 13:29:14 MDT Print View

Ian, I was actually in a similar situation. I chose to walk up to the individual and strike up a conversation - typical for parents at a playground. The man turned out to be a nice guy who recently moved into the area. I see him every now and then at the playground. Awkward situation at first though. We both joke about it now.

Edited by Catalyst on 07/21/2013 13:34:44 MDT.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: "No $%!+ there I was" on 07/21/2013 14:01:41 MDT Print View

Jeff, pretty much what happened in my scenario as well.

I introduced myself and politely explained to him what our obvious concerns were. He had a legitimate reason to be in the neighborhood, I apologized for bothering him, and we were both smiling as I walked away. If I would have behaved like I was Billy Badass when I approached him, I doubt that anyone would have been shot but I would have unnecessarily escalated the situation.

Edited by IDBLOOM on 07/21/2013 14:03:54 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creepy on 07/21/2013 14:04:51 MDT Print View

"If Trayvon Martin had continued running back to his father's house, he might still be alive"

I agree. One of the two lessons to be learned. If you start hitting someone it is more likely you will be hurt or killed.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: "No $%!+ there I was" on 07/21/2013 14:10:25 MDT Print View

"Last month, a ~ 25 y/o male who has never been seen here before or since was in the playground and made several attempts to strike up a conversation with the children there. No apparent violation of the law but behaving very suspiciously according to those who saw him.

What would you do in this situation?"

Call police.

Hang around until police arrive.

Maybe start conversation with him but assume he's innocent.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: "No $%!+ there I was" on 07/21/2013 14:22:13 MDT Print View

"Call police.

Hang around until police arrive.

Maybe start conversation with him but assume he's innocent."

Certainly nothing wrong with that. There's also nothing wrong with adults discussing their concerns with each other in a non-hostile and mature way.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re on 07/21/2013 15:00:16 MDT Print View

Innocent until proven guilty.

It boils down to that.
Proven. Not "likely too" " pretty sure" " must have" " I feel strongly" " I am mad/sad there fore...."
Proven.

I would rather there be a system where the guilty occasionally make it out free, than one were more innocent people get convicted just to make sure no guilty ones run free.
That may be the case here, or not, we really do not know.

Should any of us be involved and charged for something, we would all hope to have to be proven guilty . None of us would like a bunch of well meaning(..) , sad and angry folks to make that call.
Too many seem to be making that call here.


When this happens I was very upset and outraged. I am still upset and hold Zimmerman responsible, but my feelings should not be what decide his fate.

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Re on 07/21/2013 15:42:47 MDT Print View

LEGALLY speaking I pretty much agree with the verdict. I don't like it, I think Zimmerman deserves to have his life ruined and to have this hounding him until the day he dies.

But...

I agree that the prosecution blew it, the police blew it, lots of people blew it. There is plenty of reasonable doubt, and massive liberal that I am I do believe that it is better that 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent one be imprisoned. So in this case, yes, because Zimmerman is the only one around to tell his story, and that story is POSSIBLE, then he goes free.

But society doesn't have to welcome him and his awful decisions back with open arms. He never, ever should have gotten out of that car. His MySpace page (since deleted, but you can find bits n pieces around) is full of racist, hateful innuendo, and his comments about "these assholes always get away with it" further demonstrate a man who more than likely got in way over his head. As someone else pointed out earlier, police are trained at de-escalation without resorting to a gun. What about Zimmerman? Pretty sure he wasn't trained that way. A prior protective order against him for domestic violence? Yeah, the guy should not be taking policing matters into his own hands.

Neighborhood WATCH. The signs say "we call police" and nothing about our untrained wild-west gunslingers are going to hunt you down.

And by the way, didn't Martin tell his friend on the phone that some guy was following him and it was making him nervous? I still don't see why Martin didn't have the right to defend himself as well.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Re on 07/21/2013 16:19:11 MDT Print View

I don't think society will welcome him back with open arms; "society" does little of that..
I really think he will not do something like this again, and that, coupled with having to deal with his own conscience, is all I can personally wish for him at this point.
For the rest of us, I hope that this sad episode will be a stepping stone toward a better understanding of profiling and, as the President put it, the "context" that so many are not willing or able to look at when it comes to the pain that the African American community is feeling; the "context" under which this same community is suffering the violent loss of so many of their young men, so often by their peers.
I have not been a fan of President Obama as of late....but what he spoke about was much more relevant to me as a whole than any discussion of guilt or innocence. I admire the fact that for the most part, he did not seem to use this tragedy for political gain, at least in my opinion.
Others are making this all about their own agenda or angle.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Re: Re on 07/21/2013 19:06:48 MDT Print View

"I agree that the prosecution blew it, the police blew it"

I tuned out this case and have probably shown the most interest in it here on BPL for reasons unknown.

What exactly did the police do wrong with this case? If a police officer doesn't feel that the suspect committed a crime, she/he is legally and ethically prohibited from making an arrest. The police officers are limited on how long they can stop someone before they either make an arrest or let the person go. My guess is that they were able to convince him to voluntarily go with them to the station to file a report but did not get what they needed to show that Zimmerman violated the law. Just because someone is dead does not necessarily mean that there was a crime.

Same goes for the prosecutor. From what I can tell the reason the prosecutors took this turd of a case on was that it was politically unwise not to. Don't get me wrong, I can see how they could indict him (PC vs reasonable doubt) but I suspect they knew they had a slim chance of winning this case.

Edited by IDBLOOM on 07/21/2013 19:20:45 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re on 07/21/2013 20:26:56 MDT Print View

Given the history of white people killing black people and the police doing nothing, I think they had to do something even if there was just a small chance of conviction.

The police had to be "dragged kicking and screaming" before they charged Zimmerman, but eventually they did.

Maybe the prosecutors could have just charged him with manslaughter. Had some experts to say neighborhood watch should just call 911 and not get out of vehicle. Talking about whose scream it was was just a waste of time. But that's easy to say on hind sight.

Given that one juror that talked to Anderson Cooper, I don't think they would have ever found him guilty. And same thing with a lot of BPL people, they (you) just don't see anything wrong with Zimmerman getting out of vehicle rather than letting the police deal with it.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re on 07/21/2013 21:01:27 MDT Print View

"Given the history......"

Almost says that Zimmerman had to pay for everyone else's sins.

There is a history and it is a sad one. The right thing should be done, within the justice system.

You seem a little extreme Jerry.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re on 07/21/2013 21:02:28 MDT Print View

"The police had to be "dragged kicking and screaming" before they charged Zimmerman, but eventually they did."

Yeah! If I was that detective and I didn't feel like I had PC, you'd have to fire me because I'd be violating someone's civil rights if I behaved in any other way.... but that's not what happened in this particular case. It's not uncommon for the police to defer a case to the prosecutor if they don't feel that they have PC at the time of the encounter. I've explained the reasons above but sometimes you need more time to develop a case to establish PC and that's normally for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the police work. They did what happens a million times a day in the U.S., they invested more time into the investigation and continued to analyze the merits of the case until they had the magic 51%.

I've seen other cases just like this where charges were never filed. If this was two white people or two black people then I seriously doubt charges would have ever been filed. Deadly force against MMA fighters, boxers, martial artists, et al is easily justified as self defense. Add that Zimmerman possessed a gun and could easily articulate that he felt he was going to lose it to Traavon... that's a loser case from the get-go.

"Given that one juror that talked to Anderson Cooper, I don't think they would have ever found him guilty. And same thing with a lot of BPL people, they (you) just don't see anything wrong with Zimmerman getting out of vehicle rather than letting the police deal with it."

Jerry, please don't put words in my mouth. My position is that a person who lacks people skills shouldn't try to approach suspicious people nor should they try to pretend that they are the cherub of justice. The bottom line is that by exiting his car and approaching Traavon, regardless of his poor judgment, is not illegal.

He was not on trial for his judgment. He was on trial for murder and/or manslaughter. Am I defending Zimmeran? Absolutely not! He's a buffoon and this whole event should have never happened.

Edited by IDBLOOM on 07/21/2013 21:04:13 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re on 07/21/2013 22:45:29 MDT Print View

I didn't mean you, Ian, I meant you, anyone that thought that.

And many people don't see anything wrong with Zimmerman getting out of car, not just a few crazies.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re on 07/21/2013 22:51:26 MDT Print View

Gotcha

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re on 07/21/2013 22:54:08 MDT Print View

"Almost says that Zimmerman had to pay for everyone else's sins."

No, but the police and prosecutors should look into their hearts and make sure they aren't subtley repeating this history.

Obama's speech was pretty good. Maybe people understand a little better which will lead to a more peaceful world.

Drew Jay
(drewjh) - F

Locale: Central Coast
Following on 07/22/2013 08:25:18 MDT Print View

It should be mentioned that Zimmerman contends he never followed Martin in the sense of trying to apprehend him, and that he never approached Martin either. His account is that he left his car to determine which direction Martin had fled and to get an address for the dispatcher. The interview tapes are readily available, you can hear it in his own words.

Edited by drewjh on 07/22/2013 08:27:38 MDT.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Speach on 07/22/2013 10:27:30 MDT Print View

"Obama's speech was pretty good. Maybe people understand a little better which will lead to a more peaceful world."

I partly agree, no one should be feared, suspected, or harassed for their skin color, but Obama was misleading in that he said he was like Trayvon and implied that what Trayvon did was OK.

Well, assaulting someone viciously is not OK. I think Obama is fanning ill will.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Huh... on 07/23/2013 22:07:04 MDT Print View

Wow. A lot of people are still arguing stuff that was presented in the media and since debunked. Someone reported about a "racist" mySpace page, then that got re-reported, and people assumed there was some sort of anti-black rant on it, etc...

On the MySpace page that he hadn't used in years Zimmerman made a comment about Mexicans acting like thugs. Which is interesting, since he's Hispanic. Nothing about blacks. (But then, I make fun of rednecks, don't I?) That's about it.

The uproar about his MySpace account was righteous indignation from liberals that his defense had the GALL to use Trayvon's social media posts as evidence, so they tried to present this as hypocritical. Specifically, they brought up Zimmerman's posts about his legal encounter in 2005, in which he comes off as a jackass. Which is a valid point, but not racist. Here's the best direct quotes I can find, from that bastion of conservative thought The Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/zimmerman-myspace-page_n_1471818.html

Yes, clearly Zimmerman is a jackass. I don't think that anyone has yet disputed that. But this doesn't sound like hatred of blacks to me. It certainly does not overcome reasonable doubt.

Also, where did the "police screwed up the investigation" meme get started? They detained and sweated Zimmerman for five or six hours, took his clothes and possessions as evidence, took crime scene photos and had the CSI's go over things, and spent (at least) five days finding and interviewing witnesses. They even checked the DNA on his gun even though he never denied shooting Martin. That's pretty thorough. The only thing that can realistically be criticized is that it took them a while to impound Zimmerman's car, because they initially didn't realize that Zimmerman had arrived by vehicle. Which is moot, because no relevant evidence was ever recovered from the car. So, seriously- tell me how they "screwed up" the investigation.

Apparently the only thing that people think was botched was that they didn't arrest Zimmerman. That's not a very good argument- "I think he should have been arrested, so the police must have botched something!" The truth is- they knew this case was a loser from the beginning. They knew they'd never get a conviction. So they didn't arrest him. The police and the district attorney do have that discretion, not to waste taxpayer money chasing loser cases. When the police were later pressured into arresting Zimmerman the lead detective damned near resigned because he thought it was a travesty, since there was no evidence of a crime- in fact he asked to be reassigned to patrol duty. That's a heck of a statement. And no less than Alan Dershowitz (Alan Dershowitz, for the love of God, that well-known right-wing mouthpiece!) said that the decision to arrest Zimmerman was ridiculous and totally due to caving to popular pressure because Prosecutor Corey was up for re-election.

Likewise, Jennifer, the prosecution didn't "blow it." You're just saying that because YOU don't like the verdict. They just had a losing case.

And I also think that a lot of people misinterpret (or WANT to misinterpret) what Obama said about how "his son would look like Trayvon." Granted, the more foam-at-the-mouth Obama haters will willfully misinterpret ANYTHING that man says, but...

He was just making a point of how close to home the case hits for him. I'm pretty sure that he wasn't making any judgement calls about the case against Zimmerman. Or if he was, I'm pretty sure it was early and he was suckered by the lies the media manufactured about Zimmerman being a racist just like the rest of us. But granted, I haven't followed Obama's commentary very closely. (In fact I pretty much ignored this case until the verdict, then read up on it- which may be why I'm not so swayed by all the initial media ridiculousness.) So, did he ever say anything about the case?

EDIT--

Oh, and the burglar who is pleading "stand your ground" for shooting the homeowner he was robbing is going to lose that case. The gist of "stand your ground" laws (which are common in Europe, to the frustration of American liberals- there is a neat article in Slate about it) is that you don't have a duty to retreat when attacked in a place that you have a legal right to be. Instead, you may defend yourself. The European argument is that you should not have to yield a public space to thugs and criminals. You have a right to be there.

The burglar did not have a legal right to be in the house he was robbing. His lawyer is just being cute, and probably has an agenda and is trying to make the law look bad. In fact, I'm pretty sure that legally if you kill someone as a direct result of the commission of a crime that that's murder by definition. You CANNOT claim self-defense.

And, despite what the media says, you also cannot start a barfight then shoot the other guy and claim self-defense. Nor can you shoot a protester who blocks you from walking down the sidewalk. The media likes to conveniently leave out all reference to the doctrine of proportionality...

Edited by acrosome on 07/24/2013 22:15:10 MDT.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Huh... on 07/24/2013 19:23:28 MDT Print View

Thanks for this rather balanced post.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
ABC juror interview on 07/25/2013 22:17:20 MDT Print View

Anyone see ABC interview of juror:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-juror-murder/story?id=19770659

She said that she knew Zimmerman was guilty but they didn't prove that he intended to do it. "He got away with murder".

One thing is, I have the same conflicting thoughts

Another thing is the prosecution didn't properly present their case. For 2nd degree murder you have to prove Zimmerman intended to do it. For manslaughter just that Zimmerman was reckless.

Although it's easy to say that on hindsight.

And with the juror that Anderson Cooper interviewed that called Zimmerman "George", there's no way she would have ever voted guilty, so the best would have been a hung jury.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
"The media are reporting that a juror says Zimmerman is guilty of murder. That’s not true." on 07/27/2013 17:50:59 MDT Print View

"ABC News hasn’t posted a full unedited video or transcript of the interview. The video that has been broadcast—on World News Tonight, Nightline, and Good Morning America—has been cut and spliced in different ways, often so artfully that the transitions appear continuous. So beware what you’re seeing. But the video that’s available already shows, on closer inspection, that Maddy has been manipulated and misrepresented.

1. The phrase “got away with murder” was put in her mouth.
2. She stands by the verdict
3. She thinks the case should never have gone to trial.
7. To the extent she feels racial or ethnic pressure, it’s against Zimmerman. "

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/did_george_zimmerman_get_away_with_murder_no_juror_b29_is_being_framed.html?google_editors_picks=true

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: "The media are reporting that a juror says Zimmerman is guilty of murder. That’s not true." on 07/27/2013 20:09:08 MDT Print View

I went back and listened to ABC video. I don't agree with Slate premis that the video misrepresented anything. Slate just wants to come out with something sensational to get more readers.

It was obviously cut and spliced - they included other people like Trevon's parents, the Anderson Cooper juror, Obama,...

It was obvious the didn't include the whole interview. TV programs have limited time and always edit. There were lots of obvious cuts.

The juror said "George Zimmerman got away with murder (pause) but you can't get away from god". There was no question mark in her voice. And the fact that she said "but you can't get away from god" - the "but" only makes logical sense after saying he got away with murder. She also said that initially she voted guilty of 2nd degree murder.

The ABC interview said pretty clearly the juror stood by the verdict. The defense lawyer talked about that also.

They didn't include her saying she thought it shouldn't go to trial, but there's only so much time, not a conspiracy. They did include her saying she thought she was forcefully included in Trevon's death which comes pretty close to that, since she said she didn't regret the verdict.

Robins asked her if it was about race. She responded "it's a question to be asked". She said people have followed her before. I think she left the question open, no definite answer.

I think the biggest question is the juror said she couldn't vote guilty because they didn't prove Z intentionally kill Trevon. But you don't need that for manslaughter. Either the juror didn't understand their instructions or they did a poor job of describing what manslaughter is.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Re: "The media are reporting that a juror says Zimmerman is guilty of murder. That’s not true." on 07/27/2013 21:48:27 MDT Print View

Oh never mind, what's the use.

Edited by idester on 07/27/2013 21:56:08 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: "The media are reporting that a juror says Zimmerman is guilty of murder. That’s not true." on 07/28/2013 07:51:28 MDT Print View

Oh, c'mon Doug...

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Re: Zimmerman? on 08/08/2013 21:19:30 MDT Print View

"I want the gun toters to be well trained, like the police, so innocent kids aren't killed"

Like this?
"Narcotics officers had become suspicious of Mr. Graham as he walked through the Wakefield section of the Bronx with two friends. Officer Haste, 31, pursued the teenager, forcing his way into the apartment where Mr. Graham lived with his grandmother. The officer confronted him in the bathroom and shot him, after he mistakenly interpreted a gesture as Mr. Graham reaching for a gun, according to the officer’s account to the grand jury."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/09/nyregion/grand-jury-declines-to-indict-officer-in-death-of-unarmed-youth.html?_r=0

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Zimmerman? on 08/08/2013 22:54:09 MDT Print View

ahhhh

You must be one of those anti US conspiracy theorists like the Boston bombers and the Oklahoma City bomber : )

at least with the police they have to do a lot of training to minimize the chance of mis-use

with private citizens with little training, there has to be a much larger chance of mis-use

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Grand Jury issues no bill on 08/09/2013 10:08:22 MDT Print View

I can indict a ham sandwich. All you have to do is prove to the Grand Jury is probable cause, not beyond a reasonable doubt. No bills are unbelievably rare but I can't speak for the State of NY so things may be different over there.

If they couldn't indict, I'm inclined to believe that there's more to this story that what was published. NY Times won't let me read it so all I have to go with is the provided quote.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Re: Re: Re: Training? on 08/09/2013 17:11:38 MDT Print View

"at least with the police they have to do a lot of training to minimize the chance of mis-use
with private citizens with little training, there has to be a much larger chance of mis-use"

"training"

Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

---

"The city of Seattle will pay $1.75 million to settle a federal civil-rights lawsuit filed by the father of a mentally ill man who suffered severe brain damage when he was held down, choking on blood and vomit, after being handcuffed and gagged by Seattle police, according to the man’s lawyers.

The Seattle City Attorney’s Office confirmed the settlement this afternoon.

The settlement may be among the largest excessive-force settlements ever paid by the city. The city paid $1.5 million to settle with the family of John T. Williams, who was fatally shot by a police officer in August 2010."

"The recent settlement arose from the May 2010 arrest of Brian Scott Torgerson, a schizophrenic man who was having a mental-health crisis when his parents called police in hopes of getting help for him. Officers who responded to his Capitol Hill apartment decided to arrest Torgerson on an outstanding misdemeanor warrant.

According to the lawsuit, the first officers on the scene said Torgerson was cooperative and had stepped into the hallway to talk when they grabbed him and a struggle ensued.

Over the next several minutes, more than a dozen officers arrived. Torgerson, who was 45 at the time, was punched and elbowed in the face, tased at least twice and bound hand and foot and fitted with a so-called “spitsock” — a fine-mesh hood — placed over his head to prevent him from getting bodily fluids on the officers.

At least two officers, and at one point several others, forcefully held him face-down on the floor as the spitsock clogged with blood and vomit, according to the lawsuit.

"

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2013/08/attorneys-city-to-pay-1-75m-to-settle-spd-excessive-force-lawsuit/

---

"YAKIMA - A jury today convicted Spokane Police Officer Karl F. Thompson Jr. of needlessly beating Otto Zehm and then lying about it to cover up his actions.

The verdict comes five years and seven months since Zehm’s life ended and growing questions of police accountability began."

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/nov/02/zehm-decision/

---

"A couple whose Newfoundland, Rosie, was shot and killed by Des Moines police in November 2010 will be awarded at least $51,000 in a settlement reached late last month.--The officers had responded to a report of a loose dog in the Wrights’ Des Moines neighborhood, phoned in by a neighbor who was concerned that Rosie might get hurt." "Over the course of about an hour, the officers twice used a Taser on Rosie, chased her for blocks and ultimately shot the dog four times with an assault rifle in a stranger’s backyard.--The audio recording indicates the officers were talking about shooting Rosie within 10 minutes of arriving at the scene.The animal eventually ran into the backyard of a home about four blocks away.
After the dog was shot once, one of the officers is heard shouting “Nice!”

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020398702_rosiesettlementxml.html