executive order 3/16/2012

[Nova_C]

The amusing thing is your eventual resorting to ad hominem about 'Liberals' as though anyone that disagrees with you is part of some monolithic group that exist solely to act as your foil.

 

[Carinata]

The same could be said about Liberals....

 

[RobbiesCornField]

I still find it somewhat amusing that Dr. King's niece told Rev. Sharpton and Jackson to stop making this about race, and to try and continue her uncle's NON-VIOLENT approach.

 

[beautifullywild77]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/al-...isobedience-if-george-zimmerman-not-arrested/

 

[Rich Z]

As for this Martin/Zimmerman scandal, well, it seems like nearly everyone is engaging in "SHOOT, READY, AIM!" What exactly are the FACTS?

I dunno but when I see images used specifically by the media to elicit a desired and measured response such as these:

When more recent photos are available but chosen NOT to be presented:

Well, me thinks the viewing public is being railroaded into BELIEVING exactly what the media wants them to believe.

Personally, I resent that the "Castle Doctrine Law" is being drawn into the firing line. Regardless how the above two became entangled in the USE of that law, the purpose and implementation of the law is no less sound now than it was the day after it became law.

In my opinion, and this is ONLY based on the sketchy details that have been released and I have stumbled upon without actually pointedly looking for them, Zimmerman had no business putting himself in danger of attack in the manner that he apparently did. But that being said, and if accurately portrayed as to what happened next, he also had a right to defend his own life if he was attacked, no matter HOW nor WHY he got himself into that predicament. I don't believe anyone forfeits their right to life by making a mistake that puts them into that sort of jeopardy.

Oh, and that "race card". So tell me, if it had been a white male shot by a black male under the same exact circumstances, and several groups specifically targeting the support and promotion of WHITE people were doing what similar groups targeting the support and promotion of BLACK people are NOW doing in an obvious attempt at circumventing law enforcement to FORCE prosecution by making it a political hot potato, would that be then called "racist"?

Addendum: BTW, here's the source of those above photos -> http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/...rge-zimmerman-why-you-may-not-see-the-others/

 

[Nova_C]

Oh, and that "race card". So tell me, if it had been a white male shot by a black male under the same exact circumstances, and several groups specifically targeting the support and promotion of WHITE people were doing what similar groups targeting the support and promotion of BLACK people are NOW doing in an obvious attempt at circumventing law enforcement to FORCE prosecution by making it a political hot potato, would that be then called "racist"?

Probably, just as it is now. However, the black male would be in jail with murder charges pending, so it's pretty moot.

As far as the pictures go, I'm not sure what point you're getting at, or what the photos are supposed to prove. They're pictures of the people involved. Considering Zimmerman's mugshot, that's how people with records typically are shown in the media. I honestly don't get why people are flipping out over which pictures the media have chosen. All the pictures of Martin I've seen, including the ones in your post, Rich, show a typical teenager.

Regarding Castle doctrine, no one is challenging Castle doctrine, particularly because it has absolutely nothing to do with this case. The law in question is Stand Your Ground.

Which, incidentally, Martin had equal rights to.

Note: Martin's girlfriend's account of the phone call she had with Martin conflicts with Zimmerman's account. Zimmerman said Martin jumped him from behind. On the phone call with his girlfriend, Martin said "Why are you following me?" with Zimmerman replying, "What are you doing here?"

So even if Martin initiated the conflict, it seems that there was a conversation before the attack and in that situation, I'd be feeling pretty threatened as well if a man significantly larger than me was following me back from a snack run.

 

[airenlow]

As far as the pictures go, I'm not sure what point you're getting at, or what the photos are supposed to prove.

Media bias...

 

[Nova_C]

I'm trying to figure out which picture of Martin they were supposed to use, then. Like, any of the photos Rich posted show a pretty normal teenager. What do you want them to do? Doctor the photos?

 

[Rich Z]

Probably, just as it is now. However, the black male would be in jail with murder charges pending, so it's pretty moot.

And you KNOW this as a FACT? Or are you merely speculating or guessing?

As far as the pictures go, I'm not sure what point you're getting at, or what the photos are supposed to prove. They're pictures of the people involved. Considering Zimmerman's mugshot, that's how people with records typically are shown in the media. I honestly don't get why people are flipping out over which pictures the media have chosen. All the pictures of Martin I've seen, including the ones in your post, Rich, show a typical teenager.

I didn't expect everyone to understand my point. Sorry it eluded you.

Regarding Castle doctrine, no one is challenging Castle doctrine, particularly because it has absolutely nothing to do with this case. The law in question is Stand Your Ground.

It is one and the same. It is within the Castle Doctrine law that the right to "stand your ground" is stated.

Which, incidentally, Martin had equal rights to.

I don't believe anyone disputes that. But it does dispute your earlier statement that had Martin taken advantage of that law, that HE would be in jail, now doesn't it?

Note: Martin's girlfriend's account of the phone call she had with Martin conflicts with Zimmerman's account. Zimmerman said Martin jumped him from behind. On the phone call with his girlfriend, Martin said "Why are you following me?" with Zimmerman replying, "What are you doing here?"

Is this a provable statement or merely hearsay? I'm seeing a lot of hearsay about this with likely "facts" made up ex post facto. And this applies to both sides of the argument. What can be PROVEN about what actually happened?

So even if Martin initiated the conflict, it seems that there was a conversation before the attack and in that situation, I'd be feeling pretty threatened as well if a man significantly larger than me was following me back from a snack run.

Sorry, the law doesn't work that way. If someone ESCALATES physical violence from what was only a verbal level then they will likely find themselves on the wrong side of the protection of the law provided with the Castle Doctrine. Or, if you prefer to call it the "Stand Your Ground" law, in that case, who would it be with the right to STAND THEIR GROUND? The attacker or the attackee?

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

In other words, two people can trade verbal bashes towards each other all day long, but once one of them ESCALATES the confrontation with physical force, then the other has a RIGHT to defend themself from that physical attack. So if someone "significantly larger" than yourself is following you, I do not recommend that you turn and be the first to engage in a PHYSICAL altercation expecting that the law will protect you.

Just for the record, how tall was Martin and how tall is Zimmerman? How "significantly larger" was one than the other?

 

[Nova_C]

And you KNOW this as a FACT? Or are you merely speculating or guessing?

I'm speculating, but I've been looking for cases of black men not even being arrested when they claim self defense after a homicide and I can't find any examples.

I didn't expect everyone to understand my point. Sorry it eluded you.

Perhaps you could explain, then?

It is one and the same. It is within the Castle Doctrine law that the right to "stand your ground" is stated./quote]

They are only the same if you're claiming that states without Stand Your Ground provisions do not permit home defense. Castle doctrine is specifically about home defense and does not apply here.

I don't believe anyone disputes that. But it does dispute your earlier statement that had Martin taken advantage of that law, that HE would be in jail, now doesn't it?

How so? Just because people have rights doesn't mean that the police always grant those rights.

Is this a provable statement or merely hearsay? I'm seeing a lot of hearsay about this with likely "facts" made up ex post facto. And this applies to both sides of the argument. What can be PROVEN about what actually happened?

Martin's girlfriend made a statement about a phone call that provably did take place (Phone records). It's as reliable as Zimmerman's own account of a broken nose that you can't see in the video, and having his head repeatedly smashed against the pavement, an injury that, again, no sign of can be seen in the video.

Sorry, the law doesn't work that way. If someone ESCALATES physical violence from what was only a verbal level then they will likely find themselves on the wrong side of the protection of the law provided with the Castle Doctrine. Or, if you prefer to call it the "Stand Your Ground" law, in that case, who would it be with the right to STAND THEIR GROUND? The attacker or the attackee?

Stand Your Ground was successfully used for a man that chased down someone who robbed him and stabbed him to death. I'd say it's pretty flexible if that qualifies. Also, the law makes a specific provision:

In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

So someone who initiates can legally kill the person they attacked if that person fights back and the shooter backs off.

Basically, the evidence we have is a dead 17 year old and a shooter with no obvious injuries. Eyewitness accounts are unreliable and seem to be conflicting about who was calling for help and who was on top of whom. At this point, my belief is that Zimmerman is guilty of voluntary manslaughter at the very least. There is no evidence that we have been provided with that Martin attacked him other than various statements. No photos of injuries and the one video post-incident we have is largely inconclusive (But certainly suggestive of Zimmerman's guilt). Also, the funeral home that prepared Martin's body for burial stated that they found no signs of a fight on Martin's body. No bruises on his knuckles, no scrapes, nothing. This is also unreliable testimony from a non-expert, but basically, the only thing no one seems to be disputing is that Zimmerman shot Martin and that Martin was unarmed at the time of the shooting.

Everything else the public says is conjecture.

Just for the record, how tall was Martin and how tall is Zimmerman? How "significantly larger" was one than the other?

I was going to say Zimmerman outweighed Martin by about 100 pounds, but it looks like that's old info. Zimmerman was only slightly larger than Martin, by about 10 pounds, so there was no significant difference between the two.

 

[beautifullywild77]

All I can say is at this point we don't have all the facts that happened, the media doesn't have all the facts, only the investigators do and at this time do not have enough to warrant an arrest or I am sure there would of been one. Nova_C, we have no evidence except what the media has reported. We do not have police reports or investigation notes. So all we have is opinion and what is being show in the media.

We don't know for sure if Zimmerman was injured or not injured, the video you provided did show him in handcuffs being taken to the police dept for questioning. The EMT's at the scene attended to Zimmerman and he refused to go to the hospital according to some media reports. So would their be blood in the video if he was cleaned and attended to by first responders?

Zimmerman is already convicted in the eye of the public because of how the media has reported it and how its been turned into some sort of hate crime.

 

[Rich Z]

I'm speculating, but I've been looking for cases of black men not even being arrested when they claim self defense after a homicide and I can't find any examples.

Yes, you are ONLY speculating.

Perhaps you could explain, then?

I'm SURE that would make a difference with your opinions and speculations.... Sorry, but you will need to figure that out on your own.

They are only the same if you're claiming that states without Stand Your Ground provisions do not permit home defense. Castle doctrine is specifically about home defense and does not apply here.

This issue took place in Florida, so it is Florida's Castle Doctrine being discussed. I'm sure you can easily find the text of that law if you try.

How so? Just because people have rights doesn't mean that the police always grant those rights.

Speculation again? And obviously speculating that this HAD to have happened in this case?

Martin's girlfriend made a statement about a phone call that provably did take place (Phone records). It's as reliable as Zimmerman's own account of a broken nose that you can't see in the video, and having his head repeatedly smashed against the pavement, an injury that, again, no sign of can be seen in the video.

Proof? The only proof of the phone conversation is that the phone call took place, NOT what was actually discussed. Or are you privy to more detailed info on that conversation other than what the participants CLAIM they said?

As for Zimmerman, weren't there paramedics and law enforcement officers on the scene? Are there any records of injuries to Zimmerman supporting his claim? That sort of proof either exists or it doesn't. So again, who can PROVE their claims without speculation and hoped for opinions?

Stand Your Ground was successfully used for a man that chased down someone who robbed him and stabbed him to death. I'd say it's pretty flexible if that qualifies. Also, the law makes a specific provision:

In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

So someone who initiates can legally kill the person they attacked if that person fights back and the shooter backs off.

I guess I'm not reading the quote in the same manner that you are. What is the definition of "assailant" there? My interpretation is that the "assailant" indicates the person who initiated the physical attack. Seriously, would anyone actually expect "good faith" from someone attacking you anyway even if the assailant said he wanted to stop pounding your head into the pavement?

As for someone chasing down a robber and killing them, good for him or her! If this would happen more times, then I predict that robberies would go into a rapid decline. And yes, the castle doctrine does allow the use of deadly force in the prevention of a commission of a forcible felony. So if someone commits a felony against you in a forcible manner, then yes, you CAN use deadly force to stop them from getting away with it.

This is directly from the statute:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

*Emphasis added.

So in the earlier mentioned situation with a supposed attacker indicating that he wanted to stop beating you to a bloody pulp and walk away, was there not a forcible felony involved?

Basically, the evidence we have is a dead 17 year old and a shooter with no obvious injuries. Eyewitness accounts are unreliable and seem to be conflicting about who was calling for help and who was on top of whom. At this point, my belief is that Zimmerman is guilty of voluntary manslaughter at the very least. There is no evidence that we have been provided with that Martin attacked him other than various statements. No photos of injuries and the one video post-incident we have is largely inconclusive (But certainly suggestive of Zimmerman's guilt). Also, the funeral home that prepared Martin's body for burial stated that they found no signs of a fight on Martin's body. No bruises on his knuckles, no scrapes, nothing. This is also unreliable testimony from a non-expert, but basically, the only thing no one seems to be disputing is that Zimmerman shot Martin and that Martin was unarmed at the time of the shooting.

Everything else the public says is conjecture.

Obviously conjecture with a biased belief............. Jump to conclusions much based on scanty evidence?

I was going to say Zimmerman outweighed Martin by about 100 pounds, but it looks like that's old info. Zimmerman was only slightly larger than Martin, by about 10 pounds, so there was no significant difference between the two.

That's OK. See, it didn't kill you to admit you were wrong, now did it?

 

[Nova_C]

Rich, I do admit when I'm wrong, and have in the past, but I don't take your word for it. You've made claims about the events with no evidence as well. You talk about evidence from EMS and police reports, but ask me to provide them? I'm not depending on them.

The only thing I've said as a claim is that based on what we KNOW, and that is that Zimmerman followed Martin, Martin tried to get away from Zimmerman (In the 911 call, Zimmerman said "He's running" and "These *** always get away"), Martin was unarmed and Zimmerman admits to shooting Martin. Those are about all the facts that we know.

Based on that, my opinion is that he is guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Now, if Martin jumped him, then Stand Your Ground states that Zimmerman acted within the law. I may vehemently disagree with that, but there it is. However, we have no proof of that other than Zimmerman's account of what happened, so based on the facts that we DO know, I do not think my opinion is unreasonable.

 

[Nova_C]

Oh, and also about the Stand Your Ground law confusion with the world 'assailant':

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

So, basically, if you attack someone, they fight back, and you back off and say you don't want to fight anymore, but they don't stop, Stand Your Ground authorizes the use of deadly force to protect yourself.

 

[beautifullywild77]

Just thought I would share this.... media bias? The media lied?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1537812030001/did-nbc-news-lie-in-trayvon-martin-reporting/

 

[beautifullywild77]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1531279818001/?intcmp=obinsite

 

[Nova_C]

Wait, Fox News is criticizing someone else for creative editing?

I'm not sure I can muster up anything other then contempt.

Also, why were none of the quotes they showed attributed? They showed a bunch of people making statements (Quite a few of those comments were pretty reserved and accurate to what we know, while others were very hyperbolic), but didn't actually say who any of those people were.

So they're claiming all kinds of things about people without actually attributing anything.

Well done, Fox. Well done.

*slow clap*

 

[beautifullywild77]

Just showing that all media is bias

 

[Nova_C]

Just showing that all media is bias

I'm pretty sure we knew that already. My question is what you hoped to accomplish by specifically linking Fox News articles that make the case that MSNBC is lying to the public about this case?

The only kind of extreme rhetoric I can think of about this case on the other side is Sharpton himself, and that dude isn't worth quoting or linking.

 

[beautifullywild77]

I'm pretty sure we knew that already. My question is what you hoped to accomplish by specifically linking Fox News articles that make the case that MSNBC is lying to the public about this case?

The only kind of extreme rhetoric I can think of about this case on the other side is Sharpton himself, and that dude isn't worth quoting or linking.[/QUOTE

I don't care if it was fox news or the BBC article. I was showing that the media shows bias. There seems to be a few that are arguing the facts that have been stated by the media as being true facts. I could careless what channel it comes from. We, as the public, don't know all the facts surrounding the case.

I wasn't trying to argue with anyone. But it seems you have a lot against fox news and want to start something about it. Go ahead but you want get anything from me. Because they ALL are bias and do stories that will bring up ratings and will misrepresent the truth to do so.