posted
No, I suppose you have a good point. The question would be then what past history the judge is likely to allow into evidence on cross-examination. It seems probable that the calls will be admitted, but the financial issues seem likely to fall outside the purview of the case as charged. I would also bet his previous arrests will be ruled out, As he wasn't convicted. I don't know that that would stop the ex from testifying as to character, but it seems as if it likely would do- its a claim unsubstantiated by any conviction.
Still, if he testifies, it's always possible that these items could get in, one way or another. Personally, I am guessing that Zimmerman may plead a lesser charge before this case goes through a trial. It will depend on the strength of his defense, and these motions I've mentioned, and of course upon whether or not he really did initiate this encounter with violence or not. If he didn't, that would make his pleading less likely, but if there is a shadow of guilt in him for what has happened, he may be more likely to plead to, say, aggravated manslaughter or manslaughter. Given the right sentencing requests, that could turn it to be a *lot* more attractive for everyone involved than felony murder. But all that is purely speculation.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The question would be then what past history the judge is likely to allow into evidence on cross-examination.
It's apparently pretty likely; it'll be added to his call history and end up being a pretty ... brutal character assessment of zimmerman during the trial.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just did some searching on the net and it seems you do not have to testify in florida court in order to claim self defense. You do, however, have to provide clear and convincing evidence that you acted in self defense. Considering that there are no eye witnesses to how the fight started, I imagine it would be fairly difficult for the defense to build a convincing argument of self defense without having Zimmerman testify or at least arguing that Zimmerman was a man of high moral character.
The charge of 2nd degree murder in florida requires that the prosecution prove the defendant acted with a "depraved mind". I'm not sure exactly what is meant by a "depraved mind" s but I suspect that the prosecution will argue that "vigilantism" qualifies. The case hinges on the theory that Zimmerman acted out of vigilantism rather than out of reasonable concern for his safety and I think that will give the prosecution a lot of lead way to present evidence that Zimmerman had demonstrated disrespect for the legal system, aggressive behavior, obsession with crime and racism even if Zimmerman does not testify. That evidence is directly relevant to whether he acted with a "depraved mind" (presuming of course that vigilantism is a form of depravity). It will be interesting to see how the judge views it.
The subtext coming out of the defense and prosecution requests to seal Zimmerman's statements to the police suggest that Zimmerman has already made sworn statements that undermine his own case. I suspect the defense will put a great deal of effort into suppressing those statements. It's also interesting that evidence that the victim had a history of aggressive behavior is also often admissible as evidence of self defense. That could give the defense more than usual lead way to present evidence about Martin's character. Although, generally speaking this should not be considered relevant unless Zimmerman knew Martin's history at the time of the killing.
I suspect the outcome of the case will depend heavily on what the judge decides to admit as evidence. There is plenty of reason to believe that the police royally screwed up in the early part of the investigation. If Zimmerman is found not guilty because evidence against him is deemed inadmissible because of police incompetence or bigotry, I think there is a good chance that feds could press charges under civil rights law.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Although, generally speaking this should not be considered relevant unless Zimmerman knew Martin's history at the time of the killing.
Considering both sides are going to try and paint a picture of what happened, GZ's knowledge at the time of Martin's past seems like it is not the hinge of whether or not any history of violence is relevant.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Although, generally speaking this should not be considered relevant unless Zimmerman knew Martin's history at the time of the killing.
Considering both sides are going to try and paint a picture of what happened, GZ's knowledge at the time of Martin's past seems like it is not the hinge of whether or not any history of violence is relevant.
Martin's history is not evidence of how he behaved on the night he was killed. Even if he was a hardened criminal with a history of assaulting strangers at random, that would not be evidence that he assaulted GZ.
Normally, it would not be allowed as part of the defense. In the cases I've read about where evidence of the victims past was allowed, it was justified because the victim's history of violent behavior could reasonably have influenced the accused killers perceived need to defend themselves. That argument would only be valid if GZ knew Martin's history.
I can imagine exceptions to that. I can see a reasonable argument that a victim's history of say martial arts training or having inflicted serious bodily injury in previous fights was an indicator of how likely it was that GZ perceived a real threat o his life during the fight. But I think that's a stretch, particularly since we haven't heard anything of that kind about TM.
Evidence that he was expelled from school for possession of dope or that he tweeted nasty stuff, simply isn't relevant. Unless the prosecution tries to paint TM as being a squeaky clean honors student, there is just no way a judge should allow the defense to smear the victim.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even if he was a hardened criminal with a history of assaulting strangers at random, that would not be evidence that he assaulted GZ.
I'm no law expert, so I won't claim to -know- anything specific, but this seems very counter intuitive. You may be right, often the law is counter intuitive.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would think that the defense would be able to bring up elements of martin's history to try to paint aggressive confrontation by martin as more likely.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It looks like I was wrong. I was assuming that the same rules that apply to sexual assault would apply. They don't, at least not at the federal level. Here is the relevant rule.
It appears that the defense has a lot more latitude on this than the prosecution but by attacking TM's character they open the door for the prosecution to counter with attacks on GZs character.
That may turn out to be irrelevant since the prosecution is already allowed to use character evidence for the variety of purposes "such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident." I would presume this means that the prosecution can use character evidence to demonstrate GZ acted out of a "depraved mind regardless of human life".
It will be interesting to see whether the judge considers things like school suspensions and low levels of THC in TMs blood to be evidence of traits that are pertinent to the chase. While I appreciate the importance of allowing GZ to offer all relevant evidence in his defense, victims and their families should also have some rights. It seems cruel to me to allow GZ to publicly smear TM unless the claims are actually directly relevant to what happened that night. But then depriving GZ of the means to defend himself is probably worse.
I would not want to be the judge in this case.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
it's all relevant, technically, in helping a jury decide if trayvon was likely to have been the assailant. I don't know, it probably at least comes up for review to decide if admissable as character evidence in favor of zimmerman.
I mean, I don't PERSONALLY see why not, and I'd really like to see the defense bring up trayvon's wisps of remnant thc.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He had 2 passports, but not both of them were valid. Also, he surrendered the second one to his lawyer right away, as soon as he found it/remembered it, and his lawyer stated he did so....but the lawyer didn't report it to the judge right away, which is the ONLY reason I said that the lag was not his fault.
I have 4 or 5 passports. All but one of them are clearly stamped as cancelled. They have holes punched through them so they could never be mistaken for a valid passport. If for some reason you have an invalid passport that isn't clearly punched as cancelled, you are in violation of the law.
The regulations on this are quite clear. If you apply for a passport to replace one that has been lost or stolen and later recover the lost passport, you are supposed to return it to the state department to be properly cancelled. Attempting to use the recovered passport for any official purpose violated federal law. When GZ turned over his invalid lost/recovered passport to the court rather than his current valid passport -- he was violating federal law.
GZ doesn't seem to be very smart so I'm willing to buy that he didn't understand that, but his lawyer should have. The lawyer claims he had the second passport in his possession but failed to turn it over to the court. That makes the lawyer either dishonest, complicit, or incompetent.
The entire debacle regarding GZs bail raises some serious questions about GZs legal council. It seems that either GZs legal council is incompetent or GZ isn't accepting the advice of his legal council. Either way its a red flag that's something is wrong. In any case this serious it's a travesty of justice if defendant does not receive the best possible legal council.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Part of a trial is to figure out who is the victim.
No. We know that TM was the victim of homicide. Part of the trial will be to determine whether Martin's homicide was justified. But justified or not, Trayvon Martin is unquestionably the victim of homicide.
[ June 13, 2012, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The word "victim" implies more then "person who was shot to death", and when you are talking about smearing victims and victim's rights, there is a definite implication of "innocent victim".
Whether or not TM was an innocent victim has yet to be determined, and very well might never be.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: The word "victim" implies more then "person who was shot to death", and when you are talking about smearing victims and victim's rights, there is a definite implication of "innocent victim".
Not by any definition with which I am familiar. A victim is any person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. Martin is a victim of homicide. Part of this trial will be to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that his homicide was a crime -- but Martin's victimhood is not in question.
quote:Whether or not TM was an innocent victim has yet to be determined, and very well might never be. [/qb]
Doesn't a person killed in a fight deserve to have the same right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty as the person who killed them?
Trayvon Martin will not be on trial. If he were, he would be given the same legal protection and rights as Zimmerman. He won't be. Zimmerman's defense doesn't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Martin was trying to kill him. They only have to show convincing evidence that a reasonable person in Zimmerman's position would have believed deadly force was necessary to defend themselves.
Zimmerman could legitimately be found innocent even if the majority of evidence shows that Martin was an innocent victim. Martin's innocence or guilt will never be on trial.
Because we aren't deciding whether or not Martin will go to jail, he will not be given the same legal protections in this trial as Zimmerman. That does not mean he does not have the same moral right to be presumed innocent or that we do not owe him and his family a certain level of protection.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Denying GW's defense the opportunity to show TM's past because we don't want to infringe on the "presumption of innocence" of TM I feel is...forgive me...silly. A trial is the place to hash this stuff out, and if we were to not look at anything incriminating -in a trial- to avoid stepping on the presumption of innocence, there wouldn't be a whole lot of reason for the trial.
TM's guilt or innocence might not be paramount, as you pointed out, but it is bloody well relevant, and in question.
Again, a trial is the -perfect- place for this question to be answered, and -trying- to answer that question does not infringe in anyway on the presumption of innocence.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean, I don't PERSONALLY see why not, and I'd really like to see the defense bring up trayvon's wisps of remnant thc.
Why?
Because it could so easily be turned against them and reeks of desperation, especially given how trace the quantities were and that trace cannabanoids in your system (of the level detailed in the autopsy report) can't be said to be a contributing factor to an alleged unprovoked assault by trayvon. If they try to make it out as a 'look, see, zimmerman said that he looked like he was on something, and he was on something' then, well.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: but Martin's victimhood is not in question.
If Zimmerman is alleging self defense and that he was assailed by martin to the extent of validating lethal force used against martin (which he is) then martin's victimhood IS in question. At least, by the courts.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Denying GW's defense the opportunity to show TM's past because we don't want to infringe on the "presumption of innocence" of TM I feel is...forgive me...silly.
I think that depends very strongly on what kind of evidence the defense wants to present about TM's character. If there is evidence that has direct relevance to TM's propensity toward violence or his capacity to seriously injure another, then I agree that the defense should have the right to present it in court. I don't think that gives GZs defense the unconditional right to present defamatory evidence against TM in attempt to sway the jury's sympathy.
So for example, if there was evidence that TM had been involved in other physical fights or that he frequently lost his temper and became violent when confronted by authority -- I think that would be relevant. On the other hand evidence of non-violent wrong doing does not indicate a propensity toward violence and should not be admissible in court.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean, I don't PERSONALLY see why not, and I'd really like to see the defense bring up trayvon's wisps of remnant thc.
Why?
Because it could so easily be turned against them and reeks of desperation, especially given how trace the quantities were and that trace cannabanoids in your system (of the level detailed in the autopsy report) can't be said to be a contributing factor to an alleged unprovoked assault by trayvon. If they try to make it out as a 'look, see, zimmerman said that he looked like he was on something, and he was on something' then, well.
I think you have a lot more faith in a jury's ability to recognize the silliness of the ridiculousness of the argument than is justifiable. There is a reason that marijuana continues to be illegal in the US. A very large number of people are convinced its a dangerous drug and that any illegal drug use is evidence that a person is likely a dangerous criminal.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: TM's guilt or innocence might not be paramount, as you pointed out, but it is bloody well relevant, and in question.
Again, a trial is the -perfect- place for this question to be answered, and -trying- to answer that question does not infringe in anyway on the presumption of innocence.
His guilt or innocence in relation to *this* event are material. Thus, any serious past of violence or criminality might also be material. Maybe. If he had been convicted of a crime, perhaps, or if his character were anything but implication and innuendo, then maybe it would matter. But would it matter if he had been a convicted murderer, and Zimmerman had initiated a fight with him and shot him? Actually, no. Zimmerman's guilt or lack thereof are what the trial determines, and not whetherMartin was guilty of anything, in particular. Crimes don't equalize other crimes- even if Martin committed felony assault against Zimmerman, Zimmerman may be guilty of a crime, depending upon his actions. As was said, Martin's guilt in this is not at issue, particularly, and doesn't effect the outcome.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But would it matter if he had been a convicted murderer, and Zimmerman had initiated a fight with him and shot him?
If there was no proof who started the fight, and we had to figure it out based in part on past behavior...yes, it would matter.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:...laywers for Florida-based and national news outlets argued that the public had a right to see everything possible in the high-profile case.
That's a bullshit argument. The public doesn't have a "right" to "everything possible" just because it's a high-profile case. Those sensationalizing, newscorp bastards and their lawyers are doing the same thing they did with the Casey Anthony trial. It's sad the judge caved to their pressure.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe he could've just said 'no', actually. Or at least not as simply as folks are implying.
I'm curious what their lawyers 'did' with regards to the Anthony trial, too. In any event? Not the judge's responsibility for the actual problem.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does the fact that Zimmerman claims not to have known the name of (one of three) street names this event took place on sound strange to anyone else? Particularly given that he *does* claim to have become concerned initially because the house he saw Martin in front of had been burglarized in the past? It rings odd to me. I can certainly see an ordinary resident not knowing the street names around his home in his neighborhood-I do only in a spotty, inconsistent way. But a neighborhood watch 'captain', who specifically recognizes a house based on a past burglary...ehh, I'm not saying he's lying, I don't think we'll ever know that, but it seems unlikely to me. What's y'alls take on it?
Also, apparently now Martin lurked in bushes to ambush Zimmerman, and specifically threatened to kill him while beating him during their altercation. So now Martin didn't just snap into administering a violent beating, he snapped into a violent premeditated murder.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't seem odd to me. I was a paperboy in a neighborhood for years, and knew most of the streets, but not all of them in the entire neighborhood.
Where is the other info coming from though? Lurking, ambushing, and threatening? I've been working a lot, and must have missed those...lol...
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: TM's guilt or innocence might not be paramount, as you pointed out, but it is bloody well relevant, and in question.
Again, a trial is the -perfect- place for this question to be answered, and -trying- to answer that question does not infringe in anyway on the presumption of innocence.
His guilt or innocence in relation to *this* event are material. Thus, any serious past of violence or criminality might also be material. Maybe. If he had been convicted of a crime, perhaps, or if his character were anything but implication and innuendo, then maybe it would matter. But would it matter if he had been a convicted murderer, and Zimmerman had initiated a fight with him and shot him? Actually, no. Zimmerman's guilt or lack thereof are what the trial determines, and not whetherMartin was guilty of anything, in particular. Crimes don't equalize other crimes- even if Martin committed felony assault against Zimmerman, Zimmerman may be guilty of a crime, depending upon his actions. As was said, Martin's guilt in this is not at issue, particularly, and doesn't effect the outcome.
The way I see it is that by claiming their son was a perfect little angel, and releasing a picture of their kid when he was 14 as if that was how he looked the night of his death, his parents made his character an issue. I don't think that it is character assassination, but it is valid, and it is refuting claims made by the other side.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait a second, so now *his parents* are required to, for some reason, present their dead son in a way that meets your approval, else they're opening up his character for scrutiny? Geeze. I guess that's in a handbook somewhere for parents who outlive their children, or something.
And you know, sneer all you like about how he wasn't a 'perfect little angel', but so far? School pot bust. Ohhhhhhh! Scary. You must have a pretty good idea how many kids in school could be busted for that at any given moment.
As for lurking and spouting death threats, that comes from Zimmerman's own mouth: he got out of the car, was heading back, and Martin sprang out of the bushes where he was lurking and attacked him-and while doing so, told Zimmerman he would die today.
Now, as for the street name-he wasn't a dang paperboy, he was the 'captain' of his neighborhood watch-and supposedly recognized the house from a previous burglary.
He knew the neighborhood, knew the house, and knew everyone IN the neighborhood to by sight at night tell Martin didn't belong there...but didn't know what street he was on.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for witnesses, yeah, could be bad. I wonder how dark it was, though, and whether or not these were any of the witnesses who reported coaching.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could easily see having confused or lost track of a street name during the altercation; our memories are weird and we can futz or drop otherwise normal details very, very easily and plausibly when our adrenaline is going. It fits perfectly with what we know so far; zimmerman is oddly agitated during the call and has a record of being high strung.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would regard knowing the street name but having forgotten it during the struggle as credible, less so not knowing it in the first place. But in any event, I think it's unlikely but not strong enough to condemn him:
Him being deeply, stupidly deceptive under the stress of bond hearings, though...now that to me screams, "Hey, this guy has terrible judgment even after thinking about things, and is willing to lie about it!" even in a drawn out process. Why on Earth anyone would credit him with anything approaching sound judgment in a crisis is totally beyond me-so much so that I really can't help but wonder if 'scary young black dude' doesn't enter into it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In earnest, beyond any speculation of the relevance of martin's race, the most important things related to his character and judgment are the call recording, the 911 call history recordings, and the perjury and money movement post-release. There's probably more coming; he had apparently been recorded for a while and had been engaging in this cloak-and-duh-ger 'coded messages' about sneaking money around, making travel plans, etc.
I dunno! Case manages to keep itself very interesting, because zimmerman is just not a smart person and he makes very bad decisions.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, police documents released later showed that the lead investigator in the Sanford Police Department believed there was enough evidence to arrest Zimmerman for manslaughter. The investigator wrote in his summary that Martin was not involved in any criminal activity, and that Zimmerman could have avoided the encounter.
quote:A newly released videotape shows George Zimmerman re-enacting for investigators his version of events the night he shot and killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin.
The re-enactment, which was conducted at the scene one day after the Feb. 26 shooting, was among new evidence released by prosecutors in advance of Zimmerman's trial for second-degree murder. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, says he killed Martin in self-defense.
The full tape was made available on the GZlegalcase.com website managed by Zimmerman's defense team.
Portions were broadcast today by reporter Pierre Thomas on ABC's Good Morning America.
In the tape, ABC reports, Zimmerman claims that he was attacked by Martin that night in a gated community in Sanford, Fla.
"He took my head and slammed it against the concrete several times, and each time I thought my head was going to explode and I thought I was going to lose consciousness," George Zimmerman tells police in the tape, according to ABC News.
He says he "started screaming for help," but that Martin pressed his hands over Zimmerman's mouth and nose and told him to shut up.
"I didn't want him to keep slamming my head on the concrete so I kind of shifted. But when I shifted my jacket came up … and it exposed my firearm. That's when he said you are going to die tonight. He took one hand off my mouth, and slid it down my chest. I took my gun aimed it at him and fired."
posted
What does that bleeding heart liberal gun-rights hating cop know, anyway? Clearly he was just twisting the evidence!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another person effectively lynched (punished without a trial) in the name of that 12-year-old-looking "innocent kid" Trayvon Martin.
Not because he did anything wrong but because of the "escalating divisiveness". And gee, don't you think that the people WHO LIED about what Trayvon looked like, and the people WHO LIED about what Zimmerman claimed, and the people WHO LIED by portraying this as clearly racial, and the people WHO LIED when they said Zimmerman was without injuries, do you think these people are sinless in such contributing to the destruction of actually innocent people's lives?
Let see how many *actually* innocent lives and careers this bloodlust will require for it to be sated whenever a violent thug like Trayvon gets killed in self-defense.
One wonders why Trayvon, if he was not lurking to ambush Zimmerman, didn't keep on heading for the friendly house he had been heading for. Or is the prosecutor story supposed to be that Zimmerman actually outrun and caught him?
The quotes mentioned a couple comments ago don't exactly correspond to what is spoken in the actual video, so I suggest people actually see it.-
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Violnet thug Trayvon Martin: condemned as such by supposed Twitter posts of a cousin, the hideous crime of being suspended for pot, witness accounts at night (some of which report coaching), and most importantly...the word of the guy who later used deeply stupid lies to hide publicly collected money from the authorities.
Just love how yet another wrinkle in Zimmerman's account is just accepted unchallenged by you, Aris. Zimmerman claims Martin didn't just snap but lurked in ambush? Oh, well it must be true. How do we know? Why, because Zimmerman also tells us Martin told him he'd kill him after ambushing him.
And yeah, those evil life-destroying parents! Don't they know they're supposed to coordinate their press releases with the defense team, vetting them through Zimmerman's lawyers for approval? And who does that investigator think he is, anyway? Getting all skeptical of Zimmerman's account weeks before it became a media circus. Didn't he know Zimmerman was clearly innocent? And that judge...his dare he!! Demand that the Zimmermans abide by the law with respect to divulging their finances? Who does he think he is? Actually innocent people, they're *allowed* to purjur themselves, doesn't he know that? It's all bloodlust after Zimmerman just for...I don't know, because people just dislike and distrust him for no reason at all.
*sigh* Alas for the days when you could just shoot a 'suspicious' young black man in your neighborhood, and the police would have to find a signed KKK membership card in your wallet to start wondering (and not always then).
I would ask if you were listening to yourself, Aris, but if even deeply stupid perjury doesn't put a dent in your faith in Zimmerman's honesty and judgment, I really don't know what will. Let me guess: it was all the wife, George can't be criticized for it, stress or something.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, Aris, I would love to hear how Zimmerman's behavior with respect to his finances factors into how credible his accounting of the events should be considered. You know, with your thoroughly tested, peerless predictive analytical ability.
Totally on the edge of my seat over here to hear all about how it's not that big a deal, and how we should regard Martin as a 'violent thug' but not Zimmerman as an incredibly foolish liar.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the life of me I can not figgure out why Aris/Rakeesh communications were not included in the admin ban.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, are we doing this again, Stone_Wolf? That thing where you attempt to police and/or speak for others?
If you think it should be, by all means, use that whistle button. It was right there when you instead decided to-again-criticize and stand in judgment of me and a few others out of nowhere.
Pretend for a moment that I made that sort of remark to or about you, especially if it was totally unnecessary except to say 'I disapprove!' and imagine your reaction. Keep that reaction in mind if/when you reply to this, would you?
Or we could skip all that and you could simply refrain from that style of post, unless you actually want to mix it up like that again. I can't think why, though, when it means it won't be long before you start talking about bullying or something. We've had this discussion before. You can't have it both ways.
posted
I'm sorry if you find my opinion offensive, I'm hope that in time you will be able to come to terms that at times people will have opinions which you do not agree with or approve of without throwing down gauntlets or trying to make one comment into a one sided summery of an entire poster's time here.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I dunno! Case manages to keep itself very interesting, because zimmerman is just not a smart person and he makes very bad decisions.
That's being very charitable, I think.
Guy with some violence in his criminal record ignores a dispatcher, pursues and shoots a kid who the police say wasn't doing anything illegal to begin with, lies to a judge, but deserves the benefit of the doubt? And the kid is the "violent thug?" Come on.
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, it's very simple: if you want to make that sort of post, that's fine-though if it were actually sincere by its own lights, you would've simply whistled it. You wanted to make sure your disapproval was known.
Alright! But I don't want to hear any of your bleating later when it happens to you. Expect to be criticized for...inconsistency when that inevitably happens.
But above all, remember how very straightforward this is: if this apparent moderator inconsistency was actually so distressing to you, you would've whistled it and been done with it. You wanted to get a shot in. It's not your opinion that is upsetting, it's your dishonesty, and the continual implied suggestion that others are too foolish to see through it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
