posted
I can see why they returned that verdict. I think I probably would have as well, and likely not guilty on all charges.
I don't really believe Zimmerman's account, though. What else would he have said? Of course he would say-whether he had or not-that he was the victim, that it wasn't racially inspired (in the beginning, when 'hooded black teen' equaled 'suspicious lurker'), that he didn't get out of his truck looking to confront.
But someone-anyone, by the way-feel free to point me to any piece of physical evidence or testimony that directly speaks to any of those points, that of themselves make it likelier than not that Zimmerman's account is true. *shrug* Verdict seems lawful to me, but who can say whether it's justice?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well they did at least consider a lesser charge since they asked for a clarification on the requirements for manslaughter (which they could have given him instead of murder). Sounds to me like they felt the same way most of us did. Couldn't get him for murder but really felt he should be guilty of something.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I can see why they returned that verdict. I think I probably would have as well, and likely not guilty on all charges.
I don't really believe Zimmerman's account, though. What else would he have said? Of course he would say-whether he had or not-that he was the victim, that it wasn't racially inspired (in the beginning, when 'hooded black teen' equaled 'suspicious lurker'), that he didn't get out of his truck looking to confront.
But someone-anyone, by the way-feel free to point me to any piece of physical evidence or testimony that directly speaks to any of those points, that of themselves make it likelier than not that Zimmerman's account is true. *shrug* Verdict seems lawful to me, but who can say whether it's justice?
This is a reasoned post. It's too bad the outpouring of "celebrity" reactions isn't one tenth as informed. Twitter relays ignorance more efficiently than any other channel in history.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
The football player who tweeted the jurors should go home and kill themselves is a highlight.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: When did Hatrack discussions become so petty and full of personal attacks?
I don't know exactly(probably around 2005), but I feel it proves my point about OSC. IMHO, it's the tone of his columns that attracted trolls and angry arch-conservatives, and turned the place bad. I believe he crapped up his own forum. Not intentionally, of course...
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steven, you are so frigging full of crap. By your own admission you came to this forum as a deliberate troll because you were angry at Card, and now you're gonna point at *other* people (conveniently, political opponents) as though they were the problem...because they did *exactly what you admit to having done*.
I would ask if you realized how absurd and hypocritical that outlook of yours was if there wasn't ample experience telling me you would easily shrug it off.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love that Stephen describes the place as full of arch-conservatives. Really? Where?
I can think of some folk who are more conservative than the previous average, maybe (but not necessarily the average from even further back)... But arch conservatives? That's a harder sell. I'm not buying.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm surprised a post relaying Roddy White's questionable tweet was what rang the bell for you, others seemed to pick it up more quickly. But yeah, I figured the name Shiggles would have been a bit obvious.
I've been a good boy, though. I even requested a name change from Blackblade once everyone shut up about it for a couple days.
I'm sorry for my previous actions on the board, but I wasn't kidding about a lot of what I said back then. My mental state was...questionable. What can I say? I apologize.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm kind of ashamed I didn't come to this conclusion from that 4th of July thread. It's like watching The Prestige. Its a cool plot twist, but you feel like an idiot for not seeing it.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, twigged to it pretty quick, then questioned it because of the new politeness. Then reaffirmed it in the 4th thread; A brit living in the US with familiar opinions.
Frankly I didn't think you we're a "bad" boy before. Wrong about plenty of stuff, absolutely. Blunt and utterly uninterested in people's feelings? Roger. But I disagreed with the assessment of you as a pure troll, then and now.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have had our fair share of archconservatives. We still have some here today. Few of them will admit being archconservative (and I'm ultimately pleased for the reasons why) so it's a useless endeavor to expect an affirmative response to the label, especially when most people who otherwise could perhaps be considered archconservative simply don't speak their mind on divisive political issues here anymore and feel that they need a much more safe space to admit their positions.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought this comment from Tim Freeman (CNN) to be the most accurate assessment of the situation.
quote:And since people on both sides seemed to have decided the case before the testimony was heard, the verdict was bound to be disturbing no matter how it tilted. Simply put, preconceived notions effectively had people watching two different trials, with every bit of testimony and evidence producing different, and often opposing, reactions in those dueling audiences.
I hate show trials. They become media spectacles where we try the case in our minds based on our world view and perceptions. It has nothing to do with the rule of law or evidence.
In reality, none of know what really happened in that courtroom, let alone what really happened on that street one night. So to call this either a confirmation or travesty of justice...no one has any idea what they are talking about.
I have my gut instincts about what this case means and what happened. But I think the public reaction to the case is where our national conversation should be. But we won't have that conversation. We've been avoiding it for a long, long time.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This was not a "show trial" that had nothing to do with the rule of law or evidence.
If anything the (in my opinion correct) verdict against Zimmerman is actually quite specifically a considerably important commentary on the state of Florida law — which is by all accounts pretty terrible — and ideas like castle doctrine, stand your ground, and the notion that if you get into a fight with someone in the way it probably went down with Zimmerman, and you're in a state where self-defense is something the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, you're honestly better off shooting the black kid so that they can't testify, and you can then put that "bloodthirsty thug" on trial as opposed to yourself and create a scenario in which a jury pretty much has to say he deserved to die.
The "greater national condition" however is that this is a world in which black kids need to learn about their potentially fatal or criminally persecutable condition of being a negro (a study on Stand Your Ground determined that the courts overwhelmingly preference its use as a defense to whites, so it's not something you can bank on if you're black) and where whole sections of the country have created a legal precedent in which in many circumstances if you start a fight your best legal option is to kill the other party so they cannot testify.
(don't do this if you're black though)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
That is, of course, assuming that it was Zimmerman who started a physical altercation.
There should definitely be a conversation about profiling. Zimmerman was undoubtedly a dumbass in all of this. And I'll not be the one to say it shouldn't be enraging to be assumed a criminal or a thug because you're male and black.
That being said, that's not an excuse to assault someone. And yes, I know, that's on Zimmerman's word. But there's also not enough to show that Zimmerman laid hands on Martin first, certainly not enough to put him away on murder 2.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If anything the (in my opinion correct) verdict against Zimmerman is actually quite specifically a considerably important commentary on the state of Florida law — which is by all accounts pretty terrible — and ideas like castle doctrine, stand your ground,
Do you think the laws in most other states are also pretty terrible?
I ask because half the states have SYG laws and most of the ones that don't have some form of Castle Law. As do Britain, Israel, Italy and Australia. The few states that don't have Castle Law still uphold it through case law, they just don't legislate it.
If you don't like these laws, fine. I disagree but understand your position. Just don't single out Florida for something that is standard in US States and even internationally.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Steven, you are so frigging full of crap. By your own admission you came to this forum as a deliberate troll because you were angry at Card, and now you're gonna point at *other* people (conveniently, political opponents) as though they were the problem...because they did *exactly what you admit to having done*.
I would ask if you realized how absurd and hypocritical that outlook of yours was if there wasn't ample experience telling me you would easily shrug it off.
Oh, I don't necessarily mind that OSC accidentally ruined his own forum. I actually have mixed feelings about that. It's nice to see karma in action, so there's a little schadenfreude there. However, it really was a better place in most ways before the Lisa/KoM years, and it's not always fun to watch the ugliness go down up close, in real time, etc.. I don't have much appetite for seeing people be that small and ugly.
I was really hoping that people like me would make it into a joke of a forum, where nothing could be discussed seriously, full of almost nothing but non-mean-spirited court jester types. That was my vision. What it has really become is mostly what the arch-conservatives (and their bitter opponents) have turned it into. The goofy court jesters never showed up much, and/or they were more mean-spirited to everyone than I could stomach.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The media aspect of this was absolutely a show trial. I think the trial itself was legitimate, I think the media spectacle was horribly damaging to the country.
I know that's not the dictionary definition of a show trial, but I'm not sure what term you use for the media spectacle.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think the trial itself was legitimate...
Anything you do to a large grown man stalking you at night with a gun is legit, IMHO. Therefore, anything Trayvon did was legit, and Zimmerman took advantage of a terrible, terrible law to get away with murdering a boy.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, steven, at least you're a convenient prop with which to point out to various folks here that I haven't actually 'made up my mind' or are tribally loyal or mired in deceit or so on and so forth because...
You've got no way of knowing if Zimmerman murdered Martin. None at all. Also your casual misuse of 'legal' illustrates that some folks shouldn't be let out of the house to gab about current events-it's ridiculous to say something is legal in your opinion when that opinion flatly contradicts, you know, *the law*.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, steven, at least you're a convenient prop with which to point out to various folks here that I haven't actually 'made up my mind' or are tribally loyal or mired in deceit or so on and so forth because...
You've got no way of knowing if Zimmerman murdered Martin. None at all. Also your casual misuse of 'legal' illustrates that some folks shouldn't be let out of the house to gab about current events-it's ridiculous to say something is legal in your opinion when that opinion flatly contradicts, you know, *the law*.
I used the word "legit". Had I meant a different word, I'd have used one.
You're not so great with the reading comprehension, are you?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
rakeesh i'll make you a puppet rakeesh if you're going to be needing one soon
quote:Do you think the laws in most other states are also pretty terrible?
generally yes. some states are worse than others. florida is one of the worst. they have some of the shittiest lawmakers this side of venezuela
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If by 'legit' you meant 'morally acceptable' and absolutely nothing else, then my bad, I was mistaken.
Now, that said, you've got...what basis, exactly for your certainty that Zimmerman murdered Martin? I mean I notice you mysteriously totally avoided addressing that point. I realize we're not out on the street where you can karate chop anything you didn't like with your leet martial arts skills, but if you could get around to it that'd be great.
Or did your reading comprehension skills just miss that central question?
Sheesh. This is a rhetorical exercise. I have a much higher degree of certainty why you didn't respond to that question than you do that Zimmerman murdered Martin. You know why too, Steven-because you were talking out of your ass, once again making all kinds of people on your side of the issue cringe in embarrassment and hope they don't get challenged with your blathering.
I just had some fun pointing out what a hack you are, steven, but for the record I will dig in wrist-deep into some crow if you can offer anything to substantiate your certainty.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well it's not over yet. The DOJ is stepping in to determine if federal prosecutors should file criminal civil rights charges.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel like this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. This guy killed somebody and now he's basically a celebrity. Or maybe it's better to say he's infamous. Either way, he's on talk shows and being talked about and everyone knows who he is. I really don't like that about the media. They latch onto these stories and the person becomes so famous that it makes me wonder how long it will take for people to start doing these kinds of things just so that they can get into the spotlight, too. I mean, look at Jodie Arias. She has her own lifetime movie!
If the public's reaction to this trial is any indication of how Zimmerman is going to be treated, he should be terrified. There are a lot of fanatics out there who would love to get ahold of this guy. I'd be terrified if I were in his position.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zimmerman isn't just a person accused of a crime. He represents a test of what can happen under Stand Your Ground. He's an indictment of the legislation.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I'd be terrified if I were in his position.
Yeah he's now like an amped-up version of the Joe Horn controversy. And, much like Joe Horn, Zimmerman won't sleep easy anymore.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Zimmerman isn't just a person accused of a crime. He represents a test of what can happen under Stand Your Ground. He's an indictment of the legislation.
The defense didn't end up invoking SYG. It was a run-of-the-mill Self Defense um.. defense.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Zimmerman isn't just a person accused of a crime. He represents a test of what can happen under Stand Your Ground. He's an indictment of the legislation.
The defense didn't end up invoking SYG. It was a run-of-the-mill Self Defense um.. defense.
posted
If one was intent on "getting back" at Zimmerman (to be clear: I am not), they could follow him around all day hurling insults, attempting to provoke a fight.
If Zimmerman did ever break and attempt to attack the provocateur, that person can then shoot him. Would make for an interesting case.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I feared for my life officer, you know he's killed before, it was obviously an imminent threat to life and limb..."
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they "follow him around all day," that really is stalking.
But if various people just reconize him on sight and insult him when they see him, sure. You don't have a right not to be annoyed by people.
Anyway, if he attempted to physically assault someone who was doing that, I certainly hope they would defend themselves, which may include shooting him. What's the problem?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: If one was intent on "getting back" at Zimmerman (to be clear: I am not), they could follow him around all day hurling insults, attempting to provoke a fight.
If Zimmerman did ever break and attempt to attack the provocateur, that person can then shoot him. Would make for an interesting case.
Are you suggesting that the scenario you've describe is approximately what happened the night Zimmerman shot Martin?
Regardless, I think anyone stupid enough to try and murder Zimmerman is too stupid to find him, let alone orchestrate such a deceitful attack. Were they able to kill him, but get caught after, they better pray to God they don't get defense lawyers as incompetent as the prosecution in the Zimmerman trial.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you suggesting that the scenario you've describe is approximately what happened the night Zimmerman shot Martin?
Not really.
I do think the precedent, had Zimmerman not been charged with a crime, might have led to copycats from white supremacists. It'd be really easy to follow around a young tough looking minority every night and just legally kill the ones who attack you. Which many would.
But since they arrested him and tried him for a few months, that at least limits how frequently one could pull off that trick.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I do think the precedent, had Zimmerman not been charged with a crime, might have led to copycats from white supremacists. It'd be really easy to follow around a young tough looking minority every night and just legally kill the ones who attack you. Which many would.
But since they arrested him and tried him for a few months, that at least limits how frequently one could pull off that trick. [/QB]
That's just nonsensical. Unless you're saying Zimmerman was somehow plugged into a network of white supremacists? Nobody would have ever heard of GZ if he *hadn't* been charged and the trial made into a national spectacle.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
