The plot thickens

POSTED BY: whozit
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 11:37
VIEWED: 10592
PAGE 9 of 13

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Well, this is often the case. An incident occurs where someone has been an ass, and the desire surfaces to modify the law to remove rights from the population. In this case, rights being contested by our forumites now include the right to carry arms at all.

As I said, if you want to modify the 'stand your ground' law to say specifically that someone can not provoke an attack and claim self-defense, that's fine. But I also think such a contraindication is self-evident despite the law. I think we are suffering from lazy investigators more than bad laws.

And now we've gotten to the 'if there was no gun, nobody would have died' part of the argument, which is where I must respectfully withdraw. Once people start talking about leaving me defenseless in the face of aggression, I begin to feel that those people no longer have my best interests at heart.

--Anthony

---

Within the currant law it is not self-evident, and that is the problem. Have you read it?

You are not defenseless without a gun.

I would wonder what part of the investigations you think has been "lazy"?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Just a question, but does anyone pay him any mind?

---

Many have asked the same about your self-aggrandizing bullshit.

Spoon!

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I think we are suffering from lazy investigators more than bad laws.

---

We'll find out about this when the grand jury convenes. I suspect there is evidence that has not been made public yet.

If Mr. Zimmerman's story is correct, there should be a police report on the incident including details of the injuries to both parties. There should probably be an EMT's report of the treatment of Mr. Zimmerman's injuries. There should also be a record of his visit to his doctor to get the back of his head and his nose seen to. There should be a coroner's report on the gunshot wound to Mr. Little. There may very well be an analysis of such information which the police performed before coming to the conclusion the shooting was self-defense. None of this information has been released yet. I surmise that the local D.A. is sequestering any information of this sort (or about its absence or presence) in an attempt to avoid contaminating the jury pool.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

There's so much unknown here, & my speculation on it is foolish but likely
to continue.

Niki: the girlfriend's testimony about being on the phone with Trayvon
and hearing him ask, "Why are you following me"
and Zimmerman saying, "What are you doing here?"

Then the phone goes dead.

Zimmerman will tell the cops that Trayvon felled him with one blow.
Neighbors see Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, beating him. Z's injuries concur.
Neighbors see Zimmerman standing over lifeless Trayvon.

I have no magic camera to tell me what happened between "What are you doing here?"
and Zimmerman standing over Trayvon's corpse.

But I wonder why Trayvon felt the need to beat Zimmerman after he was down.

Here is what I Do know: Zimmerman is mental, irresponsible. He is not sane
enough to own a gun, and it was his duty to know that.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
We'll find out about this when the grand jury convenes. I suspect there is evidence that has not been made public yet.

If Mr. Zimmerman's story is correct, there should be a police report on the incident including details of the injuries to both parties. There should probably be an EMT's report of the treatment of Mr. Zimmerman's injuries. There should also be a record of his visit to his doctor to get the back of his head and his nose seen to. There should be a coroner's report on the gunshot wound to Mr. Little. There may very well be an analysis of such information which the police performed before coming to the conclusion the shooting was self-defense. None of this information has been released yet. I surmise that the local D.A. is sequestering any information of this sort (or about its absence or presence) in an attempt to avoid contaminating the jury pool.

---

Again, which is as it should be - sans the need for public outrage to have hoisted the wheels in motion, which should not have been required.

As for your comments in regards to a Jury, M52Nick - it ain't all their fault, not when they are lied to, given illegal instructions and then fed cherry picked evidence or testimony in order to lead them by the nose...
On top of which is the fact that Judges can, and often do, threaten Jurors who refuse to convict on demand, or even overrule their verdict via JNOV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_verdict

Add in the usual chicanery between most Public Defenders and Prosecutors, throw in Judicial influence, and for most cases that stuff is decided before they even let you in there and the rest is a dog and pony show for the masses to make them think they have a say - believe me, on one occasion I snuck in there early and got to watch this dealmaking go on before they realized I wasn't "one of them" and chased me off...

That said, we DO have a few decent Judges here, usually I get thrown out on my ear by virtue of being an Anarchist except for the last time they called me up, and THAT was a special kind of screwed up.

From Oct 8th 2011

Quote:

---

Fucking star chamber, is what it is...

Not all so evil as that, over here, I was somewhat amused at not being pitched out on my ear because I am an Anarchist, do not believe in the legitimacy of the court, feel that it violates the constitutional requirement for a fair trial, and consider agents of the State to be untrustworthy... not to mention my annoyance at what I feel amounts to gunpoint conscription in order to be held over folks head as a threat against them (and the judge ADMITTED we were there in part to pressure the putative defendants to plea bargain).
After grilling me under oath, despite my comment I'd rather not answer those questions, despite the answers he recieved, the damn judge seats me anyways, stating "Well I presume you have no problem with the basic presumption of innocence, then..." and the DEFENSE attorney throws a hissy and sends me off, it was all I could do not to facepalm - the judge was OBVIOUSLY trying to tank the case (I guess he felt it was bullshit) since by my own statements there's no way in hell I could *possibly* deliver a verdict of guilty if the States trial has failed Constitutional Requirement, and HE KNEW THIS...
And the "defense" attorney then goes and sabotages what would have been a slam-dunk walkaway for his client ?
(Public Defender, obviously, as I said, professional dive-takers)
I consider that somewhere between deliberate negligence and "ineffective assistance of counsel" - the onus to prove guilt is on the State, and the defendant at no time is required to correct errors of the State, no matter how deliberately introduced.

So what we had here is a Judge who WANTED to dismiss the case, who likely felt it was all bullshit but had not the ability to dismiss it outright, trying to follow his conscience in a corrupt system which wouldn't ALLOW him to do the right thing directly - and an attorney SUPPOSED to be *defending* his client sub

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME