Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Tue Jul 16, 2013 11:07 am

Yeah. He's popular because people can laugh at him, which is a terrible reason for someone to win elections, but unfortunately he has an actual shot at it.

I'm hoping the next election will see Labour increase its majority again. Governments in power tend to decline in popularity, and the Lib Dems will almost certainly lose seats regardless. Not that I'm a big Labour fan right now, but we need the Conservatives out before they do something stupid about Europe.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4774
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Jabari » Tue Jul 16, 2013 11:46 am

Klaudandus wrote:Ok, then... uh, what about this?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-574 ... ing-shots/


I don't know anything about that case right now. I'd have to look around some and get back to you. From a brief glance, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, though. Care to expand?

Please note that the linked article has been updated since you posted that, so I can't tell what's different between what you read and what I just did. *shrug*


As an bonus for you Klaud:
More "War on Women" from the Republicans:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-filner-claims-20130715,0,6397291.story
:wink:
Most people want the wealth produced by a society with limited government distributed to them more generously by bigger government.
Jabari
 
Posts: 674
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:46 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Jul 16, 2013 11:50 am

Jabari wrote:I don't know anything about that case right now. I'd have to look around some and get back to you. From a brief glance, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, though. Care to expand?

Please note that the linked article has been updated since you posted that, so I can't tell what's different between what you read and what I just did. *shrug*


I just wonder why Stand your Ground was valid when it took someone's life, and not in the case of firing warning shots in order to deter your attacker. O_o
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9340
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:03 pm

Bringing back the abortion debate a bit

Law of Unintended Consequences
http://news.yahoo.com/more-texas-women- ... 22442.html

And here's the American Congress of Ob-Gyns statement on the Texas bill
http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/News_Roo ... egislation

And the Texas Hospital Associationg
http://www.tha.org/HealthCareProviders/ ... %20session).pdf

I know the Texas Medical Association also opposed the bill, but can't find a link to their actual statement.

And tidbit from another article:
Sen. John Whitmire, a Houston Democrat, said during the debate that it was clear the bill was part of national conservative agenda attempting to ban abortion and infringe on women's rights one state at a time. He pressed Hegar on why the Texas Medical Association, Texas Hospital Association and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology opposed the bill.

He asked Sen. Glen Hegar of Katy, the bill's Republican author, how he could ignore these experts.

"There are differences in the medical profession," Hegar insisted, rejecting the criticism. "I don't believe this legislation will majorly impede the doctor-patient relationship."


Image
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9340
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Amirya » Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:59 pm

Oh yes, because a related field of medicine is different.

Totally should have consulted with brain surgeons, psychiatrists, and dentists instead.

Morons.
Image

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.
Amirya
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 2948
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:21 pm

Klaudandus wrote:I just wonder why Stand your Ground was valid when it took someone's life, and not in the case of firing warning shots in order to deter your attacker. O_o


From TFA, she left the house, got a gun, and came back into the house.

According to the judge's order, "there is insufficient evidence that the Defendant reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself," and that the fact that she came back into the home, instead of leaving out the front or back door "is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for her life."


The 20 year sentence is a byproduct of adhering to stupid laws.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Lieris » Tue Jul 16, 2013 5:20 pm

KysenMurrin wrote:Yeah. He's popular because people can laugh at him, which is a terrible reason for someone to win elections, but unfortunately he has an actual shot at it.


He's also WAY smarter and a lot more ruthless than people realise. Boris is someone who is obsessed with power and he's way better at playing the politics game than anyone else in the tory party. People think he is a buffoon so are less guarded around him and that's what makes him so dangerous.

I'm hoping the next election will see Labour increase its majority again. Governments in power tend to decline in popularity, and the Lib Dems will almost certainly lose seats regardless. Not that I'm a big Labour fan right now, but we need the Conservatives out before they do something stupid about Europe.


I can't stand any of them personally but the way tories utterly delight in being irredeemable bastards is a special kind of sickening. I still could never bring myself to vote labour because they're a bunch of Thatcherite neoliberal authoritarians in thrall to corporations too who will jump on the "scrounger" rhetoric bandwagon as readily as the tories. :(

I really hope we don't have any kind of referendum on Europe because the British public is too stupid and brain washed by tory/ukip/DM/torygraph etc. lies to make an informed decision on something that important. Luckily I have two passports so I have a parachute! ;)
Lieris
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1521
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:49 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Jul 16, 2013 5:38 pm

Amirya wrote:Oh yes, because a related field of medicine is different.

Totally should have consulted with brain surgeons, psychiatrists, and dentists instead.

Morons.


One of the Reproductive Health experts brought in by the Republicans while discussing the bill was an ophthalmologist.

When one person pointed it out, another senator had that person removed.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9340
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Amirya » Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:15 pm

Ok, I know you live in Texas, but seriously...can we just give it back to Mexico?

I mean, that falls under the same logic that because I handle car insurance, I am equally qualified to discuss the merits of Obamacare in Congress.
Image

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.
Amirya
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 2948
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Wed Jul 17, 2013 1:06 am

Lieris wrote:I can't stand any of them personally but the way tories utterly delight in being irredeemable bastards is a special kind of sickening. I still could never bring myself to vote labour because they're a bunch of Thatcherite neoliberal authoritarians in thrall to corporations too who will jump on the "scrounger" rhetoric bandwagon as readily as the tories. :(

Speaking of the scrounger archetype, I was laughing yesterday at a news article saying the government claims that news of the upcoming benefits cap has caused 12,000 people to get jobs. It was the most ridiculous spin: Since they started requiring the Job Centre people to mention the benefits cap, 12k people found work, so obviously it was the cap that made them do it.

The government is equating correlation to causation because it feeds into that whole "people on benefits don't actually need it" narrative, despite the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever that a) 12,000 unemployed people could just suddenly decide to be employed as soon as they hear of a change in circumstances (not just decide to try, but to actually get jobs, in this economic climate), and b) 12k people would decide to get a job because of a change that will only affect 40,000 households.

I really hope we don't have any kind of referendum on Europe because the British public is too stupid and brain washed by tory/ukip/DM/torygraph etc. lies to make an informed decision on something that important. Luckily I have two passports so I have a parachute! ;)

I have in all seriousness started to consider emigrating in protest if Britain exits the EU. Not sure how realistic that plan would be, though - would depend on money and employment.

Some people seem to think it's inherently wrong to give power to organisations that aren't "your" nation, but that's just short-sighted, small-minded xenophobia and nationalism that doesn't really have much logic behind it (and they never go the whole way down the rabbit hole and suggest local rule for all the counties etc). Other anti-EU folks are just being economically selfish, treating international business as a zero-sum competition where success in their home territory is all that matters.

Ultimately my position would be that we'd be better off cooperating than obstructing, and we'd be better off trying to improve the EU from within.

Unfortunately I think a referendum is likely. I said I think that Labour will gain in 2015, but there's still a fair chance they won't get the required majority, and the Lib Dems will decide to keep the current coalition going.

I voted Yes to AV, on an "at least it's better than what we do now" basis, but alas the public ate up the No campaign. It's always easier to get people to support "tradition". AV would have allowed us to begin breaking away from this two-and-a-half party system, made it possible for others to gain ground.

I don't know what I'll do come the 2015 elections. I had decided to vote my conscience and not on a lesser-evil basis, but at this time it might be necessary to vote Labour for the best shot at getting the Tories out.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4774
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Lieris » Wed Jul 17, 2013 3:30 am

Talking of scroungers, looks like the royal baby will be born pretty soon!

KysenMurrin wrote:I have in all seriousness started to consider emigrating in protest if Britain exits the EU. Not sure how realistic that plan would be, though - would depend on money and employment.


It's looking grim isn't it? :(

Some people seem to think it's inherently wrong to give power to organisations that aren't "your" nation, but that's just short-sighted, small-minded xenophobia and nationalism that doesn't really have much logic behind it (and they never go the whole way down the rabbit hole and suggest local rule for all the counties etc). Other anti-EU folks are just being economically selfish, treating international business as a zero-sum competition where success in their home territory is all that matters.


I think it's quite telling that of all things, the European Court of Human Rights has been vilified by the right. They have completely dominated the conversation, getting people to simultaneously believe that Brussels is a waste of money where nothing gets done and yet where they control everything.

I voted Yes to AV, on an "at least it's better than what we do now" basis, but alas the public ate up the No campaign. It's always easier to get people to support "tradition". AV would have allowed us to begin breaking away from this two-and-a-half party system, made it possible for others to gain ground.


So did I because I had hoped it would be a stepping stone to STV. Sadly Labour and Tory loyalists love the 2 party system and couldn't bring themselves to do the right thing. The joke will be on Labour if Scotland secede and we get a 1 party system!

I don't know what I'll do come the 2015 elections. I had decided to vote my conscience and not on a lesser-evil basis, but at this time it might be necessary to vote Labour for the best shot at getting the Tories out.


For me it depends on which constituency I will be eligible to vote in come 2015. I have always voted Lib Dem and would have suffered gladly through this coalition if it had meant some form of PR in national elections, house of lords reform, abolishing university fees and other such Lib Dem pet policies had been implemented. Alas...
Lieris
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1521
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:49 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:05 am

Politics in the US would probably be well served by a reality show format. Stick all the candidates together in the same house for 12 weeks, hold a weekly debate, and let viewers vote for all the positions.

It couldn't possibly be any worse than what we've got now, and at least then the voters would have zero reason for not knowing the candidates. Currently, people are more influenced by political attack ads than the actual politicians themselves - and the mudslinging gets downright ridiculous. I remember one where they were attacking Kirsten Sinema(sp? I know I've got the last name spelled right, but don't remember the first name) and it was laughably ridiculous. She got elected, but the smear campaign against her was pretty staggering.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2797
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:28 am

Yeah, and there was also that time where they were trying to smear a former wow player for a comment about her liking to stab people in the back with daggers (yeah, she was a horde rogue) -- i think she won.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9340
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:31 am

fuzzygeek wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:I just wonder why Stand your Ground was valid when it took someone's life, and not in the case of firing warning shots in order to deter your attacker. O_o


From TFA, she left the house, got a gun, and came back into the house.

According to the judge's order, "there is insufficient evidence that the Defendant reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself," and that the fact that she came back into the home, instead of leaving out the front or back door "is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for her life."


The 20 year sentence is a byproduct of adhering to stupid laws.



Well, by using the logic that she left the house, got a gun, and came back, If Zimmerman would have adhered to the standing order he received from the police (STAY IN YOUR CAR, DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ENGAGE THE "SUSPECT"), Deadly Force wouldn't have needed to be used either.

Zimmerman is guilty of a misdemeanor crime: Failure to follow order or signal of an officer of the law, which then led him to end up in a situation where he shouldn't have been. I have a serious problem with him disobeying an order from the police, doing something stupid, and then being able to call it "stand your ground".

It's ok, the way it works out is better. He's going to be found liable for wrongful death. The only thing that they will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, is that he disobeyed the order from the police, and that had he abided by the law, and directive, Martin would still be alive.

Wrongful death.

Do Not Pass Go. Do Not Collect $200. Do, kiss your Ass(ets) goodbye.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Jabari » Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:51 am

Klaudandus wrote:
Jabari wrote:I don't know anything about that case right now. I'd have to look around some and get back to you. From a brief glance, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, though. Care to expand?

Please note that the linked article has been updated since you posted that, so I can't tell what's different between what you read and what I just did. *shrug*


I just wonder why Stand your Ground was valid when it took someone's life, and not in the case of firing warning shots in order to deter your attacker. O_o

Before I go any further: Where have you been getting your information on the Zimmerman trial from?

Same quesetion applies for you Shoju.

fuzzygeek wrote:From TFA <snip>

As I mentioned before, that article had been updated after he originally linked it. I think we can give him a pass for not having a clue this time.
Most people want the wealth produced by a society with limited government distributed to them more generously by bigger government.
Jabari
 
Posts: 674
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:46 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Lieris » Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:05 am

I think they're referring to stand your ground being in the juror's instructions.
Lieris
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1521
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:49 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:26 am

My information is publicly available. They released the tapes of the 911 Phone Call. They released that this phone call took place before the alteraction, and in the call he references that he is in his car.

Eye Witness interviews say that the altercation took place outside of a car, in the grass.

Past that, there really isn't much needed. He was told to do something by an officer of the law.
He didn't do it. He did the opposite
A quick google of Florida Revised Code reveals that Florida also has a Failure to Comply with Order or signal of an officer of the law in their code of laws.

He didn't follow the order of a law officer (news flash: 911 operators are Police Officers)
He committed a crime.
Which then led to an alteraction with someone he didn't know, who looked suspicious.
There was no Crime actively happening when this happened. He was just a suspicious person of interest in the neighborhood.
Had he waited in his car as instructed on the 911 call, he would not have gotten into the altercation, Martin would still be alive, he wouldn't have gotten the shit beat out of him, and he wouldn't have ruined his life.

But because he didn't follow the order, he got into an altercation that put him in harms way. I find the justification of deadly force in this situation ridiculous. Breaking the law, and then killing someone because it put you in harms way isn't standing your ground. It's Vigilante behavior that now has trial law precedence as being acceptable in the state of Florida.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:54 am

Jabari wrote:I think we can give him a pass for not having a clue this time.

Umm. Thanks? :(
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9340
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:18 am

Shoju wrote:Past that, there really isn't much needed. He was told to do something by an officer of the law.
He didn't do it. He did the opposite


Here is the transcript of the call:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... erman.html

The closest thing to being told to do something is this:
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Which is hardly an order to stay in the car -- Zimmerman was already out of his car at this point -- and was a key point admitted by the prosecution.

This breaks your first point that Zimmerman broke the law by disobeying an officer of the law, and was specifically addressed during the trial. But it's a potent talking point and makes for nice emotional hyperventilating.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:31 am

Shoju wrote:My information is publicly available. They released the tapes of the 911 Phone Call. They released that this phone call took place before the alteraction, and in the call he references that he is in his car.

Eye Witness interviews say that the altercation took place outside of a car, in the grass.

Past that, there really isn't much needed. He was told to do something by an officer of the law.
He didn't do it. He did the opposite
A quick google of Florida Revised Code reveals that Florida also has a Failure to Comply with Order or signal of an officer of the law in their code of laws.

He didn't follow the order of a law officer (news flash: 911 operators are Police Officers)
He committed a crime.
Which then led to an alteraction with someone he didn't know, who looked suspicious.
There was no Crime actively happening when this happened. He was just a suspicious person of interest in the neighborhood.
Had he waited in his car as instructed on the 911 call, he would not have gotten into the altercation, Martin would still be alive, he wouldn't have gotten the shit beat out of him, and he wouldn't have ruined his life.

But because he didn't follow the order, he got into an altercation that put him in harms way. I find the justification of deadly force in this situation ridiculous. Breaking the law, and then killing someone because it put you in harms way isn't standing your ground. It's Vigilante behavior that now has trial law precedence as being acceptable in the state of Florida.

Shoju
While that information is public record, there is no freaking way you actually read it because your information is ridiculously false.  That's actually quite reasonable because most of the media stories have had the same false information too.  First of all, the call did not take place from Zimmerman's car, it started there but it most definitely did not end up there.
 
Zimmerman was already following Martin, and the 911 operator asked if he was following, Zimmerman said that he was, and the 911 operator said "We don't need you to do that".  That's it, there was no freaking order to stay in the car, which would be insanely stupid because he wasn't in his car.  There was no order to stop following Martin, There was no order to do anything at all. 
 
Further, Zimmerman responded "OK" and then started having a conversation indicating that he was heading back to his truck and that he would meet the police at his truck.  It was also clear that he didn't know where Martin was, because he wouldn't give out his address in case Martin heard it.  All of which is consistent with Zimmerman's statement that he was jumped by Martin while heading back to his truck. 

That's really where the problem is, we don't know what happened in that time after the call and up to Martin's death, but there's no evidence that Zimmerman actually reached Martin.  The evidence we do have lends credibility to Zimmerman's story.  The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and they didn't have much to work with.  Maybe Zimmerman did find Martin and instigated the altercation, but there is no proof of that.
 
Also Zimmerman did not invoke the stand your ground law.
 
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Jabari » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:21 am

Klaudandus wrote:
Jabari wrote:I think we can give him a pass for not having a clue this time.

Umm. Thanks? :(

Heh, just giving you a hard time.
(But with a point. I had asked you a while back where you usually got your information from and you never answered. You didn't answer it this time either - I'm beginning to think that's deliberate. I think it would do you some good to expand your horizons a bit and was going to give suggestions. No, not National Review or Free Republic, I promise! :) )

Shoju wrote:He didn't follow the order of a law officer (news flash: 911 operators are Police Officers)
He committed a crime.

This is false BTW. "Orders" from 911 dispatchers are not binding nor required to be followed.

Fridmarr wrote:That's actually quite reasonable because most of the media stories have had the same false information too.

Yup. I'd take this further and say that "most of the media stories have deliberately painted a false narrative".

The interesting question to ask is "why?"

Fridmarr wrote:Also Zimmerman did not invoke the stand your ground law.

See Klaud - this is why I asked you why you thought the two cases were related, and where you get your info. SYG has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the Zimmerman case! The defense specifically waived a hearing for that before the trial started.
Most people want the wealth produced by a society with limited government distributed to them more generously by bigger government.
Jabari
 
Posts: 674
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:46 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Jul 17, 2013 1:04 pm

Probably missed that part. I am normally good enough with providing links. Heck, I even provided links to back up Fridmarr's poll numbers! =P

But if you ever link me to NRO or Freepers... I will retaliate. >=P
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9340
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Wed Jul 17, 2013 1:15 pm

I'll post a link to the piece I read, that had the transcript of the call. I would have wagered money that he was told to not pursue, or follow, or something along those lines. After reading what you posted, I'm now really curious if I'm just not remembering correctly (a point I'm willing to admit, since I haven't read it since last year when the 911 call was released), or if the piece I read was factually inaccurate.

I will say though, that at least in Ohio, orders from a 911 operator are as binding as orders from a police officer in person, as was argued in court, and then appellate courts not too long ago (in the last 8-12 years I would say). I will dig up a link on that as well. That it would be different state to state is surprising.

I can't search much on my work computer, or I'd post from here.

I've tried to stick pretty clear of this case. I've read (and now reread the call), and I've read several other pieces of case law. I've stayed way the hell away from the trial. It's a powder keg. Even if I'm wrong and the piece I originally read was factually accruate, My opinion largely remains that Zimmerman was the aggressor, even after reading the transcript you linked to. He didn't have to end up in a fight. He did his "civic duty". This wasn't a burglary. There wasn't a crime in progress. It was just some kid he thought was being sketchy. He showed an attitude of unhappiness with law enforcement response to the situation "because these assholes always get away".

What would really give me a sense of how far out of line Zimmerman was: where was the shooting in relation to the original place he said he would be? Why did he then want them to call him when they got in the area?

I still think he's going to end up losing a wrongful death civil case, and I believe he should. It didn't need to come to that.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Wed Jul 17, 2013 2:26 pm

I listened to it after reading these posts.

http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/raw-911 ... ice/vGZq9/

The only thing said is "We don't need you to do that". It's hard to tell what Zimmerman does from the call; he never actually says outright that he'll go back to the truck. He does tell them to call him when they get there instead of agreeing to wait where they can find him.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4774
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Jul 17, 2013 3:10 pm

There is a transcript error in that earlier link too. When asked if he wanted to meet with the police when they arrived Zimmerman answered 'Yes', that answer was omitted.  Also the question asking  basically "where do you want them to meet you" was attributed to Zimmerman, but obviously that was asked by the 911 operator.

It is plausible (and even quite likely) that Zimmerman wanted the police to call because he had to go back to his truck to figure out the address where it was. So he could tell the police where he was.He indicated as much when they asked him where he was parked. Or maybe he wanted a chance to find Martin before they came, it's hard to say.
 
Even with no evidence you are free to believe he was the aggressor, but as far as the trial is concerned (in my best Tom Cruise voice)...It doesn't matter what you believe, it only matters what you can prove. 
 
When the case broke I paid attention to the case a bit, so most of my knowledge is from that.  I didn't follow the trial at all, so maybe I missed something, but for all the amazing amount of false information (and man has this thread contributed to that...), hypocritical rhetoric, indications that America (or Florida) just legalized the murder of african americans (...yay more death panels), and all the other idiotic nonsense people are spewing, I have yet to see anyone point to any particular evidence at all, much less evidence that overcomes reasonable doubt.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest