Baloo22

Speaking of our beloved Prime Minister, the BBC have completely changed the debate ...

Well done the BBC ...

Oh, I nabbed this photo from a blog

Some of the comments at random (well, the mildly amusing ones anyway) ...

We must immediately apologise for any insult caused to the Canadians.

Not sure who would be more insulted the Australians or the Canadians.

Ah hell, its all west of Bristol, so why argue about trivial technicalities?

But, for anyone following the current Ashes series in England, the prize quote goes to ...

The big difference is Canada are crap at cricket whereas Australia oh wait ...

You can read them all here

.

I like the comment:

"Thats one way for the Aussies to get rid of him perhaps they should have thought of that when Gizzard was in power!"

In Australia we have a little thing we do, when we leave a place we take our rubbish with us. Don't forget to clean up your mess America we don't want your rubbish in out front yard.

Cheers

They didn't seem to mind too much in 1942!

Reality is that there are some thinking people in Australia that can see a similar threat from the north developing in the near future. That is why Australia and the United States are developing an even closer relationship as allies. And why Australian and United States military forces are training together to enhance their ability to operate together.

****Comments from nitpicking post removed.****

At least they used the word "forced" in the title. BBC titled their article with "US jets dropped bombs on Great Barrier Reef". Makes it sound like the U.S. is starting a bombing campaign on the Great Barrier Reef. Thankfully, in their article they did explain it a bit more:

"The two planes jettisoned four bombs in more than 50m (165 ft) of water, away from coral, to minimise damage to the World Heritage Site, the US navy said. The jets had intended to drop at a bombing range on a nearby island, but Tuesday's mission was aborted. The AV-8B Harriers were low on fuel and could not land loaded, the navy added. The emergency happened during the training exercise Talisman Saber, involving US and Australian military personnel."

These comments were made by the same clueless clown that, when presented with several incidents of misconduct in his administration, offers the excuse "The first I knew about it was from the same news reports as you." His big mouth and poor judgement has already caused serious problems for the prosecution in a number of prosecutions of military personnel for sexual assault crimes. There is little reason to listen to such an incompetent boob.

Don't come crying to me, The Feds will take care of it, if you know all about the case tell it to them.

There was legislation introduced to revoke the right of anyone ever prescribed an anti-depressant or a drug for ADHD., 49 Million Americans will be effected. The state of New York has already been disarming its Psychiatric drug user who go on to a no gun list, will never again be allowed to handle a gun.legally.

Cheers:

Since when is Zimmerman diagnosed as a Psychiatric drug user ?

I'm certain that the whacky-doodles of daily kos and huffpo are all ready doing just that!

Zimmerman the liar,

Zimmerman lied to the court about being destitute , while he had $135,000 in his bank account.

Zimmerman lied when he turn in his passport, and hid another one in a Safety Deposit Box.

Zimmerman lied to the Federal Government that he lost his Passport, and held two valid passports.

Zimmerman lied on the Hannigan show on Fox news that he did not know about the stand your ground law, while School records show he took a class and study that law,.

Zimmerman Lied when he failed to tell Serino that he took intensive MMA combat training instruction.

With that record of lie-ing how did the jury find his story credible.

ZIMMERMAN IS A HABITUAL LIAR!!

Cheers:

Just because a person as misinformed as you says it, does not make it so. The citizens of the jury, who were much better informed that you, made the correct decision. Not guilty of both murder and manslaughter.

One of the regretful things now, ( maybe always? I don't know ) is that just about every issue in the US starts with a dividing line. Democrats/Republicans, Black/White, you get the idea.

Once the barricades are built no one comes down from them. It's a modern day American tragedy.

Tell me a country where dividing lines aren't an issue? True in every country around the world.

Eh....the UK doesn't split like this. Yes we have our hardcore left wingers, and we have our hard nosed right wingers, but the vast majority of people will look at issues on their merits.

Yeah, right. We saw that so much during the funeral events for Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Not! I believe that you are looking through some pretty thick rose-colored glasses.

Reality is that Great Britain, and many other nations, have their own political divisions every bit as much as the United States. It's the price that is there when nations, like Great Britain and the United States, allow their citizens political freedoms .

His father is European background (white). His mother Peruvian. His last name is from his father. Case closed.

But on this occasion the "mainstream" or lap-dog media desired to portray this trial as white man killing a black man. But a Hispanic person did not quite fit into that script. That's when and why Mr. Zimmerman suddenly became a "White Hispanic". And, of course, the wacky-doodle left just ate that up! If this was a "White Caucasian", ie. WASP, shooting a Hispanic, you can bet money that you would not hear any of the media use the term "White Hispanic." It simply would not fit their desired narrative!

Case closed!

This is just one more example of the very poor judgement and lack of character of Obama. There are still additional legal issues present and yet, this buffoon chooses to flap his jaws. Obama's motor-mouth connected with his poor judgement has already created a number of unnecessary difficulties in the trials of a number of military personnel for alleged sexual assault crimes. See "Obama’s remarks complicate military sex assault cases, experts say".

That is the same thing I thought as I heard him give the speech. Yes, Trayvon could have been Obama if Obama attacked and badly beat a man for virtually nothing. The reason that the jury found Zimmerman not guilty is because the evidence left no choice other than self-defence.

No, the Stand Your Ground Law left the jury no choice but to find him 'not guilty'.

Fact is, due to George Zimmerman's actions, T. Martin is now dead.

And no one, except George Zimmerman, is alive to know what happened. Love it how millions of his defenders know that poor Georgie was an innocent victim of the 'boy in the hood'.

Are you referring to Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law??

If so, you are way off base. Zimmerman did not avail himself of the "Stand Your Ground" law. Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law had nothing to do with this trial. His defense was based on the principle of justifiable use of deadly force by reason of the threat of great bodily harm, ie. self-defense.

As per the above by Kuhn Kikoman who speaks of the "broken" US Court system", this is from the 1959 movie Anatomy of a Murder which was adapted from a book written (under a pen name) by a former Judge on the Michigan Supreme court:

Parnell Emmett McCarthy: Twelve people go off into a room: twelve different minds, twelve different hearts, from twelve different walks of life; twelve sets of eyes, ears, shapes, and sizes. And these twelve people are asked to judge another human being as different from them as they are from each other. And in their judgment, they must become of one mind - unanimous. It's one of the miracles of Man's disorganized soul that they can do it, and in most instances, do it right well. God bless juries.

But they are not being asked to judge another human being. They are being asked to come up with a verdict based on a plethora of evidence.

It's up to the judge to decide the sanctions.

Well maybe the former Justice of the State of Michigan Supreme Court who wrote the above musta been all mixed up when he wrote about his experiences being a judge and a county prosecuting attorney in Michigan and who was BTW the defense attorney in the real-life murder incident that became the basis of his book and the movie.

Juror B37, the juror who was embarrassed out of a book deal she had arranged, had been seeking a television movie, and has given television interviews with CNN etc, schemed her way on the jury by fabricating a self serving web of lies and deceit against the court.

Juror B37 is and always was an "acquittal juror" who, using the subterfuge of neutrality, and using the pretext of being unbiased and impartial, secured her position on the jury both to enrich herself financially and to allow "George," as she called him during a television interview, to get a way with murder.

Juror B37 must be investigated by the state's judicial authorities and the Florida Bureau of Investigation for juror misconduct, specifically, misrepresenting herself to the court as a neutral, unbiased juror when her true purpose was to get on the jury, first, to financially enrich herself and, second, to be an acquittal juror.

This juror may have sought membership of the jury to create conflict and drama in order to devise a good dramatic story line for Hollywood to grab and for publishers to jump at. Her campaign to lead the jury to acquittal, as she may see herself in her scheme, may have been conceived and developed with personal financial gain at the forefront of her every consideration once she had been called as a potential juror.

Justice is a serious matter that is central to the legitimacy and viability of any society. The integrity and credibility of the judicial process in Florida and of the jury system itself must be upheld in Florida and assured by the state's government.

Consequently, it must be determined whether Juror B37 had a hidden agenda, had ulterior motives other than the due course of justice. The proper state authorities need to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the question or to initiate action in accord with their established and proper procedures, to determine whether Juror 37 is a juror who should be fully investigated.

"Juror B37 must be investigated by the state's judicial authorities and the Florida Bureau of Investigation for juror misconduct, specifically, misrepresenting herself to the court as a neutral, unbiased juror when her true purpose was to get on the jury, first, to financially enrich herself and, second, to be an acquittal juror."

Where did you get her "true purpose"? Let me guess, from Daily Kos? Huffington Post?

The wacky-doodle politico's in Florida engineered a prosecution of Zimmerman and then failed at that prosecution. Now your solution is for the wacky-doodles to start investigating Juror B37 (why stop with B37? Why not all the jurors?) and then, most likely, engineer another unsubstantiated, politically-driven prosecution.

Face it; What you are advocating is simply revenge. The jury voted for acquittal and you don't like it. What's next? When ever a jury votes an acquittal, the state then launches retaliatory "investigations" against them?

Quote:

"If the eye witness account by the only witness happens to be the accused, and that person, opts to not take the stand to undergo cross examination of his version. That is still his right to coverage under the 5th. The court should not be allowed to use an eye witness account as the gospel truth when that defend invokes his right against self incrimination also places doubt on his eyewitness version..."

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it was the state/prosecution that presented Mr. Zimmerman's statements (given to the police) in court. Not the defense!

However, they never presented this theory in court because they lacked evidence.

This is the only part of your post with any importance. As far as theories go, it is pretty obvious that the guy who was getting the heck beaten out of him would be the one who was screaming. It stopped when the attacker was neutralized.

Prosecutors vary in their competence but they are professionals who deal in crime and punishment, the law, each and every day. This is their stock and trade. It is their responsibility to devise a theory of a case, motive, who likely did what and when, to whom, etc.

Yes, there weren't any witnesses. However, there is a sound and plausible theory as developed by the prosecutors concerning the crime. Their theory is based on their best analysis of events, principals, witnesses of any nature (aural in this instance) and everything else. Prosecutors have to decide the viability of the theory and whether or not proving the theory is possible.

The only missing piece is an eyewitness. The only eyewitness is the defendant, the murderer himself. You know, the gunman murderer who can say anything that gets him off the hook on the charge of 2nd degree murder.

In short; They made it up! Yes, the prosecution made that story up. The jury, after hearing the all the testimony and evidence presented during the entire trial, did not buy their story. The jury determined that Mr. Zimmerman was not guilty of 2nd degree murder, nor manslaughter.

What the Daily Show says about the verdict.

It reflects the voice of the more civilized segment of Americans:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-july-15-2013-aaron-sorkin

Start at 2:35

Exactly which juror was this clown? Or is it a fact that he was not in the courtroom for the trial and actually did not hear the testimony and evidence presented? The jury did hear the testimony and evidence. Then they ruled Mr. Zimmerman not guilty. I'll rely on the judgement of the informed jury over the silly rantings of some clown on a comedy show.

Another good example of the way the media deliberately twists their reports to suit their preferences is in the "report" of the Marissa Alexander case. Notice how this "news-person" says she "fired a gun into the air." Every other account that I have read has her inside a house and firing the gun into a wall and endangering her children in the process.

People seriously need to get a grip.

The fact that Trayvon Martin wanted to be a pilot or was shot in the same part of his body as John Lennon was, is so irrelevant as to be laughable.

The fact that he smoked weed and painted graffiti is very nearly as absurdly without pertinence.

The efforts to smear Zimmerman with allegations - true or not - about his cousin or smear Martin with allegations about being an aspiring criminal are not only irrelevant but rather than funny, truly disgraceful. People should be embarrassed both for the way it maligns and for the way it highlights the paucity of their argument for their position.

1) NONE of you knows for sure what happened and why. People keep claiming they do and that they have sufficient facts to do so, but that is simply not true.

2) Evidence suggests that Zimmerman's story could be true or largely so.

3) Evidence does NOT prove that it is true - and doesn't have to - nor does it disprove another scenario in which Zimmerman's actions are illegal and/or immoral. (Or at best, that Martin attacked Zimmerman out of fear for his life - justified or not - and it was HE who was acting in self defense - in such a case, with an armed man, one would be justified in trying to beat that person as badly as possible - even to death: in which case it was a matter of poor judgement on both sides rather than either one out to do wrong).

4) The prosecution failed to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of what he was charged with.

5) The jury has not, with their verdict, told us that they believe Zimmerman did no wrong, merely that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did.

I look forward to the day - well into the future I'm afraid - when the Supreme Court rules that in litigation involving criminal murder or manslaughter, the defendant(s) are liable to testify, due to the fact that the deceased who was killed cannot present any evidence or information. That kind of decision actually might not be in the distant future.

The Supreme Court can interpret the 5th and any other amendments as they see fit. That's always been the case. This absolute exemption of the defendant testifying on Constitutional grounds needs to be limited due to the fact that the deceased is unable to present the other side. That's the major reason Zimmerman got off on both the murder 2 charge and the manslaughter charge. He should have been convicted on the manslaughter charge at the minimum, but could not be as matters presently stand.

If the prosecution had had the option to call Zimmerman to testify, then Z would have been cooked. The only change the Supreme Court would need to make is that the prosecution can have the right to call the defendant. The defendant could still have the right to decline to testify. But the defendant declining to testify when the prosecution is Constitutionally empowered to call him to testify would significantly affect the law, the judge's instructions to the jury, and the deliberations of a jury.

.

Sincerely, it's my personal hope you have no other impact on anything in the USA, if that's your home country, other than a single vote.

While I'm not always happy with the fifth amendment's application, the suggestion it be abandoned makes me want to puke in the lap of those who desire that. And if it comes does ever come to pass, thankfully, I'll surely be long dead and only ashes in some field in Thailand.

Yeah, Publicus, you wish to throw away a lot that thousands and thousands have fought and died for to defend so that a personal agenda can be satisfied.

I hope you never get your wish.

I agree. Some on this thread are truly scary! One wants to do away with a "jury of your peers" and another wants to throw out the Fifth Amendment! Amazing.

Protestors storming streets of LA and throwing stuff at cars. Jumping on cars in intersections. looting. tearing stuff up. Really. Acting like animals.

Report out if Senatobia, Mississippi, about 3 blacks trying kid nap and beating a jogger yelling Tryoin. Okay, seriously. And one wonders why their is profiling.

I will exercise my second amend right and get a better gun.

The sad part is I was mad as hell when the Supreme Court gutted several civil rights acts this past month and, out if the liberals in her, I was the only one that complained about that and that was an issue that really mattered. You know, I say F'em now. No more!

Hallelujah! He has seen the light!!

Have you no humanity?

Zimmerman did nothing to try to save Trayvon Martin's life. Zimmerman instead shot Martin to kill him, i.e., shot him in or in the immediate area of the heart, the same area of the chest John Lenon was fatally shot. If Zimmerman had any humanity, he would do all he could to save the life of Trayvon.

Military doctors work to repair the captured enemy wounded and try to save their lives. Zimmerman couldn't try to save a life?! Try?!

It's clear Zimmerman hasn't any humanity for certain people. Yet a good number of posters have great human sympathy and support of Zimmerman, a guy with a gun who set out after a guy without a gun.

I'd like to think you could search hard and dig deep inside you to find some human aspect to this crime, this death, this killing - to think about saving a life. To give it a thought. To give a thought to the possibility of trying to save a human life.

Oh please, cut the bleeding heart routine.

They train you to fire center mass. That's the chest area. Zimmerman may have sucked in his MMA training but he obviously took his firearm training seriously.

Zimmerman defended himself against someone attacking him. The jury has acquitted. That's that.

The army infantry teaches highly effectively how to shoot to kill the enemy, thank you, and the many ways and means by which to do it. So be more careful about patronizing people you don't know.

Zimmerman was the initiator. He had a gun. He got out of the car contrary to instructions from the 911 advisor. Zimmerman targeted a guy, Trayvon, who was engaged only in innocent behavior. Trayvon was provoked by Zimmerman. Zimmerman is the gunman in this travesty.

Trayvon was unarmed and had no history involving firearms, no police record of violence., no record of martial training, i.e., a person who'd just turned 17.

This verdict is something white America needs to understand, if it doesn't understand or comprehend it already. What's clear is that it's open season against young black males engaged only in innocent behavior. I think white Americans know that's what this verdict says and means, and likes it.

Actually, this is not correct based on the only evidence presented.

The only version anyone has or only evidence is that Zimmerman lost sight of Martin (corroborated by how 911 call went down). Martin could have fled a short distance to Brandy's or wherever, but Martin apparently turned around, approached and confronted Zimmerman. He punched Zimmerman in the nose. Knocked him to the ground. Pounded his head into the cement and even told him Zimmerman he was about to die before they both struggled for the gun and Zimmerman shot him.

Now you are entitled to not believe that, but your version is based purely on fantasy and emotion.

Open season on black youths, seriously, Dude you get problems if that is how you see it.

This quote' "...your version is based purely on fantasy and emotion" clearly states the main problem of those that are still trying to tell us that Zimmerman is guilty. They form their view out of emotion and reject the evidence (facts). Opposite of that unreasoning position is the jury that listened to the evidence, applied the law, and found Mr. Zimmerman not guilty.

JT, you may be right about 5'11".

According to the autopsy report, Trayvon was 5'11" tall and weighed 158 pounds, the "ideal healthy weight" at that height being 160 pounds. He was not the skinny little boy with the Skittles that half of America still believes him to be. He was at least three inches taller than Zimmerman and only about 20 pounds lighter.

His home life a wreck, his school life in disarray, Trayvon had fallen victim to urban America's lost boy culture.

This culture, which the media also choose not to see, has been shockingly destructive. Citing Bureau of Justice statistics, black economist Walter Williams in a recent column notes that "between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims." Of these, Williams estimates that roughly "262,621 were murdered by other blacks."

Trayvon had "statistic" written all over him. In the past year or so, his social media sites showed a growing interest in drugs, in mixed martial arts-style street fighting, in a profoundly vulgar exploitation of "bitches."

Trayvon posed for one photo with raised middle fingers, another with wads of cash held in an out-stretched arm. One YouTube video shows him refereeing a fight club-style street fight. A cousin had recently tweeted him, "Yu ain't tell me yu swung on a bus driver," meaning, if true, that Trayvon had punched out a bus driver.

And the photo of him holding a gun in his bedroom with jewelry on the bed

And the toxicology report that the prosecution withheld from the defense which showed that Martin was very high that evening

And so on, and so on, and so on...

I am hearing all kinds of rumblings about prosecutorial misconduct that frankly sickens me. If true, they should lose their license.

Here is one: "State Attorney Angela Corey fires information technology director who raised concerns in Trayvon Martin case"

Nobody outside of the USA is surprised at this verdict. Young black kid shot in the back by a wannabe cop. Nothing to see here, move on folks. Is one of the reasons why the USA is held in contempt by the rest of the civilised world.

This is an important and valid perspective to state and for the TVF Right Wing Caucus to know no matter how much you dislike it and need to dismiss it.

This post further notes the view of the rest of the civilized world that the US is chock full of weirdo right wing gun carrying misfits. It points out the use of disproportionate use of force, i.e., a guy with a gun hunting for a human target that is unarmed to shoot to kill.

The post steps back to take the overall view of a gun society and culture and the off center predators who go on the hunt with concealed weapons to find an unarmed prey to hunt down both for sport and, in this instance, racism.

Additionally, Zimmerman is a pervert who had been molesting and engaged in sexual assault against his younger female cousin over a period of years. Zimmerman is a sick and deranged guy who got away with murder.

I see it's whacky-doodle time!!!!

I realize that you cannot stop yourself from spouting whacky blah-blah like "the US is chock full of weirdo right wing gun carrying misfits. It points out the use of disproportionate use of force, i.e., a guy with a gun hunting for a human target that is unarmed to shoot to kill." Fortunately for the sane people of the U.S.; the jury in the case did not see it that way. The jury, after seeing the evidence and following the law, has determined that Mr. Zimmerman is not guilty of both murder and manslaughter.

As for your loony name-calling of Mr. Zimmerman as a "pervert"; I missed the convictions of Mr. Zimmerman for sexual assault. Of course, I'm sure that you will cite his convictions for us to examine. As far as I have been able to find, he has not even been charged with such crimes, let alone convicted. Of course, in your world, you don't even bother with such things as trials and innocent until proven guilty. Simple allegations are enough for you.

It's not over.

The DOJ may indeed file very serious charges and they have every legal right to do so.

Then there are the civil cases which will be easy to win.

Zimmerman will pay for killing Martin. He argued he needed to kill him. He may have gotten off on legal technicalities because Florida's self defense laws are absurdly lax for the killers, but that doesn't mean he is in any way an INNOCENT man.

Are you referring to Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law??

If so, you are way off base. Zimmerman did not avail himself of the "Stand Your Ground" law. And "self defense laws" are not "legal technicalities". They are basic laws in virtually all states and territories.

If the DOJ does go the "Civil Rights Violation" route, it will be for show only. Also, I would not count on the civil cases being easy to win. Not after a not-guilty verdict.

Also, I have heard news reports that under Florida law, he can apply for immunity from the civil liability based on his not-guilty verdict. ( Not an attorney in Florida, so I don't know the details of that.)

If you read the article you will notice several differences. See "An argument ensued, and Alexander said she feared for her life when she went out to her vehicle and retrieved the gun she legally owned. She came back inside and ended up firing a shot into the wall, which ricocheted into the ceiling."

Ms. Alexander went out to her car, got a gun, and then returned into the building. That does not indicate self-defense. She was out of danger. She then went in with a gun. She became the person causing danger.

Also, the article says "...she went to their former home to retrieve the rest of her clothes, family members said." It seems that this was not a case of him chasing her at all. She went to his location. I would ask if he was currently living there.

Another interesting item is "Alexander was also charged with domestic battery four months after the shooting in another assault on Gray."