Jingthing Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) I'm not convinced. He told the family he's sorry for their loss. He didn't say I'm sorry I shot your son to his early death. Weak. Really weak. Law or no law, the morality of this definitely points to Zimmerman going to prison. It looks like he's not going for the insanity defense either, which might be a mistake considering Zimmerman's pattern of past delusional policeman behavior. Edited April 21, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geriatrickid Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 I believe that in the United States Miranda Rights must be read upon arrest. Unfortunately, what happens after one is in custody is a different ball game. The US Supreme Court has steadily rolled back rights that most people think are extended. Howes v. Fields, No. 10-680, was decided in February. This case addressed the issue of police questioning of a prisoner without giving Miranda Warnings. The Court held that Miranda protections do not apply to prisoners, as long as certain circumstances are present. Justice Alito writing for the majority in the 6-to-3 decision, said that “custody” for these purposes “is a term of art that specifies circumstances that are thought generally to present a serious danger of coercion.” Appreciably, not entirely applicable in this case, but the judgement further reinforces the belief that it is unwise for anyone under investigation or in custody to make any statements or to even co-operate with the police in the absence of defence counsel. People making statements in good faith can see those statements taken out of context and/or used against them. In an ideal world the police are supposed to be unbiased upholders of the law. However, cops are human and some want to win the game no matter what. Getting a conviction is all that matters, even if it means trampling on people's rights. I sound like a very right wing guy don't I? However, as much as I loathe some of the ultra conservatives, I think they have it right when it comes to protecting basic rights such as these. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geriatrickid Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) I'm not convinced. He told the family he's sorry for their loss. He didn't say I'm sorry I shot your son to his early death. Weak. Really weak. Law or no law, the morality of this definitely points to Zimmerman going to prison. It looks like he's not going for the insanity defense either, which might be a mistake considering Zimmerman's pattern of past delusional policeman behavior. I think the accused is is truly sorry for the shooting. The man is in a no win situation. If he makes a more explicit apology he is exposed to having that statement used against him, and one should have no doubt that it would be. He has gone out on a limb by saying this much. Instead of recognizing the legal predicament the man is in and the reasons why he is prevented from making a broader statement, people use this as an opportunity to rip into him even more. Edited April 22, 2012 by Scott formatting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) Did you see the video? Did you really buy it? Why didn't he express remorse publicly MUCH EARLIER? I viewed his pathetic website before he was charged. No apology. No sorry for your loss. Nada. The family is right to hate this man's guts. He murdered their INNOCENT child. Who was talking a walk. That said, Zimmerman deserved to be allowed out on bail like any other citizen in a similar circumstance. Edited April 21, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancelot Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Any loss of life is tragic. But why aren't the leaders of the black community also talking about the senseless slaughter of blacks killing blacks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) Any loss of life is tragic. But why aren't the leaders of the black community also talking about the senseless slaughter of blacks killing blacks... Because ... they are. http://news.yahoo.co...-190404331.html Personally, for me this is about fairness for the family and the dead victim, not the political sideshow. Its good news charges have been made and there will be a trial. Its a freakish accident that the racial aspects of it have been made into a circus. That said, if Zimmerman walks it had better be clear to the public WHY (because if not there could be riots). Edited April 21, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koratpat Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Any loss of life is tragic. But why aren't the leaders of the black community also talking about the senseless slaughter of blacks killing blacks... Because ... they are. http://news.yahoo.co...-190404331.html Personally, for me this is about fairness for the family and the dead victim, not the political sideshow. Its good news charges have been made and there will be a trial. Its a freakish accident that the racial aspects of it have been made into a circus. That said, if Zimmerman walks it had better be clear to the public WHY (because if not there could be riots). The why might just happen to be that he was acquitted. Hopefully, if there are any senseless riots, the police and National Guard will act swiftly and send the rioters packing with tear gas and batons. Then they can charge them and see if they get found guilty or not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) The family is right to hate this man's guts. He murdered their INNOCENT child. Who was talking a walk. I take it you were there watching and are listed as a witness. If you did not see the incident personally, you do not know if he was innocent or not. Zimmerman did not get his injuries without some kind of a fight. Edited April 21, 2012 by Ulysses G. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) This sympathy for the shooter is nauseating. He pursued someone he had no business pursuing. Then he murdered him. I agree Zimmerman had no business following Martin after the dispatcher told him not to. I don't beleive that neighborhood WATCH people should be carrying guns. Some kind of pepper spray should be enough. However, I thought I heard that Zimmerman followed Martin, lost track of him, returned to his car, but before he reached his car Martin confronted him. If true, Zimmerman may have been wrong for continuing his pursuit after being told not to, but Martin made the tragic mistake of following and confronting Zimmerman. Edited April 21, 2012 by koheesti 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerryk Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie (re bloody head). So far the prosecution is not playing by the rules. You might think the above is a prejudiced statement by some right wing wacko like me. It might even nauseate you. But alas no, I did not make the above statement a few hours ago. The credit for that goes not to a curmudgeon from Pattaya it goes to a famous liberal law professor from Harvard Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz, who is one of America’s leading defense attorneys and is a professor at Harvard Law School, said he has dealt with cases in Florida where evidence has been “wilfully omitted”, in the past. “I’m not taking sides, but I’m insisting that both sides play by the rules, and so far the prosecution is not playing by the rules,” Dershowitz said. So who does one believe? Of course I am not disparaging the legal climate in Pattaya! I am just saying perhaps a law school professor and legal scholar from Harvard might have the advantage in understanding the case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Yai Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 I have the distinct feeling that when all the Evidence is produced in the Court and a judgement is rendered (if it ever gets to Court) that some one on this thread is going to finish up with Egg on their face! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koratpat Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Careful now. Don't hurt his dainty lil' feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Yai Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Careful now. Don't hurt his dainty lil' feelings. Yeah Pat ,one has to be ultra careful these days just in case one get's reported to the "corridors of power" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 (edited) This sympathy for the shooter is nauseating. He pursued someone he had no business pursuing. Then he murdered him. I agree Zimmerman had no business following Martin after the dispatcher told him not to. I don't beleive that neighborhood WATCH people should be carrying guns. Some kind of pepper spray should be enough. However, I thought I heard that Zimmerman followed Martin, lost track of him, returned to his car, but before he reached his car Martin confronted him. If true, Zimmerman may have been wrong for continuing his pursuit after being told not to, but Martin made the tragic mistake of following and confronting Zimmerman. I agree neighborhood watch people should not be carrying guns, but I would extend this to everyone except the police and military. It is impossible as it is to determine whether Zimmweman continued his pursuit in the knowledge he had a gun, and as the law on firearms stands it is impossible to draw any conclusions just because he was armed. Edited April 22, 2012 by Steely Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 (edited) The whole neighborhood watch things seems odd............ In the US the groups for each area are registered with the local police....do not carry firearms due to liability & always travel in groups of no less than two. Edited April 22, 2012 by flying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 I have the distinct feeling that when all the Evidence is produced in the Court and a judgement is rendered (if it ever gets to Court) that some one on this thread is going to finish up with Egg on their face! Yes, I might but don't mind making the prediction: minimum manslaughter conviction and he will spend time in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 The whole neighborhood watch things seems odd............ In the US the groups for each area are registered with the local police....do not carry firearms due to liability & always travel in groups of no less than two. Apparently not "always". But I guess if one has a concealed weapon permit and the gun to go with it, having that second person along wasn't believed to be so important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Careful now. Don't hurt his dainty lil' feelings. My feelings ain't dainty. They are beefy and burly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 I have the distinct feeling that when all the Evidence is produced in the Court and a judgement is rendered (if it ever gets to Court) that some one on this thread is going to finish up with Egg on their face! Yes, I might but don't mind making the prediction: minimum manslaughter conviction and he will spend time in prison. No prison time. It would be a death sentence. It probably isn't difficult to convince a judge that if the New Black Panthers could put a million dollar bounty on him they could easily get to him in prison. If Zimmerman does get jail time, maybe we can arrange a prisoner swap with Norway and have him serve time in their "country club" and Breivik do his time in an American prison. That sounds like justice to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 I have the distinct feeling that when all the Evidence is produced in the Court and a judgement is rendered (if it ever gets to Court) that some one on this thread is going to finish up with Egg on their face! Yes, I might but don't mind making the prediction: minimum manslaughter conviction and he will spend time in prison. No prison time. It would be a death sentence. It probably isn't difficult to convince a judge that if the New Black Panthers could put a million dollar bounty on him they could easily get to him in prison. If Zimmerman does get jail time, maybe we can arrange a prisoner swap with Norway and have him serve time in their "country club" and Breivik do his time in an American prison. That sounds like justice to me. U.S. prisons have methods to segregate such high risk prisoners. The verdict will have nothing to do with his risk in prison anymore than it would if I was under charges in the U.S. Trust me, I wouldn't last in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koratpat Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 U.S. prisons have methods to segregate such high risk prisoners. The verdict will have nothing to do with his risk in prison anymore than it would if I was under charges in the U.S. Trust me, I wouldn't last in prison. Hardly. If they want to get you in prison, they will - whether it you are housed in gen pop, protective custody or even in solitary protective housing where you come out for 1 hour of recreation and shower time a day. You are as misinformed about correction facility safety and security in the US as much as you are about charging affidavits, probable cause affidavits and the CJ system which guarantees a right to a fair trial which you are presumed innocent until proven guilty BEYOND a reasonable doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 (edited) Whatever. Whether Mr. Z. is convicted or not or serves in prison or not has nothing to do with conditions in U.S. prisons, which we all know, are not nice. I agree suspects need to be presumed innocent. That's why you wouldn't want me on the jury for Mr. Z's trial. I already hung one jury! The known facts that Mr. Z pursued his unarmed victim and shot him dead are enough for me to believe he deserves at least a manslaughter conviction. So yes, I presume him guilty of manslaughter at least. Edited April 22, 2012 by Jingthing 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Off-topic, inflammatory, baiting post have been removed. A couple of posters on the edge of getting a suspension. Stay on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mossfinn Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 The known facts are not always all the facts, so anybody on a jury needs to have an open mind, the burden of proof is on the prosecuting team, lets hope the jury have no preconceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 The known facts are not always all the facts, so anybody on a jury needs to have an open mind, the burden of proof is on the prosecuting team, lets hope the jury have no preconceptions. Absolutely. Realistically, this became a national issue because the shooter had avoided faces the justice system. Now he is facing it. If he had faced as he should have from the start, we wouldn't know about this case, nor would we hear about or care about a potential acquittal. But now, everything will be looked at very closely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geriatrickid Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 The conduct of the public in this case is in sharp contrast to that of the mass murderer in Norway. Some of the comments made in this thread bring to mind villagers running about with pitchforks and torches looking for a witch, or tthe village monster. There is a lesson in the story below. As killer gloats in court, Norway shows no anger By KARL RITTER | Associated Press http://news.yahoo.com/killer-gloats-court-norway-shows-no-anger-144357920.html 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I think comparing Brevik to the Trayvon situation is a little like apples and oranges. Trayvon's case seems to have garnered more hype than anything else. I have spoken to a few people in the US and they don't seem to have much knowledge or interest in the case. None of them are from Florida, but all are people who keep up on the news. Trayvon may be an innocent victim of racial discrimination or a suspicious young man up to no good; Zimmerman may be an overzealous individual without the training to carry out his self-appointed role. As unfortunate as it is, it raises a lot of legal, ethical and cultural questions. Brevik is a pretty much a crazed nut case for whom the authorities had some difference of opinion as to his sanity. There are very few people who can relate to his extreme ideology and probably even fewer who can relate to his actions. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koratpat Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 If the head is split...you must acquit.... I take it you were there watching and are listed as a witness. If you did not see the incident personally, you do not know if he was innocent or not. Zimmerman did not get his injuries without some kind of a fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsailor35 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Zimmerman is going to walk, because he claims that he was afraid for his life. <deleted> ! was'nt Martin afraid for his life, he was only a kid and this man who was stalking him, had a gun. I can see big trouble ahead if he gets away with the murder of this kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsailor35 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Geriatrickid...............Collins Dictionary......follow or approach stealthy ........pursue persistently and sometimes attack ( a person with whom one is obsessed) Zimmerman was told to back off, but he was obsessed with Martins intentions. Sounds like a crazy idiot, i am the big gun in town type of a guy. Regardless of the outcome, in my books he is guilty of recklessly killing the kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts