Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Jamie B on April 02, 2012, 02:21:16 PM
-
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/president-clinton-hopes-trayvon-martin-case-leads-reappraisal-111305679--abc-news-politics.html
He said: "the American people should re-examine their position on that and ask: Is this really worth it? Are we really all that much safer taking the chance that this kind of thing could happen over and over and over again?"
I'll bet the Billy was surrounded with Secret Service agents when making his comments.
Arrogant overlord *expletive deleted*bag.
-
Maybe Clinton learned about the "facts" in the Martin case by watching NBC's Today show.
They had a segment where they played a 911 tape of Zimmerman saying: "This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black."
Well, Zimmerman did say that . . . but NBC conveniently left out a bit more of the call between those two sentences.
Here's a transcript of that part of the call:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
Changes the meaning a bit, eh? NBC claims to be "investigating" this, but I don't expect much to happen from a network that's fallen from its ethical high points of using video of machine guns being fired when reporting on a semi-auto ban and fitting GM pickup with incendiaries to make sure everyone sees how dangerous they are.
-
http://jneilschulman.rationalreview.com/2012/03/what-george-zimmerman-really-said/
thanks to mb for this
-
Is George Zimmerman a murderer? Maybe. It seems to me he might be.
But whether he's a murderer has nothing to do with SYG laws.
If Zimmerman's claim were true - and I do not know if it is - that Martin assaulted him and beat him terribly and incurred multiple injuries on his head, and then he killed Martin in self-defense - then SYG doesn't seem relevant, since Zimmerman could not have retreated safely.
If it is not true - and he initiated violence and shot Martin outside self-defense and committed manslaughter or murder, then surely SYG is also not valid. SYG is not a permit to randomly shoot people.
Do I misunderstand something?
-
this young man was not armed, he clearly presented no threat to anybody's life
unarmed=/=no threat. If Mr. Clinton would like (and would ask his body guards not to shoot me) I'd be happy to give him a quick block of instruction in Modern Army Combatives to illustrate this point.
-
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/news/os-trayvon-martin-video-zimmerman-enhanced-20120402_1_special-prosecutor-angela-corey-shooting-original-video
yea no threat
-
Biden has also made a comment about SYG needing to be "reevaluated". There are now several new potential laws being discussed, mostly by the congressional black caucus, to include revoking SYG and registration of neighborhood watch groups. Most of this talk in congress seems to be race based, so who knows if it will still have traction after this initial media frenzy about the case blows over.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/lawmakers-target-gun-laws-neighborhood-watch-in-wake-florida-teen-shooting/
-
What MB said...this case has nothing to do with SYG laws, no matter how the "facts" turn out. Everyone in the press and the angry people are attacking this law as being a license to kill without justification. What they are missing is that self-defense is still self-defense. All the SYG laws did was remove a duty to retreat to the wall before one can fall back on self-defense.
-
What MB said...this case has nothing to do with SYG laws, no matter how the "facts" turn out. Everyone in the press and the angry people are attacking this law as being a license to kill without justification. What they are missing is that self-defense is still self-defense. All the SYG laws did was remove a duty to retreat to the wall before one can fall back on self-defense.
Which is the key point I have yet to hear any media articulate. The misconception seems to be that, absent SYG, Zimmerman would have been arrested/charged/arraigned by default. Is that so?
-
Chris and Ben mirror my thoughts on this.
Castle Doctrine and SYG laws need to exist.
The fact that any idiot (or idiots) can screw up an individual situation is the kicker.
Many of the current whining lawmakers seem to forget that this is why we have case law and judicial law in the US.
-
Chris and Ben mirror my thoughts on this.
Castle Doctrine and SYG laws need to exist.
The fact that any idiot (or idiots) can screw up an individual situation is the kicker.
Many of the current whining lawmakers seem to forget that this is why we have case law and judicial law in the US.
But they have to be seen doing something!
-
I wasn't long after Zimmerman broke that I suspected there was more motivation to the protests other than "justice". They then invoked SYG as being suspect. Not too long thereafter I read stories about legislators in other states putting bills into the hopper to pare back SYG locally. I think the objective of the Zimmerman flap is clear
-
But they have to be seen doing something!
True to a degree. If there are only 2 folks involved, and the living one calls SD, and there is no evidence to the contrary, then SD it is.
This is not new to American law,
-
He said: "the American people should re-examine their position on that and ask: Is this really worth it? Are we really all that much safer taking the chance that this kind of thing could happen over and over and over again?"
I'm not sure why Clinton cares that much. He's getting up there in age and isn't likely to become a corpse anymore for sexually assaulting the wrong woman who would benefit from this law.
-
Ack! Blue dress, blue dress!
-
Notice how the turds calling for an and to SYG all have armed body guards, *expletive deleted*ck 'em.
-
True to a degree. If there are only 2 folks involved, and the living one calls SD, and there is no evidence to the contrary, then SD it is.
This is not new to American law,
That is kind of my thought though I would also say that the witness statements seem to support SD also. Until something new is brought up, that is about it.
I agree that Clinton is wrong and ignorant on the matter. I think some of these people just want to be mentioned in the media good or bad.
-
To be fair, the sanford PD first brought stand your ground into this - they claimed that because of SYG, they couldn't arrest Zimmerman on suspicion of a crime and continue their investigation as they would have in any other suspected homicide. I think their reasoning was bad, but they were indeed the first to bring it up.
If SYG means that anyone who says "self defense!" must be left at the scene with his gun unless there's a video of the murder, I want it changed too.
-
If SYG means that anyone who says "self defense!" must be left at the scene with his gun unless there's a video of the murder, I want it changed too.
Zimmerman was arrested, taken away in cuffs, and his gun confiscated. He simply wasn't indicted.
In what world is that "being left at the scene with his gun"?
-
Zimmerman was arrested, taken away in cuffs, and his gun confiscated. He simply wasn't indicted.
In what world is that "being left at the scene with his gun"?
That's odd, because the city of Sanford has a written statement from the police chief about why Zimmerman wasn't arrested that night http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf (http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf)
-
That's odd, because the city of Sanford has a written statement from the police chief about why Zimmerman wasn't arrested that night http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf (http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf)
Sure looks like he's in cuffs in this video:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-os-trayvon-martin-video-zimmerman-20120402,0,498809.story
Unless you think he's holding his hands behind his back for fun.
I suspect that the prosecutor was using "arrested" as another term for "indicted". Legally, Zimmerman was placed under arrest, the prosecutor simply refused to indict him due to a lack of probable cause.
-
A prosecutor doesn't indict, cuffs don't mean arrest. Either way the Chief of Police would know what both those things mean.
-
A prosecutor doesn't indict, cuffs don't mean arrest. Either way the Chief of Police would know what both those things mean.
Legally, if you aren't free to go, you are under arrest. So yes, cuffs do mean arrest. And whether or not the prosecutor indicts depends on the jurisdiction; some places use grand juries, others give the power to indict to the prosecutor.
For a lawyer, you sure seem to have trouble with some very basic legal terms.
-
Legally, if you aren't free to go, you are under arrest. So yes, cuffs do mean arrest. And whether or not the prosecutor indicts depends on the jurisdiction; some places use grand juries, others give the power to indict to the prosecutor.
For a lawyer, you sure seem to have trouble with some very basic legal terms.
Regolith nailed it in many ways,
Arrest - A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal charge.
An arrest may occur (1) by the touching or putting hands on the arrestee; (2) by any act that indicates an intention to take the arrestee into custody and that subjects the arrestee to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest; or (3) by the consent of the person to be arrested. There is no arrest where there is no restraint, and the restraint must be under real or pretended legal authority. However, the detention of a person need not be accompanied by formal words of arrest or a station house booking to constitute an arrest.
-
For someone trained up as a lawyer (albeit a disgraced one) he sure dosn't know much on how to to apply it.
-
A prosecutor doesn't indict, cuffs don't mean arrest. Either way the Chief of Police would know what both those things mean.
But you agree that you were wrong about him being left at the scene, right? Have you seen the video of him arriving at the station in handcuffs, in the back of a police car?
-
This is why I am glad I didn't dig into the details of this early on. I imagine all the false information would have colored my thinking a lot.
-
To be fair, the sanford PD first brought stand your ground into this - they claimed that because of SYG, they couldn't arrest Zimmerman on suspicion of a crime and continue their investigation as they would have in any other suspected homicide. I think their reasoning was bad, but they were indeed the first to bring it up.
If SYG means that anyone who says "self defense!" must be left at the scene with his gun unless there's a video of the murder, I want it changed too.
I don't believe many people are accusing the Sanford PD of acting properly in the Zimmerman affair. ;/
There's nothing in the SYG law that indicates a person who has just shot someone ought to be "left at the scene with his gun." Nothing precludes the police from conducting a proper investigation.
The author of the SYG law has stated he does not believe this law applies to Zimmerman, who was actually NOT "standing" his ground. He was pursuing Martin.
An old latin saying, "abusus non tollit usum" stands to mean "bad use does not negate good use." When used properly (interpreted correctly) the SYG law is a good law.
It would be nice if we could guarantee that everyone with a firearm & carry permit had good judgement but, unfortunatly, it just isn't possible.
-
I don't believe many people are accusing the Sanford PD of acting properly in the Zimmerman affair. ;/
There's nothing in the SYG law that indicates a person who has just shot someone ought to be "left at the scene with his gun." Nothing precludes the police from conducting a proper investigation.
The author of the SYG law has stated he does not believe this law applies to Zimmerman, who was actually NOT "standing" his ground. He was pursuing Martin.
An old latin saying, "abusus non tollit usum" stands to mean "bad use does not negate good use." When used properly (interpreted correctly) the SYG law is a good law.
It would be nice if we could guarantee that everyone with a firearm & carry permit had good judgement but, unfortunatly, it just isn't possible.
You know, I'm sick of this.
I'm done throwing Zimmerman under the bus.
If his version of events is correct, I find no fault in what he did. (He claims he did not "pursue" Mr. Martin, and most definitely not "run him down" as De Selby, with very subjective evidence, claims.)
Should he have gotten out of his car? In hindsight, probably not, but I will not fault a man for trying to protect his community, though. (Again, according to his version of events.)
Alright, I have to admit, I do find one fault in what Mr. Zimmerman did. He had very poor situational awareness such that Mr. Martin was able to approach and assault him. (Again according to his version of events.)
I'm not going to call him "an idiot with a gun" or "wanna-be cop on the neighborhood watch." He may have screwed up or may even be guilty of anything from manslaughter to murder.
However, as I do not have evidence in my possession that convicts him of this, I'm unwilling to condemn him. And if he's innocent and was simply defending his life from a unprovoked assault, I'm not going to toss him under the boss because I think it will make me look better by calling him an idiot. (And, yes, I jumped on this bandwagon at first and I'm ashamed I did so. Edit: Apprently I kept the opinion that he was an idiot to myself. Well, I'm still ashamed for thinking it, but proud of my own restraint in writing it.)
-
With all due respect, Makattak, one thing seems fairly consistant; the 911 operator (who I know has no legal weight) advising Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that," (meaning following Martin).
Zimmerman showed bad jedgement in disobeying this advice ----IMHO.
I'm not saying it was a criminal offense, but it is where things began to go wrong for Zimmerman.
I understand the frustration but this is likely to get worse before it gets better.
And we may never really know exactly what happened in any case.
-
With all due respect, Makattak, one thing seems fairly consistant; the 911 operator (who I know has no legal weight) advising Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that," (meaning following Martin).
Zimmerman showed bad jedgement in disobeying this advice ----IMHO.
I'm not saying it was a criminal offense, but it is where things began to go wrong for Zimmerman.
I understand the frustration but this is likely to get worse before it gets better.
And we may never really know exactly what happened in any case.
That is not clear from the phone call, and you are buying into interpretations.
The operator asked "Are you following him?", (so no PRE-warnings about that), and, upon recieving an affirmative, the operator said "We don't need you to do that". He responded with "Ok."
Now, that could be "Ok, but I'll do it anyway" or "Ok, I'm stopping." His version of the story is that he had lost sight of Mr. Martin anyway and stopped. The "HE IGNORED THE 911 OPERATOR" is just another example of the persistence of the media driven narrative, it is not a certainty.
-
Zimmerman was arrested, taken away in cuffs, and his gun confiscated. He simply wasn't indicted.
In what world is that "being left at the scene with his gun"?
Lies But Accurate Land?
-
That is not clear from the phone call, and you are buying into interpretations.
The operator asked "Are you following him?", (so no PRE-warnings about that), and, upon recieving an affirmative, the operator said "We don't need you to do that". He responded with "Ok."
Now, that could be "Ok, but I'll do it anyway" or "Ok, I'm stopping." His version of the story is that he had lost sight of Mr. Martin anyway and stopped. The "HE IGNORED THE 911 OPERATOR" is just another example of the persistence of the media driven narrative, it is not a certainty.
OK, then, but then everything must be an interpretation. I have never heard an iteration of this story which did not include Zimmerman being told by the 911 operator they didn't need him to follow Martin.
I suggest that means the odds are that means it stands a greater than even chance of being correct.
The greatest discrepancies /disagreements in the story appear to me to be who was screaming for help, and just exactly what happened when Martin & Zimmerman made actual contact.
But I suppose space aliens could also be involved, so I will shut up and wait to see what George Noory says about this..... [tinfoil]
-
But you agree that you were wrong about him being left at the scene, right? Have you seen the video of him arriving at the station in handcuffs, in the back of a police car?
Yeah, I think you confused the hyperbole in that first post about SYG with a statement about this case.
Regolith, I read complaints from inmates every month explaining to me how the courts and lawyers got the law completely wrong and about how they're entitled to be free. The vast majority of them were charged by information, and some of them were even put in handcuffs at the scene of the crime before they were arrested.
Excuse making for SYG and George Zimmerman are ruinious to gun rights, but I suppose that too will be blamed on race and politics. We're all going to be writing letters, just like the inmates, explaining how everyone else got it wrong once this is over.
-
Excuse making for SYG and George Zimmerman are ruinious to gun rights, but I suppose that too will be blamed on race and politics. We're all going to be writing letters, just like the inmates, explaining how everyone else got it wrong once this is over.
Again, your slanted perspective means nothing here.
What is a danger to gun rights are nasty and unjustified comments being made by clowns like you who are completely uneducated about the situation in question.
Your arrogance in refusing to recognize the truth, and pushing your own hoplophobic agenda, all the while hiding under a cloak of 'expert' embarrasses truly learned legal minds.
The board hoplotroll urinates on yet another thread.......
-
OK, then, but then everything must be an interpretation. I have never heard an iteration of this story which did not include Zimmerman being told by the 911 operator they didn't need him to follow Martin.
I suggest that means the odds are that means it stands a greater than even chance of being correct.
The greatest discrepancies /disagreements in the story appear to me to be who was screaming for help, and just exactly what happened when Martin & Zimmerman made actual contact.
But I suppose space aliens could also be involved, so I will shut up and wait to see what George Noory says about this..... [tinfoil]
If you would read my post, you would see a scenario that includes both the operator's comment that he doesn't need to follow him AND possibility that he then broke off pursuit.
But of course, that's just Zimmerman's account so it should be automatically discounted as he has an interest in distortion. We should accept, instead, the lawyer for Martin's family's aaccount. We can trust him. (At least, that seems to be the media's position...)
-
Difficult for those calling Zimmerman a murderous racist, if true:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/02/zimmerman-family-member-calls-naacp-racists-says-there-will-be-blood-on-your-hands-if-george-is-hurt/
-
Yeah, I think you confused the hyperbole in that first post about SYG with a statement about this case.
You mean I confused your attempt to spread misinformation for an honest mistake?
-
Wow, this is getting to be as contentious a topic as abortion and corn bread.
Chris