Ung vs. Zimmerman

Indeed opinions vary.

What is most unfortunate is that anyone makes race an issue by whatever degree.

Grapeshot said:

Indeed opinions vary.

What is most unfortunate is that anyone makes race an issue by whatever degree.

Click to expand...

I never understood why people are so put-off by the discussion of Race. Race is an issue in America. Race may not have been an issue between Martin and Zimmerman, but it was pounced on by certain media folk. America's bad track-record with Race is part of the reason there is so much tension when Race is even discussed.

Race riots have happened few times in America. MSNBC/O'Donnel (I think that's how his name is spelled), running--edited--audio footage of what sounded Zimmerman to be stating: "f-cking c00ns," feeds into Race tension that exists in America. Then you have every photo of Zimmerman having light-skin, when he is dark-skinned, and you have Martin's photo at age ten (?), not age seventeen.

I have to hand it to FOX, even though I am not a fan of FOX, they didn't talk about this case until just recently; nowhere to the extent that MSNBC.

TFred said:

All this proves to me is that racism is alive and well in 2012 America. And that is extremely sad.

TFred

Click to expand...

Racism is a two-way street, TFred. There are probably more blacks hating whites (and with greater justification), than whites hating blacks these days. In fact, Zimmerman's case seems to be a good example of that (although some will consider Z to be of "mixed race"). No initial arrest and no detention (other than for questioning) would naturally make the black community upset, based upon their history in this country. BUT... they raised enough commotion about it that suddenly today - 4/12/12 - Zimmerman is in custody (ostensibly of the "protective" type), arraigned and held over without bail (again "for his protection") on a charge of murder 2. Kind of a reverse racism, if you will. Personally, I thought he should have been arrested and detained immediately after the shooting, on a charge of suspicion pending investigation, as I believe the Sanford PD had at least minimal PC to do so. The plus side of that is that it would have saved a tremendous amount of community outrage on both sides of the issue. Just my thoughts on the matter, and I'm certain there are those who will disagree with me. Pax...

Gil223 said:

Personally, I thought he should have been arrested and detained immediately after the shooting, on a charge of suspicion pending investigation, as I believe the Sanford PD had at least minimal PC to do so.

Click to expand...

They couldn't, because Florida law forbids it in self-defense cases. They have to actually develop a case in Florida before arresting you.

marshaul said:

"Race baiting" may be a little unfair and prejudgemental

Click to expand...

No. Your assessment that my original post was "race baiting" is NOT "a little unfair and prejudgemental." It is simply WRONG.

I'll ask you the same question: Do you know what the term "race baiting" means? Please give me a concrete example of how my original post can possibly meet that definition.

Here's a hint: there are an abundance of on-line dictionaries at your disposal.

TFred

Beretta92FSLady said:

If Zimmerman chased Martin down, and did not return to his truck, he may be in a heap of trouble. Who knows what is facts, and what is fiction at this point. A little snipper from the affadavit:

Martin attempted to run home but was followed by Zimmerman who didn't want the person he falsely assumed was going to commit a crime to get away before the police arrived. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin. When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and that the responding officer would meet him. Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, aren't these affidavits for probable cause supposed to be filed under oath?

It appears to me that Zimmerman is in a heap of trouble. This affidavit, if quoted correctly in the article, should be grounds for perjury against the person who filed it. The dispatcher never did what the bold text claims. The exact words were, "We don't need you to do that," which no person with even a rudimentary understanding of the English language could mistake for being "instructed not to do that."

If this indicates how this case is to be handled at every level, Zimmerman is done, and there is no more justice in America. How can an affidavit with such an easily demonstrated lie be allowed to stand behind such a prosecution?

TFred

TFred said:

If I recall correctly, aren't these affidavits for probable cause supposed to be filed under oath?

It appears to me that Zimmerman is in a heap of trouble. This affidavit, if quoted correctly in the article, should be grounds for perjury against the person who filed it. The dispatcher never did what the bold text claims. The exact words were, "We don't need you to do that," which no person with even a rudimentary understanding of the English language could mistake for being "instructed not to do that."

If this indicates how this case is to be handled at every level, Zimmerman is done, and there is no more justice in America. How can an affidavit with such an easily demonstrated lie be allowed to stand behind such a prosecution?

TFred

Click to expand...

Here is the thing, if it is a lie (I agree that the dispatcher stated what you outlined), then Zimmerman will have a good case on appeal--if it went that far--that is, if his conviction hanged on him continuing to follow Martin; I could be wrong about this though.

The best thing at this poinst, unfortunately, is a trial. Now, I wouldn't be so eager to type that if it was me in his shoes, but still, the courts will pan it out.

Trust me, the prosecution will tell lies at the first hearing. At my first hearing post-shooting, the prosecutor told the judge that I pulled a gun out on someone when I was eighteen; guess what!:I didn't! I was shocked to hear the prosecutor stated that, but figured later that they will say anything they can to see if it sticks in court.

marshaul said:

"Race baiting" may be a little unfair and prejudgemental, but his point that threads such as this make the issue "more about race" than it already has been made, or deserves to be made, is right on the money.

[...]the forum's echo chamber, the White Guy Amen Corner.

Click to expand...

Surely you are aware of the irony, and hypocrisy, in this post.


Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

IMO, The special prosecutor is playing both sides of the fence. If she went to the Grand Jury and they wouldn't indict Mr Z; then the family would have implied it was dish off by the Special Prosecutor soo her hands are clean (remember it is an election year for her); plus the GJ could have come back with only a manslaughter charge, instead of a 1/2nd degree charge. The manslaughter charge will be hard to prove with the SYG; the standard of proof is close to that of SYG and may be hard to distinquish...IMO.

Secondly, by her making the charge 2nd, it's above the manslaughter (appeasing the parents of the deceased) but less than having to take it to the GJ and risk something else lessor. It is obvious she doesn't think the GJ would charged with 1st degree or she would have gone that route.

Thirdly, by doing this, the defense will ask for SYG hearing on the evidence and if it gets kicked out by that, she can say she did her best...it's the judge's fault. If the judge doesn't toss it out on SYG, then she can go after 2nd and look great, even if the jury finds it not to be this. It shows she was serious...especially during an election year.

Also, remember, 2nd degree is the highest she can charge without a GJ. Something says she didn't have a lot of confidence in the evidence to go in front of the GJ going after 1st degree. I wouldn't be surprised to see this get tossed on the SYG charge. Then, the media and politcal calls for changing the SYG will be an onslaught across the country. Remember, there are facts that have not been presented to the media and public.

Interesting to say the least. Good luck to Mr Z.

If I am not mistaken it has been unquestionably established through highly scientific DNA analysis that WE ALL have an African grandmother in our family tree. So how about we set the "race" issue aside on this one.

I have some experience within the so-called "Hispanic" culture. I am 1/8 Osage (Native American), and my wife is the grand daughter of another native American who rode with Pancho Villa - FACT.(Preseliano Sendejas).

My daughter is part Osage, Mexican, Puerto Rican , German, and mixed Anglo- and guess what ???

She is as "WHITE" as Donald Trump.

Getting past all of the emotional B.S. - the question of fact IS: Who initiated the physical assault ?

Witness testimony supports Zimmerman's claim that Martin was on top of Zimmerman delivering a serious beat-down.

There are FOUR possibilities - as I see it.

(1) Zimmerman drew his gun in self-defense to stop the beat-down from Martin, and by reflex fired the gun to stop the assault.

(2) Zimmerman drew his gun to stop the beat-down being delivered by Martin, .....Martin grabbed the gun, and in the struggled the gun discharged(accidental).

(3) Zimmerman drew his gun, and Martin backed off NOW in fear for HIS LIFE, and Zimmerman in the heat of an adrenalin rush survival mode fired the gun to (in his mind) save his life.

(4) Zimmerman drew his gun. Martin retreated back in fear of the gun. Zimmerman without further justification fired his gun.

The jury - after being presented with the sworn testimony of witnesses, and forensic evidence will have to make a determination as to "fact".

rushcreek2 said:

Witness testimony supports Zimmerman's claim that Martin was on top of Zimmerman delivering a serious beat-down.

There are FOUR possibilities - as I see it.

(1) Zimmerman drew his gun in self-defense to stop the beat-down from Martin, and by reflex fired the gun to stop the assault.

(2) Zimmerman drew his gun to stop the beat-down being delivered by Martin, .....Martin grabbed the gun, and in the struggled the gun discharged(accidental).

(3) Zimmerman drew his gun, and Martin backed off NOW in fear for HIS LIFE, and Zimmerman in the heat of an adrenalin rush survival mode fired the gun to (in his mind) save his life.

(4) Zimmerman drew his gun. Martin retreated back in fear of the gun. Zimmerman without further justification fired his gun.

The jury will have to decide.

Click to expand...

I think you left out the one possibility that will almost certainly be the version of the story that Zimmerman will use to mount his defense:

(0) Zimmerman drew his gun in self-defense to stop the beat-down from Martin, and intentionally fired the gun to stop the assault.

"By reflex" implies unintentional. I've seen nothing to date to indicate there was any factor of unintentional here.

TFred

I wasn't attempting to encompass the entire "universe" of available options( or possiblilities for the jury to consider.)

rushcreek2 said:

I wasn't attempting to encompass the entire "universe" of available options( or possiblilities for the jury to consider.)

Click to expand...

We all aren't perfect; you should just do better next time.

michaelm_ski said:

It is so true that racism is VERY much ALIVE and it is going to only get worse due to the courts and the states being afraid of CERTAIN races rioting ! Time to put this race crap to sleep and quit giving in to threats , We wouldn't do this if roles were reversed .

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosewood_massacre

1875-1951ish encapsulates nearly 300 race riots...

All I'm going to say... Cough... Ahem...


Other than that last line and your stressing of "CERTAIN races" you are most certainly correct.

Jack House said:

Surely you are aware of the irony, and hypocrisy, in this post.

Click to expand...

Indeed. I've already commented on this. Doesn't make my observation any less accurate.

Surely you, BTW, are equally aware of the identical irony, and hypocrisy, of your insinuation, and whenever anybody plays a race card, however implicit.



This is exactly why I say it's never reasonable to play such a race card, no matter how much more... overt... your opponent's is.

You can't win by shouting "no you!" in this debate. What we've got is just an endless circle of "no you!". Someone should be the better man (er... side) and let it drop. That's all I'm saying.

And of course it's quite difficult to point this out without being hypocritical; here I am shouting "no you!" just as I say doing so is counterproductive. But what's the alternative, the way both sides like to manipulate the issue? Anyway, it seems to me that I'm slightly less hypocritical so long as I restrict my observation to white guys, as a white guy myself.

TFred said:

No. Your assessment that my original post was "race baiting" is NOT "a little unfair and prejudgemental." It is simply WRONG.

I'll ask you the same question: Do you know what the term "race baiting" means? Please give me a concrete example of how my original post can possibly meet that definition.

Here's a hint: there are an abundance of on-line dictionaries at your disposal.

TFred

Click to expand...

"Race baiting" wasn't my wording, and the snippet you quoted was precisely me observing (albeit perhaps over-tactfully) that those words were likely inaccurate. Dunno what you think you're proving.

Where is the hypocrisy in the things I have stated?

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

Jack House said:

Where is the hypocrisy in the things I have stated?

Click to expand...

It is nearly the same as my own, or of any person who joins the endless circle of "no you!" finger-pointing.

Think about it.