This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
That's fair, Carolina. I don't know either. It's certainly fair for you to suggest that it's possible. To go beyond this, however, and state that it's the case, is to impugn this woman's reputation. If you choose to go to that step, so be it. But be aware that's what you're doing.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. The context of our discussion is a legal one--a prosecutor's decision on whether to bring charges--not your ambiguous little world. What I said in no way suggested that I believed she may be corrupt. It's all in your head. And I'm not going in there.
Bull ####....someones life is worth more than a few words in some law that jeb bush passed.You guys who keep throwing around your own personal interpretation of that law are as cold hearted as the shooter himself. I would hope that if this happened to a family member you wouldnt be so glib. I have my doubts.The reason this case bothers me was the lack of effort on the part of the cops. Just another dead thug(in there eyes im sure), toe tag please.next. Now , because once people started looking at this case closely , we have people who may actually care what happened that night.Not evetyone is a politician with an agenda, some people still believe in justice.
Perhaps she agreed to take the case because she felt there was enough evidence to charge him? It doesn't make her dishonorable to indict someone if she's on the fence about it but decides to go ahead based on public pressure. I believe there's more than enough evidence to charge Zimmerman but the reason Wolfinger didn't is that it will be difficult case to win and would be a waste of resources.
Hilarious. You are the one who suggested that she may take factors other than legal ones into her consideration, and it's me that's going beyond legalities here? That's a stretch even for you. Unbelievable.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You have no idea about the effort the police put in. You have no idea how much they care. You have no idea. You're just making it up.
1. Yes2. I don't know.3. If her decision was influenced by pressure in such a way that her decision without the pressure would have been different, then she acted without integrity.
And you're just making stuff up about the special prosecutor. Which is exactly what I'm talking about. You accuse Busted Knuckles of writing stuff he has no idea about, and then you did the exact same thing when it came to Corey. Hilarious double standard.
Now you're just making stuff up.
What did I make up?
It's a political job and like any politician other factors come into play. You can call that a lack of integrity or dishonorable, but it's reality.
Hey, Busted Knuckles, next time Christo accuses you of making stuff up without knowing anything about what you're talking about, you may want to remind him of this post. HTH
How is this making stuff up?
All she cares about...
What does that have to do with my statement?
Your statement began with the words "All she cares about"You have no idea what she cares about.
I know the SPD has a track record of racial bias. The blacks in that town have a hundred stories of such bias. They see a dead black kid and history shows that they probably didnt give it the same attention they would have if he wasnt black. Again , history in that town with that police force is already proven, its not my opinion.
I told you I didn't want to discuss matters you don't understand. And clearly we've hit on another one. I said she had made the decision to charge. You asked me whether that meant she had more evidence than we had seen or she had looked at the evidence we have seen and decided it was enough. And my response was, Her threshold is low. All she cares about is whether she can make an argument in court with a straight face. That had nothing to do with the effort she put in. That had nothing to do with how much she cares about the case. As a prosecutor she does not have to be convinced that she can get a conviction in order to bring charges. She just has to have enough evidence to make a good faith argument before the court. That's what every lawyer has to determine when taking on a case. They don't have to believe beyond a reasonable doubt in the position they are taking.
And Lee was brought in specifically to address those concerns.
and now hes out...great job chief
Tim, you were making sense there for awhile and then you go off on this "corrupt tangent".Every day in this country, DA's bring charges that they believe they can prove. Every time they bring a case, they "hope" a jury/bench will believe their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But often times, (especially in he said/she said cases like domestic violence trials) DA's approach them with a throw it up against the wall and see what sticks mentality--which isn't corrupt and what Christo probably meant by his "straight face" comment. It just simply is a by-product of the system. That is why there is so much effort put into jury selection. I really doubt, and we obviously do not know all the facts, that there is going to be that one "ah ha" moment ever in this case. If I was betting it, I see him being charged with a varying level of offenses which will allow a jury the ability to find a lesser-included offense if they are so inclined. She will tell a story, the defense will poke holes in said story and a jury will believe what they believe.As I have posted multiple times, let this work out before jumping to the conclusions.I am sorry, but I missed the "proven" part. Do you have a link that shows the proof, or where it was proven? I mean, I am certain that you are not basing your proof on the stories being told.
Yeah right. You were not making some legal definition of her responsibilities. You were giving a personal opinion about what you think would motivate the decision to indict. And your opinion has no more authortiy behind it than does Busted Knuckles has on the police. Which is fine, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Not sure why you refuse to admit that's what it is, however.
I am not the one here jumping to conclusions. That would be all the people who insist that, if Corey indicts, it will be because she was pressured into it.This is no ordinary case. I'm sure you're right about district attorneys throwing stuff up and seeing what sticks. In this case however, Corey has spent the last two weeks thoroughly investigating whether or not an indictment was correct. She has looked at everything very carefully. If she indicts, then either she believes there is enough there to convict, or she is without integrity. There are no other alternatives in this case.
She literally has a gun to her head. If she chooses not to press charges, she will get hundreds of death threats. I personally thinks she has integrity, but she is also smart and knows she was brought in to make the best possible case against Zimmerman. She accepted the challenge. I think it was a brave thing she did. I am not questioning her integrity. It is a crap situation and she knowingly took a huge risk she did not have to.
If she would not indict Zimmerman under normal circumstances (no media attention) but chooses to indict under these circumstances (huge media attention) then she has no integrity. Sorry, I keep repeating this because there is no getting around it. You guys want to protect this woman's integrity while holding out hope that the only reason she's indicting Zimmerman is because of political pressure. That won't fly. It's one or the other. Take your pick. If you believe she has integrity, and she indicts, then you must also believe that she thinks she has a solid case to convict Zimmerman.
You're a fool who believes what he wants to believe. My comment went directly to what she cared about as it relates to bringing charges. I'm done with you.
NO....but she might well prosecute a borderline case she might otherwise have left alone. It's not black and white. An argument can be made, even if it has little chance of overcoming "reasonable doubt". I don't think any decision she makes would indicate any kind of corruption, but it's certainly fair to expect she will prosecute because public opinion demands it. It's common sense...not corruption.Many would argue that prosecutors shouldn't decide what cases to prosecute over winnability anyway, but on what they believe the truth could be. That's what many in the pro-Martin camp said from the get-go.
There is going to be plenty of butt hurt to go around when this is over. It will be worse if Zimmerman walks.'timschochet said:
Tim, you put way too many words into people's mouth. It is probably you biggest problem. The 'all she care about' statement is describing the reality of the situation. The decision to press charges was decided when she agreed to take over. It would have been clearer if Christo worded it differently. He is just saying the choice to proceed does not prove what you think it does.
WOW. Succumbing to pressure to prosecute a difficult, possibly unwinnable case <>corruption. I've been mostly against the mob, and often leaned toward Zimmerman's side, but there's certainly enough evidance to present a possible, even likely crime. That's all a prosecutor technically needs. They usually only go to trial if they think they can win...but she has what she needs...it wouldn't require corruption.
Must be nice to live in such a black and white world. (pun not intended)
I don't think you need to encourage Captain Knuckles.. He "makes stuff up" just fine without your encouragement..Knuckles, I found a hoody for you!!
Tim, for someone who is likes to see the nuance in every debate, you certainly want to make this issue black and white. It is far more complicated than how you paint it.
I just posted a similar thought, which is quite ironic for Tim who loves nuances. Tim gets that way when he gets too emotionally involved in his position.
Sigh.I think you guys are correct in your criticism of me in this instance. I was responding to certain claims, made a few hours ago in this thread, about how if Corey indicted it must be because she was pressured to do so. I was angered by those remarks, and I felt they were hypocritical. In responding, I went too far.You guys are correct that there are nuances involved here. I was incorrect in what I wrote earlier.
whataya live on the moon??? where ya been the last month?
I haven't insulted you personally once. No need to insult me. I didn't think that's what you meant by your comment, but if you insist that this is the case, then I'll take your word for it. I would not call you a liar. As to being done with me, that's up to you, but I hope you'll continue to engage. This thread has been very enjoyable for the most part and I think that now that it appears there may be an indictment it will continue to be even more so.
Like Keeping a straight face
. Its nice to know that im not the only one who ''knows things'' haha
Thanks. I explained earlier when you were part of the discussion that jumping out of his vehicle and giving chase while armed and while knowing the cops were just a minute or so away was idiotic. That was time to leave the gun, eat the cannoli and wait for the calvary to arrive. I support the right to carry too, and didn't feel it necessary to explain what was idiotic about him carrying every time I call him an idiot for doing so. Here in Cali cops are incredibly nervous around legally carried weapons to the point many of us have decided to stow our weapons if cops are to be involved. Once I didn't do that and the whole routine of having him take my weapon and run my file was... tense. I wouldn't read too much into the full magazine gun jamming angle. I get it. It's possible. But it's far more likely the writer just doesn't understand semi auto firearms and is mistaken. That would be par for the course for this story. There was one round fired. He may or may not have been full with one in the chamber. I doubt the writer knows what that means. The action probably cycled normally, a fresh round was in the chamber, and one was missing from the magazine. I know that isn't what was reported but it's most likely.
As most in the thread will know by now, I carry and am an advocate for the right to carry. However, I am for stricter gun laws on who should be able to own a firearm and carry. A simple background check will not do, IMO. In most southern states, people can trade and sell weapons without transfer from a dealer and it does not need to be registered.
At the moment Zimmerman thought his life was in danger, if he decided to shoot at that time, he has a right to protect himself. However, with that decision he has to know that in doing so he will first and most importantly, take the life of another person, and 2. live with it.
I have not had time to keep up, with the voice recognition on the 911 calls. Did someone scream "no" before the shot? I hear the "help" and there is conflicting reports that it may or may not be Zimmerman. If there is a "no", who actually says "no" before the shot would be a huge indicator for me as to who had clear control of the gun and the intentions of the person who yelled "no". If Zimmerman yells "no" I would imagine (speculation) Martin sees the gun and goes for it. If Martin yells "no" Zimmerman controls the gun and Martin may at that time concede the fight. Zimmerman decides to shoot anyway.
We don't know if Zimmerman really felt his life was in danger, or if there was a struggle for the exposed gun. If Zimmerman gained clear control of the gun in a struggle and decided to shoot at that time, he should be in jail because he did not feel the need to use the gun when Martin was on top of him. If Martin and Zimmerman were both still going after the gun and the gun went off it could be an accidental shooting.
We don't have a report of the actual events of the shot and details about the gun are not being released. However, I did find this.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime/trayvon-martin-shooting-gun-that-killed-teen-was-2248283.html?printArticle=yThis means a bullet was not chambered after the initial shot or the magazine would not be full and a bullet would be in the chamber. This would indicate that the gun jams during the altercation. This to me is possible proof of a struggle for the gun and a possible accidental shot which Zimmerman claims self defense. Remember, we have not heard an official report from Zimmerman himself. He may say this is what happened.
See the reporter isn't specifying your interpretation. It could be the magazine was full until it was fired. Then the only missing bullet was the one originally in the chamber. It does not specify that there was no new round in the chamber. I'll be following this tidbit and we'll see if it develops, but there's been so much lazy reporting and hyper analysis, that I have my doubts of this evidence of a jam. Point is if you expect the journalists to phrase everything precisely then you'll be disappointed.eta: However, If the gun had a jam you must acquit Zimmerman is a catchy idea for the defense.
Could you make that promise to me too? The idea of never having to deal with another Christo response would be better than winning the Mega Millions.
The rift between Sanford's black residents and police didn't start with Trayvon Martin. Locals tell of former police chief Roy G. Williams, who was chief from the 1920s through the 1960s, and who used to take prisoners from the jail and force them to work on his farm in Georgia. He was eventually jailed for the practice. The previous chief, Brian Tooley, the third longest serving chief at 14 years on the job in Sanford, was forced to retire a month early last January after officers failed to arrest Justin Collisin, a police lieutenant's son who beat up a homeless black man, Sherman Ware, in an incident captured on cellphone video that went viral.Press reports have indicated a number of cases of misconduct by officers of the Sanford Police Department.On 16 July 2005, two parking lot security guards, one the son of a Sanford Police Department veteran and the other a volunteer for the department, shot a black teen, Travares McGill, in the back, killing him. They claimed self-defense, and the case was dismissed in court.In February 2010, press reports indicated one officer was fired, and another, Ned Golden, Junior, was suspended for two weeks after sending sexist and racist text messages on a department computer
You called me a liar.
