Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (2 Viewers)

[squistion]

Can't. Stay. Away.

As much as I like to disagree with him (99% of the time) Max Threshold is actually correct here. The Alexander case really is not a good analogy to the Zimmerman case. There ought to be severe penalties for firing guns in the presence of children. Given the circumstances of the case , 20 years is way too long, whether she refused to plead or not. But as Max correctly points out, there was a mandatory minimum.

Which brings up yet again another issue: mandatory minimums, whether federal or state, are a terrible idea. Conservatives are always proposing them in order to be "tough on crime", but they lead to injustice. Had Zimmerman been found guilty of manslaughter, he might have faced 30 years in prison. Everyone here knows what I think of Zimmerman's actions that night, but even I think this is too long.

Um, I seriously doubt the mandatory minimum for manslaughter in Florida is 30 years.

 

[Joe McGee]

Can't. Stay. Away.

As much as I like to disagree with him (99% of the time) Max Threshold is actually correct here. The Alexander case really is not a good analogy to the Zimmerman case. There ought to be severe penalties for firing guns in the presence of children. Given the circumstances of the case , 20 years is way too long, whether she refused to plead or not. But as Max correctly points out, there was a mandatory minimum.

Which brings up yet again another issue: mandatory minimums, whether federal or state, are a terrible idea. Conservatives are always proposing them in order to be "tough on crime", but they lead to injustice. Had Zimmerman been found guilty of manslaughter, he might have faced 30 years in prison. Everyone here knows what I think of Zimmerman's actions that night, but even I think this is too long.

Um, I seriously doubt the mandatory minimum for manslaughter in Florida is 30 years.

 

[timschochet]

Can't. Stay. Away.

As much as I like to disagree with him (99% of the time) Max Threshold is actually correct here. The Alexander case really is not a good analogy to the Zimmerman case. There ought to be severe penalties for firing guns in the presence of children. Given the circumstances of the case , 20 years is way too long, whether she refused to plead or not. But as Max correctly points out, there was a mandatory minimum.

Which brings up yet again another issue: mandatory minimums, whether federal or state, are a terrible idea. Conservatives are always proposing them in order to be "tough on crime", but they lead to injustice. Had Zimmerman been found guilty of manslaughter, he might have faced 30 years in prison. Everyone here knows what I think of Zimmerman's actions that night, but even I think this is too long.

Um, I seriously doubt the mandatory minimum for manslaughter in Florida is 30 years.

Manslaughter with the use of gun. Several news outlets reported that is what he would be facing. One report stated that 30 years was "within the ballpark." So I'm not sure. Regardless, it certainly would have been at least 15 years?

I think GZ committed a crime that night and had there been enough evidence to find him guilty, I would have liked to see him serve 3-5 years in prison. Even 10 years would have been too long IMO.

 

[jon_mx]

Can't. Stay. Away.

As much as I like to disagree with him (99% of the time) Max Threshold is actually correct here. The Alexander case really is not a good analogy to the Zimmerman case. There ought to be severe penalties for firing guns in the presence of children. Given the circumstances of the case , 20 years is way too long, whether she refused to plead or not. But as Max correctly points out, there was a mandatory minimum.

Which brings up yet again another issue: mandatory minimums, whether federal or state, are a terrible idea. Conservatives are always proposing them in order to be "tough on crime", but they lead to injustice. Had Zimmerman been found guilty of manslaughter, he might have faced 30 years in prison. Everyone here knows what I think of Zimmerman's actions that night, but even I think this is too long.

They are a terrible idea and all legislation requiring them should be repealed. That will not happen because liberals love their mandatory gun crime sentences and conservatives hate bleeding heart judges.

In Florida, I've read that conservatives led by Jeb Bush were the ones who put through the mandatory gun crime sentences, and it was opposed by liberals. Don't know about other states.

Yes, but the law went into effect in 1998...

According to the Florida Parole Commission (FPC), in 2000, there was a 26.4% decrease in violent, gun-related crime compared to 1998. Florida's "Index Crime" rate for 2000, which is based on a variety of different crimes, had dropped 18% from the previous year, and had reached its lowest level in 28 years.[2] According to the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC), by 2004, violent gun crime rates had fallen 30% since 1998, and the Index Crime rate had reached the lowest in 34 years, despite a 16.8% increase in population during that time period.[6]

 

[timschochet]

One statistic they just showed on MSNBC to demonstrate the inequity that takes place every day in America: the percentage of blacks who use marijuana is roughly equal to the percentage of whites who use marijuana. The percentage of blacks who serve jail time for using marijuana is triple the percentage of whites who serve jail time for using marijuana.

 

[otello]

The way I determine if people are being intellectually honest in politics and in issues like this is to switch things up and determine if the reactions would be the same. If all things were equal, except Zimmerman were black and Martin were Hispanic, would the black community still be calling for Zimmerman to be convicted? No way - not a chance in hell. Would Zimmerman have actually been convicted? That's quite possible. And the interesting thing would be that the black community would be very upset by the verdict.

Would the other side now want Zimmerman convicted? Possibly, but I don't know they would be as passionate about it. I think self defense trumps racism, but I could be wrong.

I dunno, how about asking a Hispanic dude if he thinks Zimmerman Hispanic.

He is.

 

[MaxThreshold]

One statistic they just showed on MSNBC to demonstrate the inequity that takes place every day in America: the percentage of blacks who use marijuana is roughly equal to the percentage of whites who use marijuana. The percentage of blacks who serve jail time for using marijuana is triple the percentage of whites who serve jail time for using marijuana.

Maybe whites are just better at hiding it?

 

[timschochet]

Can't. Stay. Away.

As much as I like to disagree with him (99% of the time) Max Threshold is actually correct here. The Alexander case really is not a good analogy to the Zimmerman case. There ought to be severe penalties for firing guns in the presence of children. Given the circumstances of the case , 20 years is way too long, whether she refused to plead or not. But as Max correctly points out, there was a mandatory minimum.

Which brings up yet again another issue: mandatory minimums, whether federal or state, are a terrible idea. Conservatives are always proposing them in order to be "tough on crime", but they lead to injustice. Had Zimmerman been found guilty of manslaughter, he might have faced 30 years in prison. Everyone here knows what I think of Zimmerman's actions that night, but even I think this is too long.

They are a terrible idea and all legislation requiring them should be repealed. That will not happen because liberals love their mandatory gun crime sentences and conservatives hate bleeding heart judges.

In Florida, I've read that conservatives led by Jeb Bush were the ones who put through the mandatory gun crime sentences, and it was opposed by liberals. Don't know about other states.

Yes, but the law went into effect in 1998...

According to the Florida Parole Commission (FPC), in 2000, there was a 26.4% decrease in violent, gun-related crime compared to 1998. Florida's "Index Crime" rate for 2000, which is based on a variety of different crimes, had dropped 18% from the previous year, and had reached its lowest level in 28 years.[2] According to the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC), by 2004, violent gun crime rates had fallen 30% since 1998, and the Index Crime rate had reached the lowest in 34 years, despite a 16.8% increase in population during that time period.[6]

As a conservative and someone who favors individual freedom, you should agree that despite the statistics, it's still a bad idea. If you want judges to be tough, appoint tough judges. But allow them the freedom to review each individual case and decide what is a fair punishment.

 

[squistion]

The way I determine if people are being intellectually honest in politics and in issues like this is to switch things up and determine if the reactions would be the same. If all things were equal, except Zimmerman were black and Martin were Hispanic, would the black community still be calling for Zimmerman to be convicted? No way - not a chance in hell. Would Zimmerman have actually been convicted? That's quite possible. And the interesting thing would be that the black community would be very upset by the verdict.

Would the other side now want Zimmerman convicted? Possibly, but I don't know they would be as passionate about it. I think self defense trumps racism, but I could be wrong.

I dunno, how about asking a Hispanic dude if he thinks Zimmerman Hispanic.

He is.

Makes sense, I never met a Zimmerman yet who wasn't Hispanic.

 

[renesauz]

Can't. Stay. Away.

As much as I like to disagree with him (99% of the time) Max Threshold is actually correct here. The Alexander case really is not a good analogy to the Zimmerman case. There ought to be severe penalties for firing guns in the presence of children. Given the circumstances of the case , 20 years is way too long, whether she refused to plead or not. But as Max correctly points out, there was a mandatory minimum.

Which brings up yet again another issue: mandatory minimums, whether federal or state, are a terrible idea. Conservatives are always proposing them in order to be "tough on crime", but they lead to injustice. Had Zimmerman been found guilty of manslaughter, he might have faced 30 years in prison. Everyone here knows what I think of Zimmerman's actions that night, but even I think this is too long.

They are a terrible idea and all legislation requiring them should be repealed. That will not happen because liberals love their mandatory gun crime sentences and conservatives hate bleeding heart judges.

In Florida, I've read that conservatives led by Jeb Bush were the ones who put through the mandatory gun crime sentences, and it was opposed by liberals. Don't know about other states.

Yes, but the law went into effect in 1998...

According to the Florida Parole Commission (FPC), in 2000, there was a 26.4% decrease in violent, gun-related crime compared to 1998. Florida's "Index Crime" rate for 2000, which is based on a variety of different crimes, had dropped 18% from the previous year, and had reached its lowest level in 28 years.[2] According to the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC), by 2004, violent gun crime rates had fallen 30% since 1998, and the Index Crime rate had reached the lowest in 34 years, despite a 16.8% increase in population during that time period.[6]

As a conservative and someone who favors individual freedom, you should agree that despite the statistics, it's still a bad idea. If you want judges to be tough, appoint tough judges. But allow them the freedom to review each individual case and decide what is a fair punishment.

I actually agree with you here Tim. On the marijuana thing, numbers could be a little misleading as it doesn't talk about prior charges.

 

[otello]

The way I determine if people are being intellectually honest in politics and in issues like this is to switch things up and determine if the reactions would be the same. If all things were equal, except Zimmerman were black and Martin were Hispanic, would the black community still be calling for Zimmerman to be convicted? No way - not a chance in hell. Would Zimmerman have actually been convicted? That's quite possible. And the interesting thing would be that the black community would be very upset by the verdict.

Would the other side now want Zimmerman convicted? Possibly, but I don't know they would be as passionate about it. I think self defense trumps racism, but I could be wrong.

I dunno, how about asking a Hispanic dude if he thinks Zimmerman Hispanic.

He is.

Makes sense, I never met a Zimmerman yet who wasn't Hispanic.

You're learning.

 

[timschochet]

The way I determine if people are being intellectually honest in politics and in issues like this is to switch things up and determine if the reactions would be the same. If all things were equal, except Zimmerman were black and Martin were Hispanic, would the black community still be calling for Zimmerman to be convicted? No way - not a chance in hell. Would Zimmerman have actually been convicted? That's quite possible. And the interesting thing would be that the black community would be very upset by the verdict.

Would the other side now want Zimmerman convicted? Possibly, but I don't know they would be as passionate about it. I think self defense trumps racism, but I could be wrong.

I dunno, how about asking a Hispanic dude if he thinks Zimmerman Hispanic.

He is.

Makes sense, I never met a Zimmerman yet who wasn't Hispanic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WYhgIjF8ag

 

[RCon]

One statistic they just showed on MSNBC to demonstrate the inequity that takes place every day in America: the percentage of blacks who use marijuana is roughly equal to the percentage of whites who use marijuana. The percentage of blacks who serve jail time for using marijuana is triple the percentage of whites who serve jail time for using marijuana.

That's not necessarily indicative of racism. That could well be because of differences in economic status, rural vs. urban, or a number of other things.

 

[jon_mx]

Can't. Stay. Away.

As much as I like to disagree with him (99% of the time) Max Threshold is actually correct here. The Alexander case really is not a good analogy to the Zimmerman case. There ought to be severe penalties for firing guns in the presence of children. Given the circumstances of the case , 20 years is way too long, whether she refused to plead or not. But as Max correctly points out, there was a mandatory minimum.

Which brings up yet again another issue: mandatory minimums, whether federal or state, are a terrible idea. Conservatives are always proposing them in order to be "tough on crime", but they lead to injustice. Had Zimmerman been found guilty of manslaughter, he might have faced 30 years in prison. Everyone here knows what I think of Zimmerman's actions that night, but even I think this is too long.

They are a terrible idea and all legislation requiring them should be repealed. That will not happen because liberals love their mandatory gun crime sentences and conservatives hate bleeding heart judges.

In Florida, I've read that conservatives led by Jeb Bush were the ones who put through the mandatory gun crime sentences, and it was opposed by liberals. Don't know about other states.

Yes, but the law went into effect in 1998...

According to the Florida Parole Commission (FPC), in 2000, there was a 26.4% decrease in violent, gun-related crime compared to 1998. Florida's "Index Crime" rate for 2000, which is based on a variety of different crimes, had dropped 18% from the previous year, and had reached its lowest level in 28 years.[2] According to the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC), by 2004, violent gun crime rates had fallen 30% since 1998, and the Index Crime rate had reached the lowest in 34 years, despite a 16.8% increase in population during that time period.[6]

As a conservative and someone who favors individual freedom, you should agree that despite the statistics, it's still a bad idea. If you want judges to be tough, appoint tough judges. But allow them the freedom to review each individual case and decide what is a fair punishment.

It just takes a few idiot judges to force politicians to make stupid laws. Lots of dumb laws on the books.

 

[Dr Oadi]

One statistic they just showed on MSNBC to demonstrate the inequity that takes place every day in America: the percentage of blacks who use marijuana is roughly equal to the percentage of whites who use marijuana. The percentage of blacks who serve jail time for using marijuana is triple the percentage of whites who serve jail time for using marijuana.

That's not necessarily indicative of racism. That could well be because of differences in economic status, rural vs. urban, or a number of other things.

Show me the stats of convicted whites and blacks and their sentences. I'm sure if it supported institutional racism run amok MSNBC would give those statistics instead of this vague bs.

 

[squistion]

I dunno, how about asking a Hispanic dude if he thinks Zimmerman Hispanic.

He is.

Makes sense, I never met a Zimmerman yet who wasn't Hispanic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WYhgIjF8ag

 

[Joe McGee]

The best part about the speech, imo, is that he then acknowledged the fact that there is a violence problem among African-Americans.

This has been repeated by more than one person. I'm guessing it's annoying to black people that every time they want to discuss institutionalized racism, they also have to acknowledge that black on black violence is a problem. It's like whenever I want to discuss Palestinian terrorism, somebody always wants me to admit the Israelis do wrong things too. Once I admit that, does it change anything? Institutionalized racism is a real problem, and black on black violence is also a real problem, and both issues need to be addressed.

Stand Your Ground/Self-Defense law has nothing to do with institutional racism. I've even read that SYG helps more minorities than it hurts. But because it didn't in this case, the black community is up in arms about it. Perpetuating myopia/tunnel vision does not help the situation.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/12/1215595/-Stand-Your-Ground-Black-Woman-Fires-Shot-Gets-20-Years-White-Man-Kills-And-Goes-Free-WTF#

Ok Christo, I'm not a lawyer but this lady fired a warning shot and got 20 years in prison. GZ killed someone and he walks. Explain this to me.

It didn't help that she turned down the 3 year plea deal. Should have never gone to trial.

 

[squistion]

One statistic they just showed on MSNBC to demonstrate the inequity that takes place every day in America: the percentage of blacks who use marijuana is roughly equal to the percentage of whites who use marijuana. The percentage of blacks who serve jail time for using marijuana is triple the percentage of whites who serve jail time for using marijuana.

That's not necessarily indicative of racism. That could well be because of differences in economic status, rural vs. urban, or a number of other things.

Show me the stats of convicted whites and blacks and their sentences. I'm sure if it supported institutional racism run amok MSNBC would give those statistics instead of this vague bs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/marijuana-arrests-four-times-as-likely-for-blacks.html?smid=tw-share&_r=2&

Black Americans were nearly four times as likely as whites to be arrested on charges of marijuana possession in 2010, even though the two groups used the drug at similar rates, according to new federal data

 

[jon_mx]

One statistic they just showed on MSNBC to demonstrate the inequity that takes place every day in America: the percentage of blacks who use marijuana is roughly equal to the percentage of whites who use marijuana. The percentage of blacks who serve jail time for using marijuana is triple the percentage of whites who serve jail time for using marijuana.

That's not necessarily indicative of racism. That could well be because of differences in economic status, rural vs. urban, or a number of other things.

Show me the stats of convicted whites and blacks and their sentences. I'm sure if it supported institutional racism run amok MSNBC would give those statistics instead of this vague bs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/marijuana-arrests-four-times-as-likely-for-blacks.html?smid=tw-share&_r=2&

Black Americans were nearly four times as likely as whites to be arrested on charges of marijuana possession in 2010, even though the two groups used the drug at similar rates, according to new federal data

It could be blacks are a lot more likely to commit other crimes for what they were picked up for which resulted in them being arrested and charged with marijuana.

 

[squistion]

One statistic they just showed on MSNBC to demonstrate the inequity that takes place every day in America: the percentage of blacks who use marijuana is roughly equal to the percentage of whites who use marijuana. The percentage of blacks who serve jail time for using marijuana is triple the percentage of whites who serve jail time for using marijuana.

That's not necessarily indicative of racism. That could well be because of differences in economic status, rural vs. urban, or a number of other things.

Show me the stats of convicted whites and blacks and their sentences. I'm sure if it supported institutional racism run amok MSNBC would give those statistics instead of this vague bs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/marijuana-arrests-four-times-as-likely-for-blacks.html?smid=tw-share&_r=2&

Black Americans were nearly four times as likely as whites to be arrested on charges of marijuana possession in 2010, even though the two groups used the drug at similar rates, according to new federal data

It could be blacks are a lot more likely to commit other crimes for what they were picked up for which resulted in them being arrested and charged with marijuana.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It could be blacks are a lot more likely to commit other crimes for what they were picked up for which resulted in them being arrested and charged with marijuana.

That's probably right. I think this is where crimes like "driving while black" come in.

 

[jon_mx]

One statistic they just showed on MSNBC to demonstrate the inequity that takes place every day in America: the percentage of blacks who use marijuana is roughly equal to the percentage of whites who use marijuana. The percentage of blacks who serve jail time for using marijuana is triple the percentage of whites who serve jail time for using marijuana.

That's not necessarily indicative of racism. That could well be because of differences in economic status, rural vs. urban, or a number of other things.

Show me the stats of convicted whites and blacks and their sentences. I'm sure if it supported institutional racism run amok MSNBC would give those statistics instead of this vague bs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/marijuana-arrests-four-times-as-likely-for-blacks.html?smid=tw-share&_r=2&

Black Americans were nearly four times as likely as whites to be arrested on charges of marijuana possession in 2010, even though the two groups used the drug at similar rates, according to new federal data

It could be blacks are a lot more likely to commit other crimes for what they were picked up for which resulted in them being arrested and charged with marijuana.

It is not only likely, it is probable. Stats do not always mean what they appear to show. There are other factors which must be considered instead of being a simpleton and believing every correlation shows causation.

 

[Billy Bats]

After hearing this story, I'm going rioting this weekend, maybe tonight. Any white boys with me?? I wonder if President Obama will comment on this case and calm me down.

 

[jon_mx]

It could be blacks are a lot more likely to commit other crimes for what they were picked up for which resulted in them being arrested and charged with marijuana.

That's probably right. I think this is where crimes like "driving while black" come in.

There might be some of that. But the high crime rate among black yutes is indisputable. So a lot of those arrests probably had legitimate probably causes, which will lead to more black yutes being caught with weed.

 

[Johnnymac]

The best part about the speech, imo, is that he then acknowledged the fact that there is a violence problem among African-Americans.

This has been repeated by more than one person. I'm guessing it's annoying to black people that every time they want to discuss institutionalized racism, they also have to acknowledge that black on black violence is a problem. It's like whenever I want to discuss Palestinian terrorism, somebody always wants me to admit the Israelis do wrong things too. Once I admit that, does it change anything? Institutionalized racism is a real problem, and black on black violence is also a real problem, and both issues need to be addressed.

Stand Your Ground/Self-Defense law has nothing to do with institutional racism. I've even read that SYG helps more minorities than it hurts. But because it didn't in this case, the black community is up in arms about it. Perpetuating myopia/tunnel vision does not help the situation.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/12/1215595/-Stand-Your-Ground-Black-Woman-Fires-Shot-Gets-20-Years-White-Man-Kills-And-Goes-Free-WTF#

Ok Christo, I'm not a lawyer but this lady fired a warning shot and got 20 years in prison. GZ killed someone and he walks. Explain this to me.

She got twenty years because she actually LEFT and went to go get a gun and then came back and shot at him while there was a child in the room/area. She decided to forego the plea deal and take here chances and lost. Federal Guidelines REQUIRE at least 20 years in prison.

Not even similar to the zimmerman case at all.

You won't get the real story at the DailyKos. You'll get talking points, misinformation and information deliberately left out to prove their point.

Did you even read the ####### link you quoted? I mean really, this is ####### comical.

"The problem with her defense was she chose to come back in the house."

You know, as opposed to hunting someone down in a wide-open neighborhood. She chose to come back into HER ####### house. Unreal. You are a moron.

And she killed nobody, didnt even shoot anybody. Call me a moron, LOL

 

[Billy Bats]

It could be blacks are a lot more likely to commit other crimes for what they were picked up for which resulted in them being arrested and charged with marijuana.

That's probably right. I think this is where crimes like "driving while black" come in.

There might be some of that. But the high crime rate among black yutes is indisputable. So a lot of those arrests probably had legitimate probably causes, which will lead to more black yutes being caught with weed.

Or the white suburban pothead is in the woods smoking out of sight, or in someone's basement and not smoking on a drug filled corner where cops routinely patrol.

 

[jon_mx]

After hearing this story, I'm going rioting this weekend, maybe tonight. Any white boys with me?? I wonder if President Obama will comment on this case and calm me down.

I am not sure why the race-baiters choose the Zimmerman case. There were probably legitimate cases where real racism was involved and much more questionable self-defense claims were raised. I think Zimmerman is legitimately innocent and was scared as hell and is not even remotely a racist. Terrible case to hang their hats on. The race-baiters lost more legitimacy similar to what they did in the Duke rape case.

 

[jon_mx]

It could be blacks are a lot more likely to commit other crimes for what they were picked up for which resulted in them being arrested and charged with marijuana.

That's probably right. I think this is where crimes like "driving while black" come in.

There might be some of that. But the high crime rate among black yutes is indisputable. So a lot of those arrests probably had legitimate probably causes, which will lead to more black yutes being caught with weed.

Or the white suburban pothead is in the woods smoking out of sight, or in someone's basement and not smoking on a drug filled corner where cops routinely patrol.

Absolutely. It may not be fair, but it is not institutionalized racism. Blacks just live in higher density crime-ridden areas which demand more police.

 

[Billy Bats]

After hearing this story, I'm going rioting this weekend, maybe tonight. Any white boys with me?? I wonder if President Obama will comment on this case and calm me down.

I am not sure why the race-baiters choose the Zimmerman case. There were probably legitimate cases where real racism was involved and much more questionable self-defense claims were raised. I think Zimmerman is legitimately innocent and was scared as hell and is not even remotely a racist. Terrible case to hang their hats on. The race-baiters lost more legitimacy similar to what they did in the Duke rape case.

The simple answer is because it was too easy.

Interesting how that article on the case I posted didn't include any photos of the dead italian-american boy killed by the african-american adult male.

 

[squistion]

After hearing this story, I'm going rioting this weekend, maybe tonight. Any white boys with me?? I wonder if President Obama will comment on this case and calm me down.

I am not sure why the race-baiters choose the Zimmerman case. There were probably legitimate cases where real racism was involved and much more questionable self-defense claims were raised. I think Zimmerman is legitimately innocent and was scared as hell and is not even remotely a racist. Terrible case to hang their hats on. The race-baiters lost more legitimacy similar to what they did in the Duke rape case.

Zimmerman was not charged with anything until 45 days after Martin was killed, and never would have been if not from outrage in the black community - that is why it became a national story and other cases have not. If he had been charged right away, this never would generated more than local media interest in Florida (if that).

 

[MaxThreshold]

The best part about the speech, imo, is that he then acknowledged the fact that there is a violence problem among African-Americans.

This has been repeated by more than one person. I'm guessing it's annoying to black people that every time they want to discuss institutionalized racism, they also have to acknowledge that black on black violence is a problem. It's like whenever I want to discuss Palestinian terrorism, somebody always wants me to admit the Israelis do wrong things too. Once I admit that, does it change anything? Institutionalized racism is a real problem, and black on black violence is also a real problem, and both issues need to be addressed.

Stand Your Ground/Self-Defense law has nothing to do with institutional racism. I've even read that SYG helps more minorities than it hurts. But because it didn't in this case, the black community is up in arms about it. Perpetuating myopia/tunnel vision does not help the situation.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/12/1215595/-Stand-Your-Ground-Black-Woman-Fires-Shot-Gets-20-Years-White-Man-Kills-And-Goes-Free-WTF#

Ok Christo, I'm not a lawyer but this lady fired a warning shot and got 20 years in prison. GZ killed someone and he walks. Explain this to me.

She got twenty years because she actually LEFT and went to go get a gun and then came back and shot at him while there was a child in the room/area. She decided to forego the plea deal and take here chances and lost. Federal Guidelines REQUIRE at least 20 years in prison.

Not even similar to the zimmerman case at all.

You won't get the real story at the DailyKos. You'll get talking points, misinformation and information deliberately left out to prove their point.

Did you even read the ####### link you quoted? I mean really, this is ####### comical.

"The problem with her defense was she chose to come back in the house."

You know, as opposed to hunting someone down in a wide-open neighborhood. She chose to come back into HER ####### house. Unreal. You are a moron.

And she killed nobody, didnt even shoot anybody. Call me a moron, LOL

Maybe this post (w/links) will help you understand the case a bit better. I think you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

So I don't have it on, but from twitter, it sounds like Obama is fanning the flames here in a statement he is giving:

Obama: "Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago

Obama: There are very few African American men who have never had the experience of being followed in department stores. Including me.

Obama: "If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different."

Obama: If Trayvon Martin was of age and had a gun, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?

--

Anyone watching this that can comment? What is the tone?

Six jurors just went through all the evidence and decided there was no racial bias. The FBI went through the evidence and determined there was no racial bias. But Obama, he knows better. There was racial bias.Way to fan the flames jackass.

This aside from his constant mention of "stand your ground" laws which had nothing to do with the defense anyway.

Just like they said on CNN. Obama was in a no win situation. If he says nothing he pisses off the Martin backers. If he says anything he pisses off the Zimmerman backers.As for stand your ground, maybe you should read page 12 of the jury instructions. While there was no SYG hearing, it was still part of the trial. http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

You need to read page 12 again. It doesn't mention SYG.

How is this not SYG? (below taken from the link, on page 12)

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any

place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his

ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was

necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent

the commission of a forcible felony.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

The best part about the speech, imo, is that he then acknowledged the fact that there is a violence problem among African-Americans.

This has been repeated by more than one person. I'm guessing it's annoying to black people that every time they want to discuss institutionalized racism, they also have to acknowledge that black on black violence is a problem. It's like whenever I want to discuss Palestinian terrorism, somebody always wants me to admit the Israelis do wrong things too. Once I admit that, does it change anything? Institutionalized racism is a real problem, and black on black violence is also a real problem, and both issues need to be addressed.

Stand Your Ground/Self-Defense law has nothing to do with institutional racism. I've even read that SYG helps more minorities than it hurts. But because it didn't in this case, the black community is up in arms about it. Perpetuating myopia/tunnel vision does not help the situation.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/12/1215595/-Stand-Your-Ground-Black-Woman-Fires-Shot-Gets-20-Years-White-Man-Kills-And-Goes-Free-WTF#

Ok Christo, I'm not a lawyer but this lady fired a warning shot and got 20 years in prison. GZ killed someone and he walks. Explain this to me.

She got twenty years because she actually LEFT and went to go get a gun and then came back and shot at him while there was a child in the room/area. She decided to forego the plea deal and take here chances and lost. Federal Guidelines REQUIRE at least 20 years in prison.

Not even similar to the zimmerman case at all.

You won't get the real story at the DailyKos. You'll get talking points, misinformation and information deliberately left out to prove their point.

Did you even read the ####### link you quoted? I mean really, this is ####### comical.

"The problem with her defense was she chose to come back in the house."

You know, as opposed to hunting someone down in a wide-open neighborhood. She chose to come back into HER ####### house. Unreal. You are a moron.

I think you're the moron, Alex. It wasn't HER house. You clearly don't understand that she was able to remove herself from the situation, but she decided to go back INTO this situation - in a house she wasn't even living in- and fire a gun in the presence of children. I've highlighted the relevant portions for you.

Alexander claims she felt her life was at risk, but she left the house and went into the garage, retrieved a handgun from her car and returned to the kitchen where her husband (Rico Gray) and his two children were located. Stand Your Ground does not require that you attempt to flee, but she already had. At this point, it no longer applied. She then fired the "mere warning shot", which in many accounts was aimed at the ceiling, but the court documents indicate "barely missed Gray's head". Here is the relevant part of the court document:

[Gray] moved to the living room where his children were. Subsequently, [Alexander] emerged from the master bedroom and went into the garage where her car was parked. [Alexander] testified she was trying to leave the residence but could not get the garage door to open. (The Court notes that despite [Alexander's] claim she was in fear for her life at that point and trying to get away from [Gray], she did not leave the house through the back or front doors which were unobstructed. Additionally, the garage door had worked previously and there was no evidence to support her claim.) [Alexander] then retrieved her firearm from the glove box of the vehicle. [Alexander] returned to the kitchen with the firearm in her hand and pointed it in the direction of all three victims. [Gray] put his hands in the air. [Alexander] shot at [Gray], barely missing his head. The bullet traveled through the kitchen wall and into the ceiling in the living room. The victims fled the residence and immediately called 911. [Alexander] stayed in the marital home and at no point called 911.
Well that's a whole different story, isn't it? It should also be noted that Alexander wasn't even living in the house at the time, as she and Gray had separated. Sean Davis over at Media Trackers has a much more detailed account of the case. I've been seeing the case start to gain more attention recently, so it's important to get the facts right before the media tries to turn it into another drummed up racial discrimination story. Definitely give it a read.

The real outrage here is Florida's 10-20-Life mandatory minimum law, which essentially gives prosecutors (like the detestable Angela Corey) power to act as both prosecutor and judge. As soon as Alexander discharged her weapon, it immediately became a 20 year minimum sentence since it was used in an aggravated assault. The judge's hands were tied. The law does not include a first time offender exemption...

I don't know why you're getting angry with me, since all I was doing was reporting the info to a question on how the two cases are different.

I'm not angry with you. Basically, I think you're a ####### idiot.

 

[parasaurolophus]

MT...your article makes good points and quite frankly I'm tired of all the around this insisting that it's left vs right or black vs white. I'd rather look at what a verdict like this means in terms of society and what we teach our children. Problem is, I'm not sure what should be taught from this. "Don't beat up people who are carrying a gun" is childish and pointless. The best I can come up with is it's taught us how screwed up FL law is and I'm afraid that's not going to be very useful to my children.

Why does it have to be with a gun?

I think you could teach your kids two things. 1. Don't beat people up because fighting is stupid. 2.Leave it up to the police.

I'll grant you #2, but #1 is pretty disingenuous given how the whole thing started. If I put myself in a kid's shoes where they are being followed by a stranger, what's the lesson? Run? Go hide? Is that a good lesson to be teaching kids when they haven't been doing anything wrong? I'm not convinced the "just run and hide even though you've done nothing wrong" is the best approach. It's easy to ignore everything that happened up until the fight for legal purposes. It's not practical if trying to teach/learn from the entire situation.

How about just walk the extra bit and get into the house?

Why would you teach your kids to confront strangers that are following them???? Doesnt that contradict every way you have been defending Martin? How do they know for sure they are being followed? Wouldnt that be acting paranoid and being suspicious of people?

I've not been defending Martin. I've said multiple times he made a mistake by not going home just prior to the incident. But as I've been thinking, I can't shake the "why should have to run or flee if he weren't doing anything wrong?" type of thoughts. Perhaps for kids the answer is simple as others have suggested. Tell them to flee and error on the side of caution even if it's someone else causing the problem. There's something unjust about that in my mind though. If it's two kids and one is following the other, I wouldn't have a problem with either of my kids to try and resolve it. If it's two adults, I'd expect them to try and resolve it. This being scared of anyone/anything you don't know doesn't seem to be a way to go through life.

Even if you support your kids confronting a stranger they think is following them it still doesnt explain why you arent willing to teach them that getting into fights is pretty dumb.

What on earth are you talking about? We aren't talking about getting into fights here. I'd like to see the piece I typed that allowed you to jump to the conclusion.

Enough of your ridiculous act already. This has to be schtick at this point. Bold above proves it.

 

[jonessed]

In other words, I'm not going to bother with Christo BS but here is what it says. "If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

 

[jonessed]

After hearing this story, I'm going rioting this weekend, maybe tonight. Any white boys with me?? I wonder if President Obama will comment on this case and calm me down.

I am not sure why the race-baiters choose the Zimmerman case. There were probably legitimate cases where real racism was involved and much more questionable self-defense claims were raised. I think Zimmerman is legitimately innocent and was scared as hell and is not even remotely a racist. Terrible case to hang their hats on. The race-baiters lost more legitimacy similar to what they did in the Duke rape case.

Zimmerman was not charged with anything until 45 days after Martin was killed, and never would have been if not from outrage in the black community - that is why it became a national story and other cases have not. If he had been charged right away, this never would generated more than local media interest in Florida (if that).

Apparently they police were right. They didn't have enough evidence.

 

[Jackstraw]

Man this country is reaching a boiling point. We're going to have stuff go down that made the sixties look like a game of patty cake.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Obama showed no respect for the process, did not show any empathy for the other side and injected race into it despite no evidence which showed it. It was not presidential at all.

1. No respect for the process? Did you even read the speech?2. I don't think the "other side" deserves empathy, if you mean George Zimmerman. What GZ deserved, based on the evidence, was an acquittal. He does not deserve any empathy, since he is very likely guilty of a felony.

3. Obama did not inject race into the discussion. Race was already a part of the discussion of this trial for millions of Americans, and especially for black Americans, whether you like it or not.

4. OTC, it was extremely Presidential.

1. All he did was regurgitate what his speech writers told him to say so he didn't come off as overly callous, "they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that's how our system works." Is not an endorsement, glowing or otherwise, of "the system", he didn't say justice was served - because that would piss off all of the people he is trying to manipulate ("Justice for Trayvon").

2. Here you go again...very likely guilty of a felony, just stop already - nothing...absolutely nothing in evidence supports this, in fact when we take into consideration all of the information that was not allowed into evidence you'd have to have a bag over your head to come to this conclusion. Martin has a background of fighting, of bragging about fighting, and of bullying which is exactly what he tried to get away with that night after he profiled Zimmerman as a weak creepy ### cracka dough boy. If by some miracle Zimmerman didn't have to pull his firearm AND DiDi were to testify exactly as she did at trial (doubtful if not impossible), Martin would have been charged with a hate crime.

3. Not one juror agrees with you, the only element of race in this case was the way in which Martin profiled Zimmerman.

4. In Obama's eyes, this is just another Sandy Hook. Another opportunity to manipulate the emotions of the masses so he (and Bloomberg first) can go after "the guns" and in this case SYG laws even though it was not applicable to this case, I'm not surprised in the least that Tim thinks what he said was "extremely Presidential".

His speech was a carefully worded and timed anti-gun stunt and nothing more.

"if Martin had had a gun, could he have protected himself from Zimmerman, who was following him in a car."

are you freaking kidding me? This is the most laughable comment in his entire speech. Did he read the facts in the case? Or is he plainly ignoring them? Martin could have easily and safely entered his fathers house and everything would have been okay, and he would still be alive. But did he go to his house? No, he dashed back to a bush and ambushed Zimmerman. At that point, Martin would have been a murderer if he would have shot Zimmerman. What point could he possibly be trying to reach here?

 

[3C's]

Man this country is reaching a boiling point. We're going to have stuff go down that made the sixties look like a game of patty cake.

not even close

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Martin could have easily and safely entered his fathers house and everything would have been okay, and he would still be alive.

Completely wrong. Martin was just 70 yards from his house and the altercation actually happened on the very sidewalk to his door.

While Zimmerman "said" he hadn't gone that way and hadnt continued to follow, the fight happened 15 yards away from the path Zimm said he was on and upon Trayvons path to his front door. (Watch the video)

Why would Martin ever lead this guy any closer to his house where his baby brother was? Zimmerman shouldnt have cornered** him, which Trayvon obviously was (**considering his other option of allowing the follower to get close to his little brother).

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Considering that no one has any idea what actually happened to start the fight, it seems like Martin would have had a good chance of getting off if he'd shot Zimmerman first. "He followed me. He grabbed me and tried to keep me from getting away. I saw a gun and feared for my life."

The key is to kill the only witness that can refute your story.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The key is to kill the only witness that can refute your story.

 

[jon_mx]

After hearing this story, I'm going rioting this weekend, maybe tonight. Any white boys with me?? I wonder if President Obama will comment on this case and calm me down.

I am not sure why the race-baiters choose the Zimmerman case. There were probably legitimate cases where real racism was involved and much more questionable self-defense claims were raised. I think Zimmerman is legitimately innocent and was scared as hell and is not even remotely a racist. Terrible case to hang their hats on. The race-baiters lost more legitimacy similar to what they did in the Duke rape case.

Zimmerman was not charged with anything until 45 days after Martin was killed, and never would have been if not from outrage in the black community - that is why it became a national story and other cases have not. If he had been charged right away, this never would generated more than local media interest in Florida (if that).

The facts of the case did not merit charges. There was really no reason or facts which could eliminate the claim of reasonable doubt. They will loose that case over 90 percent of the time with an impartial jury, and prosecutors take cases they think they can win.

 

[jon_mx]

Martin could have easily and safely entered his fathers house and everything would have been okay, and he would still be alive.

Completely wrong. Martin was just 70 yards from his house and the altercation actually happened on the very sidewalk to his door.

While Zimmerman "said" he hadn't gone that way and hadnt continued to follow, the fight happened 15 yards away from the path Zimm said he was on and upon Trayvons path to his front door. (Watch the video)

Why would Martin ever lead this guy any closer to his house where his baby brother was? Zimmerman shouldnt have cornered** him, which Trayvon obviously was (**considering his other option of allowing the follower to get close to his little brother).

 

[MaxThreshold]

I'm not angry with you. Basically, I think you're a ####### idiot.

For what? For showing you the actual facts of the case? You're being deliberately obtuse here, Alex. Did you even read anything? Or is this just a knee-jerk reaction?

 

[avoiding injuries]

Martin could have easily and safely entered his fathers house and everything would have been okay, and he would still be alive.

Completely wrong. Martin was just 70 yards from his house and the altercation actually happened on the very sidewalk to his door.

While Zimmerman "said" he hadn't gone that way and hadnt continued to follow, the fight happened 15 yards away from the path Zimm said he was on and upon Trayvons path to his front door. (Watch the video)

Why would Martin ever lead this guy any closer to his house where his baby brother was? Zimmerman shouldnt have cornered** him, which Trayvon obviously was (**considering his other option of allowing the follower to get close to his little brother).

Starts with "completely wrong", then proceeds to be completely wrong about every single thing he mentions. indeed

 

[The Commish]

MT...your article makes good points and quite frankly I'm tired of all the around this insisting that it's left vs right or black vs white. I'd rather look at what a verdict like this means in terms of society and what we teach our children. Problem is, I'm not sure what should be taught from this. "Don't beat up people who are carrying a gun" is childish and pointless. The best I can come up with is it's taught us how screwed up FL law is and I'm afraid that's not going to be very useful to my children.

Why does it have to be with a gun?

I think you could teach your kids two things. 1. Don't beat people up because fighting is stupid. 2.Leave it up to the police.

I'll grant you #2, but #1 is pretty disingenuous given how the whole thing started. If I put myself in a kid's shoes where they are being followed by a stranger, what's the lesson? Run? Go hide? Is that a good lesson to be teaching kids when they haven't been doing anything wrong? I'm not convinced the "just run and hide even though you've done nothing wrong" is the best approach. It's easy to ignore everything that happened up until the fight for legal purposes. It's not practical if trying to teach/learn from the entire situation.

How about just walk the extra bit and get into the house?

Why would you teach your kids to confront strangers that are following them???? Doesnt that contradict every way you have been defending Martin? How do they know for sure they are being followed? Wouldnt that be acting paranoid and being suspicious of people?

I've not been defending Martin. I've said multiple times he made a mistake by not going home just prior to the incident. But as I've been thinking, I can't shake the "why should have to run or flee if he weren't doing anything wrong?" type of thoughts. Perhaps for kids the answer is simple as others have suggested. Tell them to flee and error on the side of caution even if it's someone else causing the problem. There's something unjust about that in my mind though. If it's two kids and one is following the other, I wouldn't have a problem with either of my kids to try and resolve it. If it's two adults, I'd expect them to try and resolve it. This being scared of anyone/anything you don't know doesn't seem to be a way to go through life.

Even if you support your kids confronting a stranger they think is following them it still doesnt explain why you arent willing to teach them that getting into fights is pretty dumb.

What on earth are you talking about? We aren't talking about getting into fights here. I'd like to see the piece I typed that allowed you to jump to the conclusion.

Enough of your ridiculous act already. This has to be schtick at this point. Bold above proves it.

In the context of this case this is stupid. I stand by that. That doesn't mean that there aren't other fantastic examples of where fighting is stupid. Because I don't think this case is applicable to that lesson doesn't mean I don't think the lesson should be taught. We do agree, however, that this is ridiculous...you can stop now.

 

[jon_mx]

MT...your article makes good points and quite frankly I'm tired of all the around this insisting that it's left vs right or black vs white. I'd rather look at what a verdict like this means in terms of society and what we teach our children. Problem is, I'm not sure what should be taught from this. "Don't beat up people who are carrying a gun" is childish and pointless. The best I can come up with is it's taught us how screwed up FL law is and I'm afraid that's not going to be very useful to my children.

Why does it have to be with a gun?

I think you could teach your kids two things. 1. Don't beat people up because fighting is stupid. 2.Leave it up to the police.

I'll grant you #2, but #1 is pretty disingenuous given how the whole thing started. If I put myself in a kid's shoes where they are being followed by a stranger, what's the lesson? Run? Go hide? Is that a good lesson to be teaching kids when they haven't been doing anything wrong? I'm not convinced the "just run and hide even though you've done nothing wrong" is the best approach. It's easy to ignore everything that happened up until the fight for legal purposes. It's not practical if trying to teach/learn from the entire situation.

How about just walk the extra bit and get into the house?

Why would you teach your kids to confront strangers that are following them???? Doesnt that contradict every way you have been defending Martin? How do they know for sure they are being followed? Wouldnt that be acting paranoid and being suspicious of people?

I've not been defending Martin. I've said multiple times he made a mistake by not going home just prior to the incident. But as I've been thinking, I can't shake the "why should have to run or flee if he weren't doing anything wrong?" type of thoughts. Perhaps for kids the answer is simple as others have suggested. Tell them to flee and error on the side of caution even if it's someone else causing the problem. There's something unjust about that in my mind though. If it's two kids and one is following the other, I wouldn't have a problem with either of my kids to try and resolve it. If it's two adults, I'd expect them to try and resolve it. This being scared of anyone/anything you don't know doesn't seem to be a way to go through life.

Even if you support your kids confronting a stranger they think is following them it still doesnt explain why you arent willing to teach them that getting into fights is pretty dumb.

What on earth are you talking about? We aren't talking about getting into fights here. I'd like to see the piece I typed that allowed you to jump to the conclusion.

Enough of your ridiculous act already. This has to be schtick at this point. Bold above proves it.

In the context of this case this is stupid. I stand by that. That doesn't mean that there aren't other fantastic examples of where fighting is stupid. Because I don't think this case is applicable to that lesson doesn't mean I don't think the lesson should be taught. We do agree, however, that this is ridiculous...you can stop now.

Stupid = being alive?

 

[jon_mx]

So I guess it is logical to assume if some Hispanic guy is watching you wandering through his neighborhood his is some kind of child rapists, because we know all Hispanic guys are like that.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Man this country is reaching a boiling point. We're going to have stuff go down that made the sixties look like a game of patty cake.

not even close

When people say stuff like this, I assume they're speaking for themselves. Jackstraw is saying that he's really close to flipping out. I have no reason to doubt him since I can't read his mind.