Some heads need to roll

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Abner, Mar 22, 2012.

Loading...
  1. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    This case is disgusting. This whacko Zimmerman shot an unarmed 13 year old kid after he was told be police dispatchers not to pursue the kid. What was the 13 year old doing? Rentering his own gated housing community after buying a soda and some skittlles. Disgusting!

    Trayvon Martin Case: Lead Investigator Asked to Step Down - Yahoo! News

    Good going scumbag.

    Abner :mad:
     
  2. rmm0484

    rmm0484 Member

    Did you see his racist comments about c@@ns and the like? (Transcripts of the 911 calls). Also if the wacko has a right to defend his location under Florida law, the other guy should have had just as much right to be at that location, since his family lived there.
     
  3. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Oh yeah. They took everything on the Whackos word, and did not arrest him. Said Whacko was not standing his ground, he was in pursuit, thus he should have been arrested.

    So what do the cops do? A background and drug test on the victim, but do not check out Zimmerman. That's an investigation?

    Abner
     
  4. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    Don't get hyper just yet. Even if he had been arrested he would have made bail within a couple of hours. If Florida is anything like Texas the first thing that will happen is a grand jury hearing. If the grand jury hands down a finding called a “bill” (indictment) charges will immediately be pressed, THEN he will be arrested THEN he will have his bail hearing and probably make bail (although given the media coverage maybe not). To me this looks like a clear cut case of second degree murder but then I don't know all the facts, just what I've seen in the news. Did the cops hose this one up? It looks like it. Does that get the shooter off the hook? Not likely.

    All the calls for changing the "no burden to retreat" is utter nonsense and there was a reason the laws were written the way they were. Victims should not be under any obligation to retreat from an assailant to preserve that assailant's safety (which is essentially what the other state’s obligation to retreat law is for).

    I personally do not think this guy is getting away with this. Even if the state fails to indict they can still get him on a federal hate crime…personally I think this guy is going down. Using a “Twinkie” defense (the old name for the insanity plea that used to rile people up) doesn’t necessarily mean it will work.
     
  5. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the good comments. I just heard the Sanford Police Chief "temporarily" stepped down over this case. I say good. Now the cop that directly handled this case needs to go. I mean come on, you let a guy go who just shot a 13 year old kid holding a soda and a bag of Skittles? Thank God there were witnesses and a phone conversation just before the boy was killed, otherwise this thing would have been covered up. I believe the arresting officer in this case was under fire previously for getting his son off for nearly beating a black homeless (on video) man to death for no reason. Oh boy!

    Abner
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 22, 2012
  6. ryoder

    ryoder New Member

    Its a good thing we have the death penalty. If this guy murdered this kid he should get the death penalty. If however, he was attacked, he probably was in the right.
    I don't know much about criminal law so take my comments with a grain of salt.
     
  7. b4cz28

    b4cz28 Active Member

    We really don't know what happend do we? AND WE WILL NEVER!
     
  8. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Witnesses did not see any attack on the shooter. Furthermore, the kid that who was shot was on the phone in a panick with his girlfriend while this incident happened. He said he was being pursued by some guy and that he was afraid. His girlfriend told him to run, but the boy thought it would be better to ask the shooter why he was being followed. Then, bam! could be heard on the phone recorded conversation. No attack. Just like that, no warning, no freeze, no nothing. The scum bag just hauled off and shot him.

    Apparently this freak shooter was a wannabe cop who never made it into the academy, and is known as a serial police line caller who sees suspision where there is none. Looks like he was trying to be a hero. Nope!

    Abner
     
  9. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    There were many, many witnesses. Some of them have come forward and even have done TV interviews, detailing how the police tried to bully them into lying. There were several 911 calls made, as well, which give us really good insight into what happened.

    The biggest piece of evidence is the 911 call that the shooter himself made. The dispatcher advises him not to follow the victim, but the shooter decides to anyway. Then there is the common sense evidence. The victim was, literally, about half the size of the shooter and was simply minding his own business when he was stalked and pursued by the shooter. The victim was unarmed, unless you consider Skittles to be a weapon.
     
  10. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    The good news...there is enough evidence in my opinion that this guy will probably be convicted for murder.

    The bad news...even were he to be convicted, unless the prosecution can prove that it was premeditated it is unlikely the shooter will get the death penalty. 2nd degree murder (in the heat of the moment) generally does not carry a death penalty punishment as a possibility.

    The sad part is there are guys out there who simply cannot wait to be in a gun fight. I've known some...some of them are even cops. Generally these guys are "gun" guys but in an unhealthy way. I'm a "gun guy" myself but the idea of shooting someone is not something I'd like to dwell on but some guys it's all they can think about, talk about or read about. I've seen guys like this in the security industry as well. Anyhow, there are just some people out there that for some reason want to get their gun off and sometimes they do. Hopefully this guy gets sent up the river.
     
  11. OutsideTheBox

    OutsideTheBox New Member

    It apparently was a hate crime that makes it a stronger charge and should add some more years. I hope the DA finds every possible charge no matter how minor to charge him with to add all the time they can discharging a firearm, reckless endangerment of a minor, failure to obey an officer of the law (he was told not to follow) and whatever else they can get.
     
  12. perrymk

    perrymk Member

    I live in Florida but not near Sanford and have only caught bits of news. The only thing that seems certain is the shooter was told not to engage by 911, the shooter had a bloody nose, and the kid was unarmed. I haven't heard about actual witnesses to the events nor had I heard about the victim being on the phone.

    The thought that a relatively small kid on his way home to his family from a snack run would assault a relatively larger adult doesn't make sense. As Judge Judy says, if it doesn't make sense then it isn't true. I suspect the bloody nose wasn't a result of the kid. I don't know what's up with the police chief. It seems like now is the time for leadership and he's throwing in the towel. Maybe he did something really stupid that I'm not aware of.

    As an aside, I am opposed to the concept of hate crime. Crime is crime and should be prosecuted. Hate is a thought, and when we start to legislate thought we find ourselves on a slippery slope. That's my opinion; no one has to agree.
     
  13. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    I too am opposed to the notion of a hate crime...it is criminalizing intent which is damn near thought control and serves to place victims in different protected classes, which is anti-American (unConstitutional) if you ask me.

    Anyhow a 911 operator is not a law enforcement officer, disobeying one is not a crime. Second, even if you had a cop on the phone telling you what to do you would be under no legal obligation to follow it in the heat of the situation. It's the person who is on scene that ultimately makes the call...your mileage may vary but even in law enforcement situations they have a term for this called "tactical command" meaning that whoever is on the scene calls the shots basically. Again some departments may differ but that's how my former agency operated.

    Another consideration everyone needs to keep in mind is that many of the "facts" will not be made known to the public until either the investigation is concluded or there is a trial. What we do know now is still probably too much but still not the whole picture. I still think it was murder but I'm not supporting any rallies or signing any petitions to arrest the guy...there is still an ongoing investigation and whether people realize it or not an "arrest" is not punishment, it is instead bringing the accused before a judge. Do that now and he'll post bail or be given an opportunity too...then people will be upset about that. It's just our legal system at work.
     
  14. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    I won't say whether I agree or disagree, but I will add a comment. The concept of a hate crime is not based upon "thought" but intent, and intent most definitely is a matter of law. If a person's intent is to make the lives of an entire subpopulation miserable, it is somewhat akin to terrorism, and may justify having a different class of crime to deal with.

    Crosses aren't burned on lawns nor swastikas spray-painted on gravestones to spite an individual, but an entire population.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 23, 2012
  15. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    That about sums it up.

    Abner :smile:
     
  16. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Hang him high as Haman!
     
  17. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member


    And "beat Whitey" nights along with Black Flash Mob violence against whites is aimed at an entire population as well.

    I feel for the kid and especially his parents.

    When a hispanic guy adopted by Jewish people thinks he is above the law and starts going around killing helpless/defenseless 6'3" 17 year olds who have commited no crimes we all should be outraged.
     
  18. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    Intent is a part of the law, but it is "criminal intent" (mens rea) and is used as one of the criteria to determine if an act was indeed a crime. We even have laws that criminalize behavior without mens rea such as in manslaughter, etc. What is unprecedented is the capacity to prosecute based upon intent alone or as an aggravating factor of a crime, this is new. Terrorism is gray area since there is debate as to whether it is an act of war or a criminal act or both. Depending upon who you ask you can get differing opinions with different burdens of proof inherent to each but either way terrorism is unique in even international law.

    What hate crimes essentially do is create protected classes which under the law is historically supposed to be a “no no”. Even our statue of lady justice is blindfolded supposedly weighing an issue based upon fact without taking into account race, socio-economic status, etc. Does it work out that way? No. Was it intended to? I think so. Do hate crimes mitigate racially based crimes? No. Is a violent act any less violent because of the intent of the offender? No. Is classifying something as a hate crime a method of thought control? Perhaps.

    But here’s the real pickle…being a racist or homophobe isn’t illegal. In fact you could start a club, wear offensive uniforms or shirts or something, make signs, flags, whatever and you still have not broken the law. Being an a-hole isn’t a crime either. Punching someone in the face is…but an a-hole punching someone in the face in most states is a misdemeanor but if you are a card carrying racist and do it while yelling racially charged epithets in most states it becomes a felony. Why is that? Even more of a pickle is who exactly gets to determine the difference in whether a crime is racially charged or not? Do you inspect the offender’s computer? Look for hoods in the closet? Ask friends if they’ve used the “N word”? How do you determine someone is a racist or homophobe and acted in a violent fashion because of this? What if a Neo-Nazi punches out a Jewish guy because the Jewish guy was hitting on his girlfriend in a bar? Who gets to say whether that was assault or a hate crime? Criminal intent is easy…the fact he acted is intent. But the motivation behind the intent…that is dang near impossible except in the most egregious of cases and even in those cases…exactly who is being served by adding aggravating factors to an illegal act? And is that really equality under law?
     
  19. BobbyJim

    BobbyJim New Member

  20. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Why is this thread gray?
     

Share This Page