Hmmm...

Post #378,038 by hnick 7/14/13 4:51:58 PM Reply	Hmmm... Let's see... Pirating a scholars previous work... They got a compliant legislature to pass a law stating such behavior was lawful and a compliant court system (not even secret!) to agree that it was within bounds, and they've been doing this shit since gunpowder, so... are you SURE you don't want to stick up for them? I'm pretty sure I've heard impassioned argument supporting blowing away "bad guys" on such merits. I may have misunderstood...
Post #378,039 by Another Scott 7/14/13 5:23:55 PM Reply	Some situations are more equal than others.... I don't think FL's version of self-defense or Stand Your Ground are equivalent to the need for the federal government to legitimately collect and protect classified information. But we've been through that stuff before, so there's unlikely to be new light from my end. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #378,043 by drook 7/14/13 6:03:55 PM Reply	One significant difference In this case, I don't think you have to challenge the law to think the jury got it wrong. Even if you support the concept of "stand your ground", this guy exceed that, in direct contradiction of what he was told by the 911 operator. -- Drew
Post #378,045 by Ashton 7/14/13 6:24:08 PM Reply	I note Movements afoot.. to try to get FL to prosecute this perp: to open a civil rights case against George Zimmerman and have launched a petition to Attorney General Eric Holder. The petition says: The Department of Justice has closely monitored the State of Florida's prosecution of the case against George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin murder since it began. Today, with the acquittal of George Zimmerman, it is time for the Department of Justice to act. The most fundamental of civil rightsÂthe right to lifeÂwas violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin. We ask that the Department of Justice file civil rights charges against Mr. Zimmerman for this egregious violation. Please address the travesties of the tragic death of Trayvon Martin by acting today. Thank you. Guess we'll find out how Crowd-Prosecuting turns out, here in 2013 and far <--away--> from sentient Times. Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all. [But NOT in >Our< lifetimes.. Now: one must add the Obvious.]
Post #378,047 by boxley 7/14/13 9:48:12 PM Reply	like I said in the beginning, doesnt matter the feds will get him on a civil rights beef. watched a lot of the trial, prosecution bumbled badly in so many ways there was no other conclusion to make Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #378,049 by Another Scott 7/14/13 9:53:23 PM Reply	Yup. They didn't want to prosecute GZ at all... :-(
Post #378,048 by Another Scott 7/14/13 9:52:40 PM 7/14/13 10:20:10 PM Reply	The petition link(s). https://petitions.wh...n-martin/LkGHz0VH It looks like the only recent one (quite often there seem to be multiple petitions, splitting the votes). 90,760 to go by August 13. Justice is restarting its investigation - http://www.nytimes.c...s-death.html?_r=0 [...] In a statement on Sunday, the Justice Department said that now that the state criminal trial was over, it would continue its examination of the circumstances in the shooting. ÂExperienced federal prosecutors will determine whether the evidence reveals a prosecutable violation of any of the limited federal criminal civil rights statutes within our jurisdiction,Â the statement said. The department sets a high bar for such a prosecution. Three former Justice Department officials who once worked in the departmentÂs Civil Rights Division, which is handling the inquiry, said Sunday that the federal government must clear a series of difficult legal hurdles before it could move to indict Mr. Zimmerman. ÂIt is not enough if itÂs just a fight that escalated,Â said Samuel Bagenstos, who until 2011 served as the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the division. ÂThe government has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant acted willfully with a seriously culpable state of mindÂ to violate Mr. MartinÂs civil rights. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. hinted at those challenges last year. ÂWe have to prove the highest standard in the law,Â Mr. Holder said at a news conference in April 2012. ÂSomething that was reckless, that was negligent, does not meet that standard. We have to show that there was specific intent to do the crime with the requisite state of mind.Â [...] ÂThere arenÂt that many of these cases, and it is not because the government is not being vigilant,Â said William R. Yeomans, a former chief of staff in the Justice DepartmentÂs Civil Rights Division. ÂIt is very difficult to establish a defendantÂs state of mind.Â Given the things reported about Zimmerman's comments in the call with police and his initial interview with the police, determining his state of mind shouldn't be too difficult in this case... Our way of choosing juries contributed to the result. It used to be (e.g. in Colonial Williamsburg times) that a jury of your peers meant a collection of people who knew you and your character. If the state were to lock you up, your guilt or innocence was judged by people who knew you. Now, anyone who keeps up with the news and is an informed citizen is (nearly) automatically excluded from juries in notorious cases. It's likely that a far higher percentage of Black potential jury members paid attention to the case than Whites or Hispanics, shrinking their odds of being picked (even if there were no other intentional bias against them). I'll be surprised if they go ahead with a civil rights case against him, but I do think this needs to be addressed in federal court. A civil case would be an alternative, but not as good as a federal civil rights case. My $0.02. [edit:] The NAACP had a petition earlier in the day - https://donate.naacp...l-rights-petition - over 450k signatures when I last checked. Cheers, Scott. Edited by Another Scott July 14, 2013, 10:20:10 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #378,109 by Ashton 7/15/13 6:41:41 PM Reply	MoveOn got DDOSed What a surprise.. In our 15-year history, MoveOn members have organized against wars and criticized presidents and CEOs. We've always spoken our truth clearly and bravely, even when it was uncomfortable or hard. And we've always known that we might be making powerful enemies. Even so, I was shocked by what happened this weekend. We just faced the biggest attack on our website in our entire history. Anonymous attackers unleashed millions of artificial requests at our servers, preventing legitimate traffic from getting through. Despite the best efforts of our ace tech team, our site was totally dark for nearly two hours. Only late last night did we finally get through all the mess that the attackers caused. We have reason to believe the attack was in response to a petition on our site, launched by the NAACP, that calls for a federal civil rights investigation into the death of Trayvon Martin. An attack like this on an online organization is the equivalent of throwing a brick through our office window. The intent is the same: Intimidate, frighten, and get us to back down. Don't like gunz nor Gun-Nutz much? May need one to protect self, oxymoronically.
Post #378,113 by boxley 7/15/13 8:06:58 PM Reply	don't they cheer when people they dont like get ddoss'd? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #378,055 by pwhysall 7/15/13 1:54:32 AM Reply	Re: One significant difference Whilst I understand that the jury reached a reasonable verdict given the evidence presented to them, I still think what I thought when I first heard about this case, to wit - George Zimmerman, through a series of piss fucking poor decisions, unnecessarily got himself into a fight that he subsequently shot his way out of. Two things spring to mind: Lolwut, Florida? Presumption of innocence in cases of killing by means of self defence? That's going to go ever so well, yes? George Zimmerman is going to have a very uncomfortable few years until he fades into insignificance.
Post #378,061 by Another Scott 7/15/13 7:53:44 AM 7/15/13 8:09:25 AM Reply	Wasn't a "stand your ground" defense. But the judge did use that language in the jury instructions(!) TNC has a good column this morning - http://www.theatlant...n-justice/277782/ In trying to assess the the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, two seemingly conflicted truths emerge for me. The first is that is that based on the case presented by the state, and based on Florida law, George Zimmerman should not have been convicted of second degree murder or manslaughter. The second is that the killing of Trayvon Martin is a profound injustice. In examining the first conclusion, I think it's important to take a very hard look at the qualifications allowed for aggressors by Florida's self-defense statute: [...] There has been a lot of complaint that "stand your ground" has nothing to do with this case. That contention is contravened by the fact that it is cited in the instructions to the jury. Taken together, it is important to understand that it is not enough for the state to prove that George Zimmerman acted unwisely in following Martin. Under Florida law, George Zimmerman had no responsibility to--at any point--retreat. The state must prove that Zimmerman had no reasonable fear for his life. Moreover, it is not enough for the jury to find Zimmerman's story fishy. Again the jury instructions: That law is so messed up... [edit:] Just refound this comment at DeLong's blog - http://delong.typepa...401901e428fa3970b [...] I got curious and read the jury instructions Friday night and, I was wrong. In Florida, if self-defense is even suggested, itÂs the states obligation to prove itÂs absence beyond a reasonable doubt(!). ThatÂs crazy. But Ânot guiltyÂ was certainly a reasonable result in this case. As I told in friend in Tampa today though, if youÂre ever in a heated argument with anyone, and youÂre pretty sure there arenÂt any witnesses, itÂs always best to kill the other person. They canÂt testify, you donÂt have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened; how can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasnÂt self-defense? Holy crap! What kind of system is that? Yup. :-( There are other good comments there, too. Cheers, Scott. Edited by Another Scott July 15, 2013, 08:09:25 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #378,063 by drook 7/15/13 8:29:27 AM 7/15/13 8:45:16 AM Reply	Wow, that law is worse than I thought The deLong commenter is wrong, though. The state has always had to prove their case against a self-defense claim. The problem, as TNC points out, is that it used to be enough to show that you initiated the confrontation: after that it's not "defense". Now you can start the fight and shoot it out if you're losing. How can any deadly fight end in a conviction now? -- Drew Edited by drook July 15, 2013, 08:45:16 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #378,066 by boxley 7/15/13 8:44:23 AM Reply	wrong, as noted in many places, brown was not discussed by the prosecution at all. In florida you have no obligation to back away from a confrontation, unless you are the aggressor. In that case it is YOUR duty to back out of the situation. Stand your ground is a completely defensive law. In other words, if you get out of your truck after the cops tell you to leave it alone, you need to run away when the scary black man punches you, not shoot him. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #378,083 by drook 7/15/13 11:37:51 AM Reply	Not wrong The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: ... (2) *Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger* of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; I highlighted the relevant parts. You can't claim self-defense if you initiated it *UNLESS* ... well, damn near anything that comes after the "unless" makes this law bullshit. You can start a fight, and if you're losing bad enough you can shoot the other guy. -- Drew
Post #378,095 by Ashton 7/15/13 4:03:14 PM Reply	At this point in the post-trial necropsy.. does anyone care to estimate the odds of the 'Stand Your Ground' ""law"" being bumped to the USSC--soon?--a bit later?? (Whereby we may get to plumb the depths of where the Gang-of-Five really stand? on a variety of visceral issues/outrages --and maybe many other aspects of this isolated \| simultaneously sanctimonious and crass, quarrelsome quintet.) Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all. HAH!! . . . in. your. dreams.
Post #378,102 by mmoffitt 7/15/13 5:02:02 PM Reply	Do you really think they'd hear it? I don't think so. The majority on this court doesn't understand that an injudicious placement of an ellipsis can obliterate meaning (as in "... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). Particularly when no heed is paid to stare decisis. See, "Private Ownership of Firearms" is a new "right" this crowd of toddlers invented. And in so doing they said "States can regulate, but not deny [SIC] private firearm ownership rights." So, imnsho, this group of short-bus justices would decide that the "Stand Your Ground" law is a State matter.
Post #378,104 by Ashton 7/15/13 5:13:42 PM Reply	As they are 100.0% insulated from all inputs.. you are likely right--but there's always Chance--essentially all we can count on from this lot. (When Sandra Day O'C retired, to take care of her very-ailing husband {laudatory, of course} ... and then he died very shortly thereafter: I thought-out-loud: Let. no. good. deed. go. unPunished.) We are the Punished. Until one or more of these suckers crashes his Mercedes. Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
Post #378,112 by boxley 7/15/13 8:06:11 PM Reply	staring meanly at us vs miller doesn't do a thing for you. That would have been tossed on an appeal Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #378,135 by mmoffitt 7/16/13 9:56:53 AM Reply	Miller doesn't hold anymore. In our Brave New World, whether or not the firearm in question "has some reasonable relationship" to the regulation of a State militia is irrelevant. Hell, we may as well adopt the NRA's version of Amendment Two and start it off, as they do, with an ellipsis.
Post #378,117 by pwhysall 7/16/13 2:03:36 AM Reply	Re: One significant difference http://www.theonion....ckedup-law,33126/
Post #378,122 by drook 7/16/13 7:52:56 AM Reply	Funny, but so very not-true See "jury nullification". Or: http://fija.org -- Drew
Post #378,156 by Ashton 7/16/13 3:11:21 PM Reply	Thanks.. we can be sure that no Judge hands a printout from this site ... to any juror. Ignorance Kills. Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.

Welcome to IWETHEY!