Yukon Cornelius Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 After all the notoriety of this case, if Zimmerman isn't indicted (much less found guilty) I have absolutely no idea why anyone would consider rioting. With civic leaders urging people to remain calm until all the details can be sorted out, there is no reason to suspect things could possibly escalate further. This is 1992 on steroids, with national attention and plenty of time to let things really boil over. i was thinken it was more like 80's with the falg buring and protests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 After all the notoriety of this case, if Zimmerman isn't indicted (much less found guilty) I have absolutely no idea why anyone would consider rioting. With civic leaders urging people to remain calm until all the details can be sorted out, there is no reason to suspect things could possibly escalate further. This is 1992 on steroids, with national attention and plenty of time to let things really boil over. That does not explain why people would riot. You gave an example of a riot. I asked why would people riot and in response you provide two links. In neither link anyone was calling for riots. One link called for peaceful civil disobedence the other called for the murder of Zimmerman. I'm trying to figure out why anyone would riot. That I'm aware, nobody has rioted yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathpig Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) That does not explain why people would riot. You gave an example of a riot. I asked why would people riot and in response you provide two links. In neither link anyone was calling for riots. One link called for peaceful civil disobedence the other called for the murder of Zimmerman. I'm trying to figure out why anyone would riot. That I'm aware, nobody has rioted yet. I'm not saying 'I predict with 100% certainty that people will riot'. However, asking for 'why people would riot' when rioting is traditionally not someting meticulously organized but a chaotic/disorganized/emotional response to a situation is at least a little disingenuous. Can anyone predict, in advance, that a riot will absolutely occur? How can I give you a logical reason why people are going to suddenly act chaotic/disorganized/emotional to something? Well, first I can point out another time that assailants were not 'brought to justice' for attacking a black victim. In this situation the assailants were officers of the law, in this case the assailant was (in his mind) acting as some sort of appendage of the law. Both cases were contentious. Both cases had national attention. The situations aren't identical, of course, but I certainly see a lot of similarity. I know the link with Sharpton has him saying 'civil disobediance' but you don't see any possible way that the idea of 'escalation' might, JUST MIGHT, be interpreted by people as something more severe than sit-ins? Like say, in the second link, offering a bounty on someone? You can't see those two stories, take the temperature of frustration over this situation (just from the messages in this thread!), look at what happened in 1992, and NOT see even the possibility that Zimmerman walking away from this unscathed couldn't cause rioting? I was born and raised in LA. I was there in 1992. All I'm saying is I see the same winds brewing here. Edited April 11, 2012 by Deathpig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Zimmerman will not be charged. Moneymakers wrong again? http://news.yahoo.com/official-charges-coming-trayvon-martin-death-184138994.html It won't be long now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 That does not explain why people would riot. You gave an example of a riot. I asked why would people riot and in response you provide two links. In neither link anyone was calling for riots. One link called for peaceful civil disobedence the other called for the murder of Zimmerman. I'm trying to figure out why anyone would riot. That I'm aware, nobody has rioted yet. If he's found not guilty, obviously they riot. If he's found guilty, they riot in celebration, ala Kentucky winning the NCAA tourney. Wanna know how I know Zimmerman's fate will be either assrape or a bullet to the head? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Come on Club, you're just being obtuse. Deathpig's first topic was certainly enough to show why this would be a very likely scenario. Do you honestly think, in this day and age, where everyone is already at each other's throats, that people are just going to be chill regardless of the verdict? The pathetic manner in which this has been handled has opened up the state of FL to a massive backlash from whatever side does not get the ruling they wanted. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 a massive backlash from whatever side does not get the ruling they wanted. I'm being obtuse? Come on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I'm being obtuse? Come on. Don't underestimate the white Latino vigilantes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I'm being obtuse? Come on. Club, are you denying that either side will be outraged if the ruling goes against what they want to see? And, again, the sloppy manner in which this was handled gives the losing side plenty of ammo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Moneymakers wrong again? That didn't take very long now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Club, are you denying that either side will be outraged if the ruling goes against what they want to see? I thought we were talking about riots not outrage. I imagine people will be outraged no matter what happens. I expect that nobody riots but I guess I expect a lot out of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) Posted Today, 08:27 PM moneymakers, on 11 April 2012 - 06:12 AM, said: Zimmerman will not be charged. Moneymakers wrong again? http://news.yahoo.co...-184138994.html It won't be long now. ™ Typical Liberal B.S You must work for for NBC True quote http://www.orlandose...trayvon-martin/ click on the video thats 6:16 minutes long. pretty much wraps it up for the defense. If all he says is true. Zimmerman will not be charged. Edited April 11, 2012 by moneymakers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) Posted Today, 08:27 PM moneymakers, on 11 April 2012 - 06:12 AM, said: Zimmerman will not be charged. Typical Liberal B.S You must work for for NBC True quote http://www.orlandose...trayvon-martin/ click on the video thats 6:16 minutes long. pretty much wraps it up for the defense. If all he says is true. Zimmerman will not be charged. Charged with 2nd-degree murder George Zimmerman, the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who shot an unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, was charged with second-degree murder in the black teenager’s death in Sanford, Florida, a state prosecutor said. The decision was announced at a press conference today in Jacksonville. Edited April 11, 2012 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathpig Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 You have got to be kidding me. This is the prosecutor throwing the case at arraignment, though I suppose it wasn't politically expedient to levy the FAR more convictable manslaughter charge. Here's the best summary I could find quickly on second degree murder under Florida law: http://www.arnoldlawfirmllc.com/CM/Custom/SecondDegreeMurder.asp I'm just not sure that in this case you can establish the intent necessary (number 3 on the list, unless there is some smoking gun evidence that hasn't been released yet) beyond a reasonable doubt. This screams of the prosecutor filing a charge to shut up one group of people but making the charge something they won't be able to convict to eventually shut up the other group of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 You have got to be kidding me. This is the prosecutor throwing the case at arraignment, though I suppose it wasn't politically expedient to levy the FAR more convictable manslaughter charge. Here's the best summary I could find quickly on second degree murder under Florida law: http://www.arnoldlawfirmllc.com/CM/Custom/SecondDegreeMurder.asp I'm just not sure that in this case you can establish the intent necessary (number 3 on the list, unless there is some smoking gun evidence that hasn't been released yet) beyond a reasonable doubt. This screams of the prosecutor filing a charge to shut up one group of people but making the charge something they won't be able to convict to eventually shut up the other group of people. You should riot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I'm just not sure that in this case you can establish the intent necessary (number 3 on the list, unless there is some smoking gun evidence that hasn't been released yet) beyond a reasonable doubt. This screams of the prosecutor filing a charge to shut up one group of people but making the charge something they won't be able to convict to eventually shut up the other group of people. Or maybe the prosecutor charged Zimmerman with the crime that she thought was appropriate based upon a thorough review of the evidence. Not as exciting as your theory, I admit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 You have got to be kidding me. This is the prosecutor throwing the case at arraignment, though I suppose it wasn't politically expedient to levy the FAR more convictable manslaughter charge. Here's the best summary I could find quickly on second degree murder under Florida law: http://www.arnoldlaw...egreeMurder.asp I'm just not sure that in this case you can establish the intent necessary (number 3 on the list, unless there is some smoking gun evidence that hasn't been released yet) beyond a reasonable doubt. This screams of the prosecutor filing a charge to shut up one group of people but making the charge something they won't be able to convict to eventually shut up the other group of people. Answer is simple Eric Holder 4 more years of Hope and Change Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Answer is simple Eric Holder 4 more years of Hope and Change I don't think you understand the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I think that there is something that is missing from the discussion, and that's the significant responsibilities of someone who is carrying a gun. I think that someone carrying a gun has a moral responsibility to avoid confrontation if possible. You cannot put yourself in a scenario in which your presence may cause a confrontation or escalate an existing situation. You have the gun to protect yourself and perhaps others from an imminent threat of death or suffering great bodily injury. Its to be used as a last resort, even in your home. Which is why I think that the so-called "stand your ground" laws are just wrong (Although I don't have a problem with them being applicable in a home invasion situation, particularly when others are present in the home.) Probably the most troubling situation (IMO) that someone carrying a pistol can face is a confrontation by someone who is not armed. It seems to me that in a blink of an eye you can go from a shoving match, to exhanging blows to a point in which you are getting your ass kicked. Can you shoot someone for kicking your ass in a fistfight? What if you were a willing participant? What about if you didn't start it, but you weren't adverse to throwing a few with the guy? As I see it, you must have the duty to retreat in that situation. But the most important duty, perhaps one that cannot be a piece of legislation, is to do what you can to avoid that situation in the first place. A citizen carrying a gun is not a peace officer. It is not his/or her reponsibility to protect property or to keep an eye on suspicious people or to intervene in arguments, purse snatchings or even fistfights. A citizen carrying a gun has a greater responsibility to avoid those situations than does one who isn't carrying. We may never know who caused the close quarters confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman. But if Zimmerman got out of his car in response to Martin walking down the street, for the purposes of being a peace officer, Zimmerman bears responsiblity for Martin's death. Maybe not all of it, but some and perhaps most. Very good points here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Very good points here. The other point I get is that Deathpig and Moneymakers don't care much for the possibility that Zimmerman might have broken laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I don't think you understand the question. I don't think you are taking, into consideration, every other post he has ever made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 The most unfortunate aspect of this case from a legal perspective is that the NRA and it's allies have pushed and pushed to the point where it's now perfectly possible to kill someone in cold blood and claim self defense. This case is the tip of an iceberg - it has just had way more publicity than all the rest. My bet is that Zimmermann will be acquitted under the law as it stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 My bet is that Zimmermann will be acquitted under the law as it stands. Yup and dont be supprised if some nra money is invovled in his leagal battles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted April 12, 2012 Author Share Posted April 12, 2012 I'lll have to agree with a few posters here. The Murder 2 charge is going to be tough to get a conviction on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I'lll have to agree with a few posters here. The Murder 2 charge is going to be tough to get a conviction on. It may come down to the racial makeup of the jury and how stupid they are, and thus, how effective each side battles during jury selection. Looking at recent jury verdicts compared to the facts of the cases, you may as well flip a coin if you're trying to make predictions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.