In my foreign land, murder is OKFollow

You can say that all you want, but you are just as guilty of assumptions as anyone else in the thread. Our demands have been for a trial.

The public outcry isn't what caused the trial. It is, however, what gave Martin the opportunity for justice. There's a very good chance this case would have been swept under the rug without all the attention. Doesn't mean they are pressing charges because of it.

have always held open the possibility that there is either evidence we are not aware of which would make a valid case for charging him *or* that public pressure might cause charges to be filed anyway. Honestly, the vote is still out on which just happened.

Much, much, much, more likely neither. To require one of these would also require the made for TV movie version of criminal law you seem to think exists to be in force. Fortunately for everyone, it isn't.

Dateline: 2012 - San Diego man still things watching episodes of Law and Order sufficient to make him a District Attorney. shockingly, still not the case.

Hmmmmm, this made me try to remember if old Travis actually killed anyone who wasn't a total scumbag ?
.... might hafta watch Taxi Driver again next time its on. Having raised a daughter, he's kind of a secret hero of mine-- even being fully aware that it was a creative plot twist that turned him from lone-nut assassin to "Rescuer"

- msnbc This is the best news Ive heard during this whole tragedy, if she can express a little forgiveness like this maybe there is hope for race relations to not be thrown backwards a decade or two.

**** smash, your typo threw me for a loop for far too long. I need a nap.

I disagree. But you're entitled to your opinion, I suppose.



I'd say that you are repeating the demands of others, and now that they've got the trial they are demanding, they will move on to demanding nothing less than a conviction. Anyone who thought that this was just about getting Zimmerman a fair trial has been deluding themselves. While that is what should happen if the evidence supports it, it's *not* the motivation of the folks who are being the most vocal on this issue.



And if Zimmerman is not convicted, does that mean Martin did not get justice? See. That's the problem I have with this. While I hope that the prosecutor is operating based on the facts of the case and the results of the investigation and nothing more, my fear is that the demands for "justice for Trayvon" require a trial, so they get a trial. Now that they have one, it'll demand a conviction. Will a jury give them one? Can we be sure that anything that happens from this point on is based on the law, or based on the fear of the mob?

And what happens if he's not convicted?




I'm not sure how you can write those two sentences one right after the other. If the charges would have been filed whether the attention was generated or not, then the attention wasn't necessary. If they wouldn't have then we're left with one of two possibilities:

1. The charges would not have been filed because there really wasn't sufficient evidence to file them.

2. The charges would not have been filed because the police just didn't care enough, were racist, or whatever other reason.


The entire assumption behind raising such attention is that condition 2 is true (or even may be true, so I'm not necessarily arguing that this is wrong). The concern is condition 1 though. The same attention would be raised if that was the case, yet there's nearly no way for anyone involved to know this (or to care in many cases). And that creates a condition where it's nearly impossible for actual justice to prevail. No matter what the outcome of the trial, someone's going to think something was wrong.

Edited, Apr 12th 2012 5:04pm by gbaji

This. CSI shows aside, it actually takes quite a bit of time to run those tests and assemble that information. As several people have mentioned in this thread, key information like distance and directionality of the bullet can massively change the decision with regard to self defense, but would not be apparent to someone examining the scene. We don't even know where Martin was shot. I'm somewhat assuming it had to be in the front even to remotely accept a self defense claim, but it's possible that it was elsewhere and the DA decided not to press charges that night specifically to give them sufficient time to get all the forensic test done. We can't know any of that.


As I've argued in this thread, the sticking point for me is that we have a witness who clearly saw Zimmerman in a position which would justify self defense (on his back, assailant on top of him, pinning him, and punching him) a short period of time before the shot was fired. So the only way to prove that it wasn't self defense would be to have some evidence that the positions of the two men changed between the point at which that witness shut his door (and lost sight of them) and the shot was fired. Forensic analysis of the bullet wound could show that, as could the potential of an additional witness we haven't heard from. If they have such evidence then they've got a got a shot at conviction. If they don't, then I think they're going to be cooked in trial.


I think this is also why the prosecutor went for 2nd degree murder instead of manslaughter. The far harder part of this case is going to be proving that Zimmerman fired his gun in a position other than that seen by the eye witness(es). If she thinks she's got the evidence to do that, then arguing that Zimmerman knowingly put himself and Martin into that position in the first place is relatively easy to prove. It's still a risk, but a relatively minor one. The odds of success between charging one versus the other probably aren't that great compared to getting either one to stick, so if you're going to go with either, may as well go for the bigger one.


At least, that's how I see it.

Yet a distinction without a difference. The public may have had nothing to do with it at all, what do you think about that huh?

As rare as it may be, I doubt there will be a jury.

At the risk of repeating myself, if Zimmerman was not able to retreat, it's self defense regardless of Stand Your Ground. If someone jumps you, pins you to the ground, and beats on you without letting up, you can use lethal force to defend yourself. Always. This is precisely the position Zimmerman claims he was in, and which several witnesses saw him in, and which the physical evidence supports.

Unless there is some evidence to counter that condition just prior to the shot being fired, I don't see how they can prove he didn't fire in self defense. IMO, the whole case hinges on that.




To some degree though, police have to make judgment calls. There's not really any way around that. Assuming motive when they don't do something you want them to, or do something you don't, is a bit unfair. Can you really say with any certainty that they failed to look at the evidence and follow the correct procedures based on that?

Um... yeah. I, um, knew that! Honest!

swear to god, I read it as "wanna let cops"

Yeah, a more or less failed bombing of a government building killing 8 people (His intention was to bring down the building as far as I know) then going to an island where there's a youth camp of the political party you hate and start shooting people like a madmen killing 69 and wounding many more.

Seems like a clear cut case of self defense.

That's Norway's maximum sentence, period, as I understand it. The alternate clause is specifically for extraordinary cases.

He'll almost certainly be detained for life. And I'd wager it will be in a mental asylum.

[EDIT]
They also don't have capital punishments (with polls after the massacre reaffirming that it did not change public perception in favor of reinstatement).

Edited, Apr 16th 2012 12:28pm by idiggory

I don't get this European right-wing fervor about "multiculturalism" being such a bad thing. I always thought that the little individual kingdoms and pockets of micro civilizations made it so that the modern political boundaries don't have much to do with cultural identity. Italy has about twenty cultures within its borders because what we know as Italy didn't really even exist until the 20th century. Same thing with Germany.

Seems like he's just a deranged racist ******* to me, but I'm an American Southerner, what do I know about racist ***********