IGX

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/ ... 8H20120425

Interesting backstory.

LOL at "burglarized".

Interesting back story. This is a complicated case - they usually are. I stick by my original view that a system which allows someone to shoot an unarmed person dead and not go into custody is flawed.

Gorbachev wrote:LOL at "burglarized".

Interesting back story. This is a complicated case - they usually are. I stick by my original view that a system which allows someone to shoot an unarmed person dead and not go into custody is flawed.

He was arrested the night of the shooting.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_cIhnUEEng[/youtube]

Pinky wrote:

Gorbachev wrote:LOL at "burglarized".

Interesting back story. This is a complicated case - they usually are. I stick by my original view that a system which allows someone to shoot an unarmed person dead and not go into custody is flawed.

He was arrested the night of the shooting.

No he was not. He was questioned and released that night.

That was stupid - either stupid laws or stupid application of them. And if you had the capacity to put yourself in the shoes of the victim's family, you'd get it. But that sort of leap of imagination is beyond many discussing this. Their hearts and minds are lost to a tired old formula of reaction.

Society hands over and trusts its justice system to step in when an unarmed person is shot dead, and calmly and fairly react to partly help assuage a victims sense of injustice. This stops individuals going off and taking their own revenge. This isn't hard to understand unless you have a different agenda you are working on when these sorts of things are discussed.

Gorbachev wrote:

Pinky wrote:

Gorbachev wrote:LOL at "burglarized".

Interesting back story. This is a complicated case - they usually are. I stick by my original view that a system which allows someone to shoot an unarmed person dead and not go into custody is flawed.

He was arrested the night of the shooting.

No he was not. He was questioned and released that night.

That was stupid - either stupid laws or stupid application of them. And if you had the capacity to put yourself in the shoes of the victim's family, you'd get it. But that sort of leap of imagination is beyond many discussing this. Their hearts and minds are lost to a tired old formula of reaction.

Society hands over and trusts its justice system to step in when an unarmed person is shot dead, and calmly and fairly react to partly help assuage a victims sense of injustice. This stops individuals going off and taking their own revenge. This isn't hard to understand unless you have a different agenda you are working on when these sorts of things are discussed.

This will be an interesting case.

Victim's rights are never considered at the outset (if ever). This is an unintended consequence of a well-intentioned doctrine (that will probably be revised after this). Given the lack of evidence--other than the dead body of an unarmed victim--on what grounds should Zimmerman have been arrested? I'd be inclined to say, "you shot an unarmed kid, and something is really wrong here; we need to keep you in jail until we sort this out." But there is no legal basis to do so. On what grounds would arrest him?

Gin Master wrote: But there is no legal basis to do so. On what grounds would arrest him?

Being Jewish, that is obviously. Unless he can prove going back 200 generations that he isn't.

Gorbachev wrote:

Pinky wrote:

Gorbachev wrote:LOL at "burglarized".

Interesting back story. This is a complicated case - they usually are. I stick by my original view that a system which allows someone to shoot an unarmed person dead and not go into custody is flawed.

He was arrested the night of the shooting.

No he was not. He was questioned and released that night.

Here's a helpful hint: If you're ever handcuffed, patted down, placed in the back of a cop car and driven to the station; you've been arrested. Whether you're later released without being charged with a crime is irrelevant.

That was stupid - either stupid laws or stupid application of them. And if you had the capacity to put yourself in the shoes of the victim's family, you'd get it. But that sort of leap of imagination is beyond many discussing this. Their hearts and minds are lost to a tired old formula of reaction.

Nonsense. My ability, or lack thereof, to put myself in the shoes of Martin's family is irrelevant. Our justice system is supposed to look at these matters in a dispassionate manner. You and everyone else who are making declarations about how an accused man should be treated based on your knee-jerk emotional reactions are wrong. You're not calling for justice. You're not asking for things to be handled "calmly and fairly". You're asking for ad man to be locked up before the state believes it has probable cause.

Gin Master wrote:I'd be inclined to say, "you shot an unarmed kid, and something is really wrong here; we need to keep you in jail until we sort this out." But there is no legal basis to do so. On what grounds would arrest him?

This is one of the things that's troubling about this case. People are not horrified by the idea of holding an accused person in jail until things get "sorted out".

Pinky wrote:

Gin Master wrote:I'd be inclined to say, "you shot an unarmed kid, and something is really wrong here; we need to keep you in jail until we sort this out." But there is no legal basis to do so. On what grounds would arrest him?

This is one of the things that's troubling about this case. People are not horrified by the idea of holding an accused person in jail until things get "sorted out".

Sounds like Gorby would absolutely love the Patriot Act.

Pinky, here's a helpful hint. If you say someone was arrested and they were only questioned, accept that you were wrong. Arguing with facts taints whatever legitimate arguments you might have with assholeness.

As to the rest of it, we'll have to disagree. My perception of what a criminal justice system should do, and yours, appear to be at odds. I say "appear to be" because I don't think you're playing the ball. You're allowing your own position on other matters to cloud your analysis of this case. That's understandable, but makes rational discourse with you on this topic nigh on impossible.

Gin Master wrote:

Gorbachev wrote:

Pinky wrote:

Gorbachev wrote:LOL at "burglarized".

Interesting back story. This is a complicated case - they usually are. I stick by my original view that a system which allows someone to shoot an unarmed person dead and not go into custody is flawed.

He was arrested the night of the shooting.

No he was not. He was questioned and released that night.

That was stupid - either stupid laws or stupid application of them. And if you had the capacity to put yourself in the shoes of the victim's family, you'd get it. But that sort of leap of imagination is beyond many discussing this. Their hearts and minds are lost to a tired old formula of reaction.

Society hands over and trusts its justice system to step in when an unarmed person is shot dead, and calmly and fairly react to partly help assuage a victims sense of injustice. This stops individuals going off and taking their own revenge. This isn't hard to understand unless you have a different agenda you are working on when these sorts of things are discussed.

This will be an interesting case.

Victim's rights are never considered at the outset (if ever). This is an unintended consequence of a well-intentioned doctrine (that will probably be revised after this). Given the lack of evidence--other than the dead body of an unarmed victim--on what grounds should Zimmerman have been arrested? I'd be inclined to say, "you shot an unarmed kid, and something is really wrong here; we need to keep you in jail until we sort this out." But there is no legal basis to do so. On what grounds would arrest him?

This is why I stated that this was either a poor law or poor application of a law. The cops might have been 100% correct not to arrest Zimmerman. But that only means that the laws they were enforcing were morally wrong and in fact, dangerous.

Zimmerman was eventually arrested and charged and released on bail. Wilful ignorance as to the existence and operation of the bail process says a lot about those ignoring it and is simply vexatious (Pinky and BD).

Reality: when victims believe that suspects are not being properly minded and kept present for trial, self-propelled revenge takes hold and the criminal justice system endangers itself and the society which had entrusted it with dispensing justice.

Gorby, I get you're point, but you're making some ... strange arguments.

If you say someone was arrested and they were only questioned, accept that you were wrong.

He's actually 100% correct. In our law (you're not an American, are you?), there is a legal difference between a "stop" and an "arrest." Whenever you are not free to go, that is an "arrest." Every arrest does not result in a charge being filed, but you have been arrested. It sounds like Zimmerman was not simply questioned. As pinky pointed out, he was handcuffed, placed into a squad car, taken downtown for questioning, but ultimately let go without charges being filed. He was arrested, but not charged.

Reality: when victims believe that suspects are not being properly minded and kept present for trial, self-propelled revenge takes hold and the criminal justice system endangers itself and the society which had entrusted it with dispensing justice

But isn't the opposite also true? If Americans (who are innocent until proven guilty in our system) can be detained indefinitely without being charged just to make some vaguely defined group feel better (e.g., "victims"), won't we the people lose faith in the system? And who exactly is the "victim" in this case? Trayvon is dead. He certainly won't be taking revenge if Zimmreman is freed. So you must mean some vague element in the community. But do Americans get detained just to placate folks like Al Sharpton? That seems radically unfair in that detention would depend on how loud the "victims" are.

Luckily our system does not rely on such vague concepts. You are innocent until proven guilty. If you are arrested, you must be charged or released typically within 24 hours. And if you are to be charged, it must be done before a judge within a reasonable time frame. Otherwise, you are to be released.

To swap that system for one that indefinitely detains the innocent to placate an angry community or prevent the mere possibility of revenge/vigilanteism is the antithesis of a just system.

And your argument about the bail process....what is your point about bail? If you are charged, a judge can grant bail and release you. It has no real bearing on anything. It is typically only denied if you're a flight risk or an ongoing threat. Denying bail (e.g., continuing to detain someone who's considered innocent) to placate some group would be unjust.

protobuilder wrote:Gorby, I get you're point, but you're making some ... strange arguments.

If you say someone was arrested and they were only questioned, accept that you were wrong.

He's actually 100% correct. In our law (you're not an American, are you?), there is a legal difference between a "stop" and an "arrest." Whenever you are not free to go, that is an "arrest." Every arrest does not result in a charge being filed, but you have been arrested. It sounds like Zimmerman was not simply questioned. As pinky pointed out, he was handcuffed, placed into a squad car, taken downtown for questioning, but ultimately let go without charges being filed. He was arrested, but not charged.

Reality: when victims believe that suspects are not being properly minded and kept present for trial, self-propelled revenge takes hold and the criminal justice system endangers itself and the society which had entrusted it with dispensing justice

But isn't the opposite also true? If Americans (who are innocent until proven guilty in our system) can be detained indefinitely without being charged just to make some vaguely defined group feel better (e.g., "victims"), won't we the people lose faith in the system? And who exactly is the "victim" in this case? Trayvon is dead. He certainly won't be taking revenge if Zimmreman is freed. So you must mean some vague element in the community. But do Americans get detained just to placate folks like Al Sharpton? That seems radically unfair in that detention would depend on how loud the "victims" are.

Luckily our system does not rely on such vague concepts. You are innocent until proven guilty. If you are arrested, you must be charged or released typically within 24 hours. And if you are to be charged, it must be done before a judge within a reasonable time frame. Otherwise, you are to be released.

To swap that system for one that indefinitely detains the innocent to placate an angry community or prevent the mere possibility of revenge/vigilanteism is the antithesis of a just system.

LOL at so much of that. You're ignoring bail. You can be arrested, detained, questioned and charged and then, until trial, released. Ignore that and you are ignoring how the system operates. Why? Ignorance or something else?

Zimmerman has a family and friends. Most victims of shootings - legal or not - do. Brothers, sons, a best man, a father, cousin, sister, girlfriend. It is those people who may feel so disenfranchised and disrespected by a blatantly laissez faire legal system, that they buy a handgun and pull a Booth. This should be something a proper legal system seeks to factor in and avoid. There's clearly a balance to be struck, but QUESTIONING and not arresting a self-confessed shooter of an unarmed boy just turned 17, is not it.

What should happen is that there is an immediate arrest, questioning, a decision about charging and a period of 4 days or so where the arrested is kept in custody. If charges are not brought but there is still an investigation, there should be some sort of bail process. With posting of a bond and / or surrender of passport and mandatory signing in at a station once or more per day.

None if this goes to locking up an innocent person indefinitely or convicting on a whim. But it does serve to assure the family of the dead person that the state is takin matters seriously.

Am I the only one that's not surprised at the fact that a poster with the alias Gorbachev is for indefinite detention without due process? :)

You'll be the first to be disappeared when I'm Commissar, Mr Z. The very first. You'll share a carriage with that O'Reilly man and the Kardashian whores.

Gorbachev wrote:You'll be the first to be disappeared when I'm Commissar, Mr Z. The very first. You'll share a carriage with that O'Reilly man and the Kardashian whores.

LOL

Awesome. A rape carriage. I don't know who'd I rape first.

Ed Zachary wrote:

Gorbachev wrote:You'll be the first to be disappeared when I'm Commissar, Mr Z. The very first. You'll share a carriage with that O'Reilly man and the Kardashian whores.

LOL

Awesome. A rape carriage. I don't know who'd I rape first.

You'd probably just fist yourself.

Gorbachev wrote:

Ed Zachary wrote:

Gorbachev wrote:You'll be the first to be disappeared when I'm Commissar, Mr Z. The very first. You'll share a carriage with that O'Reilly man and the Kardashian whores.

LOL

Awesome. A rape carriage. I don't know who'd I rape first.

You'd probably just fist yourself.

I'd love to but I get horrible lat cramps.

Gorby...we will file your concerns about our legal system in the same place your mom likes to put her dick: up your arse.

Zimmerman was eventually arrested and charged and released on bail. Wilful ignorance as to the existence and operation of the bail process says a lot about those ignoring it and is simply vexatious (Pinky and BD).

You. Son, clearly do not understand either the legal system or the bail process. In order for a prosecutor to bring charges, they must have sufficient evidence. Based on everything that we've heard, they had shit and likely released him at the time, and then set about the civil duty of figuring out if they could generate evidence to support charges. At the time (whether Z man did it with intent or not) they did not have sufficient evidence to bring charges. Ergo, he'd have never see a bail hearing. Now they have made the decision, probably a very poor one, to charge him whether they have evidence to sustain a conviction or not to calm mob violence. Based on the incredibly shitty affidavit filed by the prosecutor..every indication is that they will lose badly.


http://www.theagitator.com/2012/04/16/t ... gitator%29

The prosecution will probably be pummeled in court (thankfully) and can blame that gosh darn jury system. In a perfect world she's be brought on ethics charges.

Gorbachev wrote:

Ed Zachary wrote:

Gorbachev wrote:You'll be the first to be disappeared when I'm Commissar, Mr Z. The very first. You'll share a carriage with that O'Reilly man and the Kardashian whores.

LOL

Awesome. A rape carriage. I don't know who'd I rape first.

You'd probably just fist yourself.

I've been in places where the police can arrest and hold you because they feel like it. Arresting Zimmerman and holding him without bail to make families of the victim feel better despite not having sufficient evidence to do so would be more troubling than what happened, in my opinion and this is the way the system is set up. Even more troubling are arguments that he needs to be put away despite the fact that in light of laws in Florida, there is likely no way that it's going to happen. If people want to protest against the 'stand-your-ground' laws or concealed weapons laws, so be it but you can't have things both ways and say that people have a right to protect themselves......unless somebody gets shot.

The prosecution will probably be pummeled in court (thankfully) and can blame that gosh darn jury system. In a perfect world she's be brought on ethics charges.

I wonder if a judge will toss it out of court before the trial, as should likely happen, due to the political ramifications of doing such?

Politics aside, the standard is pretty high for the judge to dismiss the case. Usually along the lines of, "No jury would convict."

johno wrote:Politics aside, the standard is pretty high for the judge to dismiss the case. Usually along the lines of, "No jury would convict."

OK, then pretty much assured of going to court and facing trying to get him convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt, right?

Has anybody read why this wasn't charged as voluntary manslaughter?