The Zimmerman case?

I was talking to a family member who is a lawyer and they said that from a legal standpoint, it's an open and closed case of self defense for Zimmerman.

However, he said that the prosecuting attorney had no good reason to persue a murder charge other than to gain attention.

My family member said he personally wouldn't have tried to get anything other than a manslaughter charge (even though the jury found Z innocent of manslaughter).

Personally, I think either way you look at it, the whole situation just shows poor lawyering on the part of the prosecution (even keeping in mind the fucked up laws and fucked up jury).

Sure. People say Zimmerman acted out of self defense. But it also seems that he was defending himself from someone who was already acting in self defense.

I just think a good prosecuting attorney could have done a better job with what they had. Also, what kind of prosecutor allows that kind of jury selection?

  On 7/17/2013 at 7:05 AM, MisterE said:

i respect that instead of just calling me a fucking idiot or accusing me of being on prescription drugs (which is ironic since i may be one of the few people here on none) you actually took some time to look at what i said and form a counter point. some people are just so intolerant of opposing opinions that they don't even bother, ya know? so we actually got somewhere.

 

but i don't quite agree with your assessment of my characterization of what was said.

 

MORGAN: And he was freaked out by it?

 

JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely after I say may be a rapist, for every boy, for every man, every -- who's not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out?

 

 

ok so you're saying, that the gay thing really has nothing to do with it. it's the rapist thing. well, what did she mean when she said 'who's not that kind of way' and that they would be 'creep out'? yeah, she did, just before that say 'after i say may be rapist', so does that mean, when she says 'who's not that kind of way' that she means 'boys who don't like being raped'?

 

is that what 'who's not that kind of way' means? boys who don't want to be raped?

 

boys who's not that kind of way

see grown man following them

would they be creep out

 

i think it's intellectually dishonest of you to try to deny that their idea of zim being gay couldn't have had anything at all to do with trayvons real or supposed fears of zimmerman stalking to rape him and his brother, and that it had nothing to do with him going back to attack zim.

 

boys who's not that kind of way. what's that mean besides 'boys who aren't gay'? so:

boys who aren't gay

see grown man (cracker) following them

should be creeped out (because he will probably rape them)

should go break nose and slam head into sidewalk

 

yeah it is a one thing follows from the other kind of a deal there.

I swear to god if you can't see the distinction then holy shit.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/07/zimmerman-juror-drops-her-plans-write-book/67206/

it's pretty impressive how her statements on Piers morgan actually become right wing talking point fodder, so irrelevant to what actually happened, but equally unimpressive how people who parrot them continue to play the victim card as if all 'far left' people are involved in some sort of conspiracy to destroy them

  On 7/17/2013 at 7:54 AM, SR4 said:

i can't even begin to explain to you how fucking stupid you are.

i've noticed. you also can't explain how it's anything resembling smart that you and others are now playing dumb to an extent that amounts to circus-like feats of verbal acrobatics to not have to acknowledge that trayvon's decision to attack zim was at least very possibly motivated out of homophobia. you can't defend or show how it makes any sense that you just suggested that martin actually was aware of zimmerman's 'alleged tendency for raping people'. you said that.

you actually tried to suggest that the facts (jeantel's interview) which everyone has access to and which very possibly indicate that trayvon may have attacked zim in an act of homophobia are nothing, since tray prob did it because he heard about some allegations towards zim which were only made public after the incident. even though nobody has ever presented anything at all showing that trayvon recognized or knew anything at all about zim. thats you going a long hell of a way out of your way to avoid facts, and i actually started expecting more out of you.

but yeah i know you can't begin to explain anything, so instead you just act like a child and resort to name calling. after all you have a lot riding on my actually being 'fucking stupid'. don't you?

people like to talk about 'ad hominems' around here a lot.

"In an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent’s argument." i probably wouldn't be exaggerating if i said i get those kind of replies to anything remotely political that i say here, maybe 80%+ of the time. i know it sucks when other people don't agree with you, and have the audacity to form arguments and make points with supporting facts, which you don't feel like responding to, but grow up kiddies. sorry your world isn't only populated with people who think just like you, but maybe if you had a little bit of tolerance for ACTUAL diversity, you could consider another person's opinions and form an intelligent response. instead you want your world to be a big huge intellectually stagnant circle jerk where everyone has the same ideas as you so you can feel validated, so you act like kids. weak.

He's right, no personal attacks over some murder that didn't happen to anyone you know and should be thought about in mostly an intellectual, not emotional sense.

Although there's nothing wrong with feeling validated mrE, it's part of feeling loved, and being part of an accepting community of friends that were once strangers that you wouldn't visit if there wasn't some sort of nexus of ideology. /hugs everybody.

http://youtu.be/GAQr31MEg_U

This woman is unbelievable.

  On 7/17/2013 at 9:13 AM, MisterE said:

to not have to acknowledge that trayvon's decision to attack zim was at least very possibly motivated out of homophobia.

 

 

oh my god. oh my god. oh my god.

i'm speechless, MisterE.

[i'll give you a hint: it's extremely dishonest to leave out the whole rapist part...that's the crucial part, the gay part is incidental]

For South Park fans...

Pretty good, yo.

the protests need to be focused on repealing the stand your ground laws in florida and other states. those idiotic nra-endorsed laws need to go, but as long as republicans are in power in those states, that's unlikely to happen.

I still think the jury made the right verdict based on the laws on the books, but after seeing the anderson cooper interview with the juror, I doubt they reached the verdict for the right reasons. four of the other jurors understandably released a statement saying she doesn't speak for them.

emotions are obviously running high. the writer of a blog I subscribe(d) to basically said if you agree with the verdict, then don't read my blog or patronize me otherwise, so I reluctantly unsubscribed.

Mr. E, I enjoy reading your take on things, even if I don't always agree. You're exactly right about most people not really wanting a true diversity of thought.

I haven't been following closely, but the thing that strikes me most about this debacle is how widespread the outrage (or faux outrage) seems to be, when compared to the Snowden case. Yes, apples to oranges, but a few weeks back when I was posting Snowden updates to my Facebook I got a few likes and one or two comments, but this week multiple friends (including friends of my family) posted updates expressing shock and outrage about the Zimmerman verdict, etc etc., with lots of likes and comments and hullabaloo. It's not a "zero sum game of concern", but I care much more about the NSA spying on me than the nebulous circumstances surrounding the shooting of a kid who sounds like a borderline thug.

As I understand it - and I admit, I haven't pored over the details - it sounds like a shitty case that falls a bit short of tragic for me. And of course the root cause is the easy availability of guns, something that will probably never change in the US. With guns as part of the equation, even a schoolyard spat could become a murder. The tragedy is the guy had a gun, not that he was probably a knucklehead with dreams of vigilante justice...

That facebook posted issue dichotomy is enraging. One thing is shining a light on a fundamental shift in the availability of natural human rights and freedoms, the other, as you say is some humdrum matter that would normally occupy little space in the local paper, were it not for the lazer focus of national media attention.

fuking normals.

  On 7/17/2013 at 12:23 PM, lumpenprol said:

Mr. E, I enjoy reading your take on things, even if I don't always agree. You're exactly right about most people not really wanting a true diversity of thought.

 

I haven't been following closely, but the thing that strikes me most about this debacle is how widespread the outrage (or faux outrage) seems to be, when compared to the Snowden case. Yes, apples to oranges, but a few weeks back when I was posting Snowden updates to my Facebook I got a few likes and one or two comments, but this week multiple friends (including friends of my family) posted updates expressing shock and outrage about the Zimmerman verdict, etc etc., with lots of likes and comments and hullabaloo. It's not a "zero sum game of concern", but I care much more about the NSA spying on me than the nebulous circumstances surrounding the shooting of a kid who sounds like a borderline thug.

 

As I understand it - and I admit, I haven't pored over the details - it sounds like a shitty case that falls a bit short of tragic for me. And of course the root cause is the easy availability of guns, something that will probably never change in the US. With guns as part of the equation, even a schoolyard spat could become a murder. The tragedy is the guy had a gun, not that he was probably a knucklehead with dreams of vigilante justice...

but this isn't really true. people want a diversity of thought when it's actually thoughtful, not just spouting off an agenda. mister e isn't providing facts or any kind of intelligent debate, he's just throwing some right wing talking points out and trolling people.

the snowden story is both more important and interesting to me as well, but it's nebulous (at least in terms of summation), impersonal and larger in scope than most people are probably willing to digest.

The current Snowden twist is that a high-ranking Senator wants to threaten a U.S. boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Russia. That will successfully gain more attention and concern of the typical American than any other news relating to the NSA leak.

  On 7/17/2013 at 10:38 AM, peace 7 said:

For South Park fans...

 

Pretty good, yo.

Like any good SP episode, that makes me feel like I'm going sane in a crazy world.

  On 7/17/2013 at 10:48 AM, nene multiple assgasms said:

the protests need to be focused on repealing the stand your ground laws in florida and other states. those idiotic nra-endorsed laws need to go, but as long as republicans are in power in those states, that's unlikely to happen.

This is what I hope the outrage will translate too. It'll take years but I can actually see it occurring, but that's really the case of any good or substantive legislation - it's low profile and very gradual. Keep in mind that the "10-20-life" law that was mentioned earlier (the woman given 20 years for firing a gun as a warning in Florida this month) was passed in 1999 during the more bipartisan era of pro-justice and anti-gun legislation. Politics and election cycles are why these laws are passed. People vote these in so they can throw it on their election websites and tout them at their next fundraiser.

  On 7/17/2013 at 3:46 PM, joshuatx said:

 

  On 7/17/2013 at 10:38 AM, peace 7 said:

For South Park fans...

 

Pretty good, yo.

 

 

  On 7/17/2013 at 10:48 AM, nene multiple assgasms said:

the protests need to be focused on repealing the stand your ground laws in florida and other states. those idiotic nra-endorsed laws need to go, but as long as republicans are in power in those states, that's unlikely to happen.

 

This is what I hope the outrage will translate too. It'll take years but I can actually see it occurring, but that's really the case of any good or substantive legislation - it's low profile and very gradual. Keep in mind that the "10-20-life" law that was mentioned earlier (the woman given 20 years for firing a gun as a warning in Florida this month) was passed in 1999 during the more bipartisan era of pro-justice and anti-gun legislation. Politics and election cycles are why these laws are passed. People vote these in so they can throw it on their election websites and tout them at their next fundraiser.

 

easily the most infuriating thing about the last 20-30 years of politics.

  On 7/17/2013 at 3:57 PM, theSun said:

 

  On 7/17/2013 at 3:46 PM, joshuatx said:

 

  On 7/17/2013 at 10:38 AM, peace 7 said:

For South Park fans...

 

Pretty good, yo.

 

 

  On 7/17/2013 at 10:48 AM, nene multiple assgasms said:

the protests need to be focused on repealing the stand your ground laws in florida and other states. those idiotic nra-endorsed laws need to go, but as long as republicans are in power in those states, that's unlikely to happen.

 

This is what I hope the outrage will translate too. It'll take years but I can actually see it occurring, but that's really the case of any good or substantive legislation - it's low profile and very gradual. Keep in mind that the "10-20-life" law that was mentioned earlier (the woman given 20 years for firing a gun as a warning in Florida this month) was passed in 1999 during the more bipartisan era of pro-justice and anti-gun legislation. Politics and election cycles are why these laws are passed. People vote these in so they can throw it on their election websites and tout them at their next fundraiser.

 

easily the most infuriating thing about the last 20-30 years of politics.

 

The more infuriating this is that so people buy it. It's to the point where you'll actually have partisan supports defend flat-out corruption and greed so long as they can blame the other party.

I'll often discuss things with my parents about how this system is messed up and usually broadly agree on what should be done to start fixing it. But like clockwork they revert to blaming liberals and Obama. Likewise, I have liberal friends who will go off the rails on certain issues, usually in short bursts of activism, and then revert to voting for any Democrat that runs for office. Ideological echo chambers keep this shit alive, and it's perpetual dismissals of compromise that even prevent the most logical and feasible solutions from coming to fruition. And even bigger contingent of intelligent friends of mine don't even fucking vote.

  On 7/17/2013 at 10:08 AM, LimpyLoo said:

[i'll give you a hint: it's extremely dishonest to leave out the whole rapist part...that's the crucial part, the gay part is incidental]

this would have been part of my response, but theres absolutely no point in arguing this.

there's only so many times I can tolerate repeating myself or the other repeating themselves.

humanity always seems to resort to a pissing contest

  On 7/17/2013 at 4:16 PM, joshuatx said:

 

  On 7/17/2013 at 3:57 PM, theSun said:

 

  On 7/17/2013 at 3:46 PM, joshuatx said:

 

  On 7/17/2013 at 10:38 AM, peace 7 said:

For South Park fans...

 

Pretty good, yo.

 

 

  On 7/17/2013 at 10:48 AM, nene multiple assgasms said:

the protests need to be focused on repealing the stand your ground laws in florida and other states. those idiotic nra-endorsed laws need to go, but as long as republicans are in power in those states, that's unlikely to happen.

 

This is what I hope the outrage will translate too. It'll take years but I can actually see it occurring, but that's really the case of any good or substantive legislation - it's low profile and very gradual. Keep in mind that the "10-20-life" law that was mentioned earlier (the woman given 20 years for firing a gun as a warning in Florida this month) was passed in 1999 during the more bipartisan era of pro-justice and anti-gun legislation. Politics and election cycles are why these laws are passed. People vote these in so they can throw it on their election websites and tout them at their next fundraiser.

 

easily the most infuriating thing about the last 20-30 years of politics.

 

The more infuriating this is that so people buy it. It's to the point where you'll actually have partisan supports defend flat-out corruption and greed so long as they can blame the other party.

 

I'll often discuss things with my parents about how this system is messed up and usually broadly agree on what should be done to start fixing it. But like clockwork they revert to blaming liberals and Obama. Likewise, I have liberal friends who will go off the rails on certain issues, usually in short bursts of activism, and then revert to voting for any Democrat that runs for office. Ideological echo chambers keep this shit alive, and it's perpetual dismissals of compromise that even prevent the most logical and feasible solutions from coming to fruition. And even bigger contingent of intelligent friends of mine don't even fucking vote.

 

its the MSNBC/FOX dichotomy along with apathy encouraged by pop culture that self-sustains and propagates itself with meta-ironies and parodies of itself.

I remember seeing some of those theater masks, you know the ones that illustrate the sorta "tragedy is the best comedy" and what not? Saw those a few days ago and thought how apt they are now. Baudrillard deserves recognition for calling this decades ago. We have become the symbols. We are reality TV perpetuating itself.

  On 7/17/2013 at 7:47 AM, zaphod said:

really? i see it in political threads from one or two posters. maybe "a lot" isn't right, but it's noticeable to me. unfortunately i don't give a shit enough about this point to actually search out and quote people's posts, so you can take it or leave it.

My impression is that elusive4 and delet are both fairly aligned with this perspective, too.

what?

  On 7/17/2013 at 3:25 PM, zaphod said:

mister e isn't providing facts or any kind of intelligent debate, he's just throwing some right wing talking points

 

yeah, I don't think a Rush Limbaugh/right wing echo chamber bullshit thing about homophobia is anywhere near a 'diversity of opinion'. It's created to re-frame and emotionally manipulate an already existing and heated debate.

  On 7/17/2013 at 6:50 PM, SR4 said:

Baudrillard deserves recognition for calling this decades ago. We have become the symbols. We are reality TV perpetuating itself.

His ideas on the simulacra hits on so many fundamental levels of our current daily existence...it's wow. Don't know how to put it. His ideas might be some of the most important philosophical ideas since the 80s. It really gives a sense of where we're going. Is it silly to put him into the analogy of what Nietzsche was in 1880, is what Baudrillard was in 1980. Nietzsche killed our God. And Baudrillard killed our reality.