The Case of Christopher Cervini

Started by NiceTexasGuy, July 19, 2013, 11:16:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

NiceTexasGuy

I knew better than to subject myself to the opinions of everyone who had an opinion on the Trayvon Martin case (found here: The Case of Trayvon Martin) but in the interest of fairness, I thought I should start this thread so everyone could express themselves on the merits of the case against Roderick Scott and their outrage over any injustices they believe occurred.

You're welcome.

What's that?  You never heard of the Christopher Cervini case?  Well, that's difficult to believe.  Maybe this will help:

Christopher Cervini Case


Once again, you're welcome.
What a shame -- The money you spent on those tattoos could have gone toward a boob job.
===
My Ons and Offs:  https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=97303.0
==============
I have taken The Oath of Don't Waste My Friggin' Time

Cyrano Johnson

#1
Quote from: NiceTexasGuyI knew better than to subject myself to the opinions of everyone who had an opinion on the Trayvon Martin case

Good to see you starting us off on a constructive note!

I've actually been wondering why we haven't heard more about the Cervini case; the right has got to be absolutely dying for something to take attention off Trayvon Martin and deeply resentful of (and perhaps concerned by) the spotlight that case is still shining on Stand Your Ground laws and racial biasing. The unfortunate timing of a Florida black woman being handed twenty years for firing in the air in the same week that Zimmerman was acquitted has made the optics even worse. So why isn't Cervini's name blaring constantly from every conservative news outlet? Why aren't we hearing more determined attempts at gotcha arguments and "where is the outrage" tactics? We know they could do it if they wanted to.

Admittedly there's the problem that the cases are hard to portray as similar: unlike Zimmerman, who was facing a lone kid with a bag of Skittles, Roderick Scott found himself actually confronting a group of genuine delinquents -- guilty of more than just wearing hoodies -- in the midst of actual criminal activity. But airbrushing details like that out shouldn't in itself shouldn't pose too much of a problem to the same people who so energetically worked to demonize Trayvon.

I think the real problem is that bringing up Roderick Scott would sit too awkwardly with too many conservative pieties, especially when racial biasing is already under the lens. Mentioning that there was no national hue and cry just reminds everyone that unlike with Scott, it took national outcry just to get Zimmerman into a courtroom. After that, well: does one bring up the case and demand Roderick Scott be pilloried? You have to square that with the idea that the right is supposed to love the man who defends his home with a lawful firearm... and it would be awkward to be seen appearing to imply that such self-defense should only apply to the white (or at least other-than-black) man. Does one bring up the case and say that Roderick Scott deserves his freedom for the same reason George Zimmerman did, that he was confronting thuggery and doing what he had to do? Then you're lining up against the grieving family of a white teenager shot by a hulking black male. This would have the benefit of somewhat confusing the "other side," but at a huge expense of ill-will and divisiveness in the Republican ranks.

It's a no-win, really; there just isn't an angle for using Cervini's death in this manner that doesn't look somehow self-contradictory and hypocritical. No wonder they haven't tried to run with it, and most right-of-center commentary is not trying to tie the two cases together. Since the two cases are in fact not comparable anyway, I think it's to the ultimate good fortune of Cervini's family that they're spared the dubious honour of having their grief appropriated for a national game of political Calvinball.

EDIT: I would add to this that I don't believe either Cervini or Martin should be dead, and I do believe that both of their deaths are ultimately indictments of America's ubiquitous firearms culture. I am firmly in the nobody should be shooting kids camp. But then, I'm one of those darned leftists, so I would say that...
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Ephiral

#2
First: This is a tragedy. A young boy died in a stupid, avoidable incident; that is always cause for mourning. That said: Your source is wildly inaccurate (or at least disagrees with every other source).

QuoteA neighborhood watch man, an adult carrying a concealed weapon, shot and killed an unarmed teenage boy and was just found not-guilty by a jury after two days of deliberations.
There are two lies in this opening statement alone. Roderick Scott was not a neighbourhood watch man - this statement appears to have no purpose but to draw false equivalence to the Zimmerman case - and he was not carrying a concealed weapon. In fact, he specifically drew his weapon, assumed a shooter's stance, and gave them a verbal warning that he was armed and had called 911 - and was then attacked, upon which he fired his weapon. Other key differences:

-Roderick Scott had not been obviously and suspiciously following the boys beforehand, in a move that would make them nervous and paranoid.
-He also hadn't been specifically told not to do what he was doing, let alone escalate the situation, by police.
-Scott was dealing with three people; this clearly makes the use of a force multiplier at least more justifiable.
-The boys Scott was confronting were actually in the process of committing a crime; he had grounds to suspect them other than their skin colour.
-Roderick Scott immediately called 911 a second time, advised the authorities that he had shot someone, and gave a statement of what had transpired.
-Scott appears to have been taken into custody and charged immediately, not following a two-month delay and massive national outrage.
-Scott testified at his own trial, and this testimony was overall extremely consistent with the statements he gave to 911 and to the police following his arrest.
-On the other hand, the witnesses for the defense were remarkably inconsistent.
-Cervini's family retained two lawyers and filed the initial paperwork to press a civil lawsuit against Mr. Scott in 2010, but did not follow through. Best guess based on this is that their attorneys advised them that they basically didn't have a case. Given the much lower bar of evidence in civil court, this is... pretty damning.

Oh, and this happened in 2009. It's more than a little hypocritical to wait until a case has mostly fallen off the radar - until primary sources are unavailable for key facts - and then ask why nobody's hearing about it. I'm not even going to touch the racist dogwhistles and false equivalences all over your source.

NiceTexasGuy

Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on July 19, 2013, 11:52:40 PM
Good to see you starting us off on a constructive note!

;D

Well, here's my response to that:

The public pressure and outrage is the reason it came to trial at all; the Sanford PD originally tried to sweep it under the rug. And one has to admit that when someone gets fatally shot, a trial is usually in order. So while I get your misgivings about the role of the public arena, its functions are not all negative.

But let's be real. There would have been no need for a public outcry to get the case into a courtroom had the roles been reversed, and Martin had stalked, confronted and shot Zimmerman. There would have been no question of the "self-defense" rationalization saving Martin in a scenario where that happened. Had Martin hunted some poor bastard down and seen fit to blow him away for having the temerity to defend himself, the people who have defended Zimmerman's actions would have pilloried him, and an all-white jury would have buried him deep in a hole for life with the same facility with which it saw fit to acquit Zimmerman.

Anyone who tells me they are in doubt about any of the above points? I do not believe them, point blank. If the Martin case performs any function at all, it should be to lay to rest the "post-racial America" myth.


Look familiar?  You seem like a well-spoken intellectual guy, but can you really believe the police department would "sweep it under the rug" or that in 2013 America a prosecuter would not prosecute a case because the "victim" was black?  Even if he or she wanted to, do you think they would think they could get away with it?  It sounds like something Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton would preach.  Please tell me you're not a fan.

And because I did read far enough to see your comment about the roles being reversed, I figured I'd throw this out there.

Someone from outside the U.S. made the comment about being on the outside looking in.  The fact is, everyone was on the outside looking in (unless they were one of the investigating officers, prosecutors, judge, defense attorneys, or jurors, they were on the outside looking in.)

I will confess I avoided this case like the plague, because I knew exactly what would happen, and I couldn't bear to watch.  So unlike everyone else in America, I'm not intimately familiar with all the "facts" of the case.  I do know, however, that the police don't always make an arrest right away.  The more serious the case, the more likely it will be sent to the prosecutor to make sure all the ducks are in a row before a warrant is issued.  I might also point out this is particularly true in cases where the guilt of the accused is in question.  And since it turned out the guy was found not guilty, that would sort of confirm the decision of the cops not to arrest.

But hey, we're not here to discuss the Martin/Zimmerman case, are we?  Because, you know, I'm really not interested in doing that.
What a shame -- The money you spent on those tattoos could have gone toward a boob job.
===
My Ons and Offs:  https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=97303.0
==============
I have taken The Oath of Don't Waste My Friggin' Time

Cyrano Johnson

#4
Quote from: NiceTexasGuy on July 20, 2013, 12:23:23 AMcan you really believe the police department would "sweep it under the rug" or that in 2013 America a prosecuter would not prosecute a case because the "victim" was black?

EDITED FOR GREATER CLARITY: Well, it's a matter of record that Sanford PD initially tried to avoid laying charges, I promise I didn't make that up. (Those scare quotes around "victim" are classy, BTW.) Now, you may have your opinions about why that happened, but the fact of that happening isn't in dispute, and it was not a case of their lying in wait to build a case and then arrest the perp; they wanted to accept Zimmerman's assertion of self-defence and leave it at that. They only changed course in the face of public outcry. And yes, it's probably pretty clear that I think race was a factor in that initial decision, just as race was a factor in the campaign of posthumous vilification that was subsequently levelled at Martin when the case was brought to trial.

(Oh, and since you've familiarized yourself with my comments in the Martin thread, you probably already know that "this is 2013 and racism is over" rhetoric cuts little ice with me. I won't repeat myself about the whys and wherefores of any of that, I stated it at sufficient length already.)

QuoteBut hey, we're not here to discuss the Martin/Zimmerman case, are we?  Because, you know, I'm really not interested in doing that.

I'm glad to hear that. Though admittedly it's a little curious, then, that most of your reply is about it? Well, never mind.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Ephiral

#5
Quote from: NiceTexasGuy on July 20, 2013, 12:23:23 AMI will confess I avoided this case like the plague, because I knew exactly what would happen, and I couldn't bear to watch.  So unlike everyone else in America, I'm not intimately familiar with all the "facts" of the case.  I do know, however, that the police don't always make an arrest right away.  The more serious the case, the more likely it will be sent to the prosecutor to make sure all the ducks are in a row before a warrant is issued.  I might also point out this is particularly true in cases where the guilt of the accused is in question.  And since it turned out the guy was found not guilty, that would sort of confirm the decision of the cops not to arrest.
So... why did it take five days to have a grand jury indict Scott on a charge of second-degree murder, of which he was found not guilty? Your logic... doesn't appear to hold.

EDIT:
Quote from: NiceTexasGuy on July 20, 2013, 12:54:11 AM
Well, I just did that because it appears he wasn't really the victim, and I didn't want to imply he was.
Your use of "the" victim implies that you think there was one. Is this correct? If so, who?

NiceTexasGuy

Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on July 20, 2013, 12:30:15 AM
(Those scare quotes around "victim" are classy, BTW.)

Well, I just did that because it appears he wasn't really the victim, and I didn't want to imply he was.
What a shame -- The money you spent on those tattoos could have gone toward a boob job.
===
My Ons and Offs:  https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=97303.0
==============
I have taken The Oath of Don't Waste My Friggin' Time

NiceTexasGuy

Quote from: Ephiral on July 20, 2013, 12:51:31 AM
So... why did it take five days to have a grand jury indict Scott on a charge of second-degree murder, of which he was found not guilty? Your logic... doesn't appear to hold.

I'm not sure what you mean.  The job of the grand jury is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to determine if there is sufficient evidence to bring a case to trial.  Often it's seen as another step in the process that affords the defendant another chance at not being prosecuted, and often it's a method by which the prosecutor "passes the buck" and let's someone else decide whether a case goes to trial. 

I suspect it varies by state, but in many places the prosecutor has the option of bypassing the grand jury, either in their decision to prosecute, or to not prosecute.  Probably a lot of the time the prosecutor uses the grand jury as the scapegoat.  After all, they are politicians, right?
What a shame -- The money you spent on those tattoos could have gone toward a boob job.
===
My Ons and Offs:  https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=97303.0
==============
I have taken The Oath of Don't Waste My Friggin' Time

Cyrano Johnson

#8
Quote from: NiceTexasGuy on July 20, 2013, 12:54:11 AMWell, I just did that because it appears he wasn't really the victim, and I didn't want to imply he was.

So is it also your opinion that Cervini wasn't really the victim -- sorry, the "victim" -- of a shooting? The way I'd use the term, even someone shot in alleged self-defense is still the victim of a shooting.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Ephiral

Quote from: NiceTexasGuy on July 20, 2013, 01:01:18 AM
I'm not sure what you mean.  The job of the grand jury is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to determine if there is sufficient evidence to bring a case to trial.  Often it's seen as another step in the process that affords the defendant another chance at not being prosecuted, and often it's a method by which the prosecutor "passes the buck" and let's someone else decide whether a case goes to trial. 

I suspect it varies by state, but in many places the prosecutor has the option of bypassing the grand jury, either in their decision to prosecute, or to not prosecute.  Probably a lot of the time the prosecutor uses the grand jury as the scapegoat.  After all, they are politicians, right?
The grand jury step comes after the police step. If it is prudent and reasonable for the police to wait two months before issuing a warrant in a case as severe as second-degree murder when there is a question of guilt (and a not-guilty verdict is evidence that there was a question of guilt), then why is a second-degree murder case in which it took five days to shoot right past that and into the next step of the process when there was a question of guilt (evidence: not guilty verdict) not massively unfair to the defendant?

NiceTexasGuy

Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on July 20, 2013, 01:04:35 AM
So is it also your opinion that Cervini wasn't really the victim -- sorry, the "victim" -- of a shooting? The way I'd use the term, even someone shot in alleged self-defense is still the victim of a shooting.

Sorry, I was just trying to make that distinction that the apparent (to some people) victim was actually not the victim of what he was apparently the victim of.  Laying the Zimmerman trial aside for a moment and talking about words and political agendas in general, I am on the verge of taking issue with the idea of calling an agressor shot in self defense the "victim of a shooting" ... is a wife beater a victim of marriage?  If someone is shot trying to steal my sh*t, I'd have to call it a self-inflicted wound, since they made the decision to place themselves in harm's way.  So yeah, the victim of a self inflicted wound.  I can go with that.

If it's that important to you I can modify my post.


Quote from: Ephiral on July 20, 2013, 01:05:42 AM
The grand jury step comes after the police step. If it is prudent and reasonable for the police to wait two months before issuing a warrant in a case as severe as second-degree murder when there is a question of guilt (and a not-guilty verdict is evidence that there was a question of guilt), then why is a second-degree murder case in which it took five days to shoot right past that and into the next step of the process when there was a question of guilt (evidence: not guilty verdict) not massively unfair to the defendant?

I don't know.  I didn't follow the Zimmerman case because I knew what it would turn in to, so I'm not familiar with the timeline.  I am familiar with the concept of deciding each case on its own merits, and I know that cases that appear to be similar are never identical.  I also know that the general public is usually not privy to what goes on behind the scenes.  Conspiracies being formulated in dark smoke filled rooms?  Attorneys trying to make a deal?   Prosecution performing a more thorough investigation or trying to obtain additional evidence?  I don't know, and neither do a whole lot of other people with stronger opinions than mine.  I'm just on the outside looking in.

*****

Also, sorry if y'all were planning on playing all night, but I gotta go to bed.  Have a good night.  8-)
What a shame -- The money you spent on those tattoos could have gone toward a boob job.
===
My Ons and Offs:  https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=97303.0
==============
I have taken The Oath of Don't Waste My Friggin' Time

Ephiral

Quote from: NiceTexasGuy on July 20, 2013, 01:29:20 AMI don't know.  I didn't follow the Zimmerman case because I knew what it would turn in to, so I'm not familiar with the timeline.  I am familiar with the concept of deciding each case on its own merits, and I know that cases that appear to be similar are never identical.  I also know that the general public is usually not privy to what goes on behind the scenes.  Conspiracies being formulated in dark smoke filled rooms?  Attorneys trying to make a deal?   Prosecution performing a more thorough investigation or trying to obtain additional evidence?  I don't know, and neither do a whole lot of other people with stronger opinions than mine.  I'm just on the outside looking in.
So it is your opinion that these two cases are not even remotely equivalent, and as such should not be compared? I take no issue with that position, but the fact that you opened by talking about the Zimmerman case and your sole source on the Scott case was explicitly and entirely about comparing them makes this highly dubious.

meikle

The premise of this thread is perhaps the most blatant display of intellectual dishonesty I've encountered on this forum.
Kiss your lover with that filthy mouth, you fuckin' monster.

O and O and Discord
A and A

Rogue

I see, understand, and respect what you are attempting to do.

Giving a comparison to two cases that seem similar is always wonderful. However, the reason the public's out cry was so great in comparison for this case isn't because of the case itself. I doubt that I would have heard as much about it and I live about an 8 minutes drive from Stanford via the tolls. The case, in my honest opinion, was as solid as one could make it. The investigation leading up to it is what grinds my gears as well as the arrest that took place after the nationwide public outcry.

A question about the case of Cervini:

Did they not arrest the shooter immediately?
Did they try to cover up evidence/ try to brush over the fact that this happened?

Did it take a national public outcry to get this case to court?

The Zimmerman trial wasn't what made this a big deal. It wasn't what brought national attention to Stanford, FL. It was the public outcry that it took to get a man arrested for the murder of a teenager and put on trial. Because it's not up to a police officer (who has lost his job as I learned) to decide if a man should be released based on self-defense. It's up to a Grand Jury and then a courtroom. That seems to have been followed in the Cervini case, unless I'm missing something.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Rogue of TimeyWimey Stuff on July 21, 2013, 10:32:49 AM
I see, understand, and respect what you are attempting to do.

Giving a comparison to two cases that seem similar is always wonderful. However, the reason the public's out cry was so great in comparison for this case isn't because of the case itself. I doubt that I would have heard as much about it and I live about an 8 minutes drive from Stanford via the tolls. The case, in my honest opinion, was as solid as one could make it. The investigation leading up to it is what grinds my gears as well as the arrest that took place after the nationwide public outcry.

A question about the case of Cervini:

Did they not arrest the shooter immediately?
Did they try to cover up evidence/ try to brush over the fact that this happened?

Did it take a national public outcry to get this case to court?

The Zimmerman trial wasn't what made this a big deal. It wasn't what brought national attention to Stanford, FL. It was the public outcry that it took to get a man arrested for the murder of a teenager and put on trial. Because it's not up to a police officer (who has lost his job as I learned) to decide if a man should be released based on self-defense. It's up to a Grand Jury and then a courtroom. That seems to have been followed in the Cervini case, unless I'm missing something.

Looks to be about right. The issue of due process was done in this case. There are a LOT of telling similarities BUT you're right Rogue.. due process seems to have been done better in this case than in the Martin case. No 'backdoor buddys fixing things' sort of vibe at the beginning.

BUT I bet if it HAD hit the headlines it would have drawn national attention. Mostly it was a matter of national visibility at the right time. Had it come up like the Martin case with similar parallels in the break of due process it would have gone national as well.

Dont' think it would have lasted as long.. because the cops involved did right.

Ephiral

Quote from: Rogue of TimeyWimey Stuff on July 21, 2013, 10:32:49 AMThe Zimmerman trial wasn't what made this a big deal. It wasn't what brought national attention to Stanford, FL. It was the public outcry that it took to get a man arrested for the murder of a teenager and put on trial. Because it's not up to a police officer (who has lost his job as I learned) to decide if a man should be released based on self-defense. It's up to a Grand Jury and then a courtroom. That seems to have been followed in the Cervini case, unless I'm missing something.

It isn't... but in Florida, that doesn't mean what you would think. Because stand-your-ground laws in general, and Florida's in particular, are ludicrous.

Quote from: Florida Statute 776.032Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
Text taken from here.

TL;DR: I am not a lawyer, but it appears that they were actually following the law as written by cutting him loose. Because in Florida, apparently the law is more concerned with advancing gun rights than ensuring due process or the service of justice.

Trieste

First thing: I'm going to put out there that I don't know enough about the Martin/Zimmerman situation to have much of an opinion about the specific case at all. I grok many of the subtexts because I'm already familiar with them, and I absolutely regret that a teenager is dead. Parents have had to bury their son, and no matter what kind of son it was, that's always a tragedy. That's about as far as my opinion goes on this specific case.

In general, though, I'm a little disquieted by the cycle that has been (once again) displayed here. It goes something like this:

1. Crime happens. Public finds out about crime.
2. Alleged perp is brought to trial.
3. Public opinion is both riveted and filled with schadenfreude, usually because the public has already decided that the alleged perp is guilty, guilty, guilty.
4. Jury acquits.
5. Public howls with outrage because justice wasn't done.

The ones off the top of my head are Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson, and of course Mr. Zimmerman. We know, intellectually, that the public and the media often do not see all parts of an investigation. We know that not every lead and clue gets disseminated through the press. By the nature of our judicial system, that evidence is introduced at court unless the evidence is shown as being irrelevant, poorly put together, unsupported, etc. So in general, by the nature of our judicial system, the jury will see more - much more - than your average public. The jury is often sequestered to avoid media bias, they're not supposed to discuss the case with others until deliberation time...

... so why does the public still get outraged about cases like these? Repeatedly? Why do we get outraged when the jury, which supposedly has all of the evidence, doesn't come to the conclusion we want them to? Why do you think that is?

I'm not interested in discussing the OP's desire to talk-about-Trayvon-without-really-talking-about-Trayvon, whatever he tries to dress it up as, but I am interested in this particular quirk of public opinion. Is it as simple as saying the public thinks it knows better?

Oniya

Never mind the fact that the same said public will often do whatever it takes to avoid serving on a jury.  *smirk*  (Of course, having the 'OMG, can't you see he's guilty?!' attitude would probably get them excused for cause anyways.)
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Ephiral

Well... in this particular case, there was no way anything but a guilty verdict could possibly look fair from the outside. Any chance of that was destroyed by the conduct of the Sanford PD, who basically did everything possible every step of the way to look like they were covering it up.

Rogue

Quote from: Ephiral on July 21, 2013, 11:56:45 AM
It isn't... but in Florida, that doesn't mean what you would think. Because stand-your-ground laws in general, and Florida's in particular, are ludicrous.
Text taken from here.

TL;DR: I am not a lawyer, but it appears that they were actually following the law as written by cutting him loose. Because in Florida, apparently the law is more concerned with advancing gun rights than ensuring due process or the service of justice.

.... This is why I want to move so badly... Forget the humidity and every other reason I want to leave....

*sighs* I stand corrected. Thanks for the new info Ephiral. My point was made though.

I'm going to go back to sticking my head in the ground. See you guys around.



Neysha

It seems to be a fairly firm rejection of the still very compelling argument of "What would happen if George Zimmerman is Black?"

With that said, there were some obvious differences. Cyrano and Ephiral covered most of the differences, but I'm also assuming that the time of the shooting there might've even been less visibility since it took place at three in the morning, and I'm assuming New York State is probably more strict on gun crime in general, or maybe (as described in the links in this thread) the crime ridden neighborhood of Greece, NY might be more proactive in pursuing gun violence then the state of Florida and city of Sanford respectively. Also from what I've read so far, it doesn't seem like there was any actual physical contact between Cervini and Scott and it was likely more plausible that Scott could still retreat and cower inside of his home since New York laws supposedly state you can only use such force from inside your dwelling or if unable to safely retreat.
My Request Thread
Ons & Offs/Role-Plays Current and Past
FemDex: Index of Fictional Women
F-List Profiles: Constance Carrington, Damashi, SCP6969
Prepare For The Next Eight Years
Find me on Discord at: mnblend6567
Credit for Avatar goes to "LoveandSqualor" on Deviant Art. (and Hayley Williams)

Ephiral

"Being charged by a screaming person who is clearly not thinking straight and has backup" seems to fit the bill for "unable to retreat safely" to me.

Neysha

Quote from: Ephiral on July 21, 2013, 09:10:01 PM
"Being charged by a screaming person who is clearly not thinking straight and has backup" seems to fit the bill for "unable to retreat safely" to me.

Indeed. Confronting a person armed with gun rarely is a good idea unless similarly equipped.
My Request Thread
Ons & Offs/Role-Plays Current and Past
FemDex: Index of Fictional Women
F-List Profiles: Constance Carrington, Damashi, SCP6969
Prepare For The Next Eight Years
Find me on Discord at: mnblend6567
Credit for Avatar goes to "LoveandSqualor" on Deviant Art. (and Hayley Williams)

TaintedAndDelish

With the Travon case, there's a lot of folks ( ie. Sharpton ) demanding "Justice", but it seems that what they really want is either a ruling that validates their loss or that appeases their anger. Neither of these is justice.

As for reversing races as a test to see if the case would be viewed differently, Its kind of hard to find a perfect match. Perhaps its just my perception or location, but I don't see a lot of white people claiming racism when there's a conflict between a black person and a white person. Automatically assuming that someone is being racist because of their color is kind of racist, isn't it?

vtboy

Under Florida law, it was the prosecution's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not reasonably perceive he was at risk of death or serious bodily injury and act appropriately in self-defense when he shot Martin. The evidence of what happened between the time Zimmerman left his car and the moment he pulled the trigger was spotty at best. While there are other plausible scenarios, I don't see how  the jury's conclusion that the evidence failed convincingly to eliminate self-defense can be criticized. The jury did exactly what it was supposed to do -- it accorded Zimmerman the presumption of innocence and held the prosecution to its daunting burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Though I am unacquainted with the Scott case, I trust it represents another instance in which the criminal justice system performed as it should.

Was Zimmerman's acquittal just? I don't know. But, I do know that I would much rather live in a society that, while aspiring to just verdicts, insists on legal ones. 

meikle

#25
Quote from: vtboy on July 22, 2013, 07:36:45 AMWas Zimmerman's acquittal just? I don't know. But, I do know that I would much rather live in a society that, while aspiring to just verdicts, insists on legal ones.

The people who want to see justice for Trayvon may be content to see it no longer be the case that in Florida, it is legal to kill people if you don't leave anyone alive to counter your claims to self defense being afraid of that person.
Kiss your lover with that filthy mouth, you fuckin' monster.

O and O and Discord
A and A

Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: TaintedAndDelish on July 22, 2013, 04:17:12 AM
With the Travon case, there's a lot of folks ( ie. Sharpton ) demanding "Justice",

BTW, trying to use Sharpton in these debates as code for "craaaaazy" is long past its sell-by date. It worked in his Eighties and early Nineties huckster days when he actually was an outlandish figure, not so much anymore. 

QuoteI don't see a lot of white people claiming racism when there's a conflict between a black person and a white person.

Did you not see the post this thread was originally built around? I see plenty of occasions of this -- though the frequency with which the claims are actually honest and realistic is dubious; since as with this thread, the purpose of white people bringing up their ostensible suffering from "racism" is usually to derail discussion of acts of very clear racism committed against blacks.

See, America doesn't have a history of whites being a caste forcibly subordinated to blacks. That history is the other way around. Therefore the history of attempts at racial subjugation is not symmetrical between the two groups. And like I said in the Trayvon Martin thread, I simply do not believe someone who tells me they are alive and have functioning higher cognition in America and does not know this, and genuinely needs it explained to them.

I get the feeling, rather, that some people have convinced themselves that the "You're Teh Real Racist" gambit is some kind of rhetorical "judo chop!" to easily get them out of talking about racism and all the uncomfortable shit that comes with it....but it's really not.  It just smacks of passive-aggressive derailment and obfuscation of an especially perverse and offensive kind. I'm not even sure at this point if it's a genuine improvement over outright racist slurs, which at least have the virtue of forthrightness.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: meikle on July 22, 2013, 07:52:33 AM
The people who want to see justice for Trayvon may be content to see it no longer be the case that in Florida, it is legal to kill people if you don't leave anyone alive to counter your claims to self defense being afraid of that person.

I take this to be the point as well.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

NiceTexasGuy

Actually, I'm not trying to discuss Zimmerman without discussing Zimmerman.  In fact, I'm not even sure what that means, and I'm not inclined to expend energy trying to figure it out.

No, this thread was started as a result of a conversation (some joking around and a little wager) I had with a friend here.  The result was pretty much as expected, with the highly predictable rhetoric.  I confess I was a little supprised there weren't more tirades regarding my being a racist.  Perhaps, unlike me, people were too busy roleplaying.

I sometimes wonder why people even want to start up conversations about such controversial subjects?  Does anyone think anyone has ever changed their mind about something because they lost an argument?  I just do it for amusement.  Still, I wanted to share something I started writing (for another venue) -- It' still in the beginning stages, so don't be hatin' on me cause I can't write, ok?  And if you're prone to believing all the worst about someone when it fits with your world view, please don't feel obligated to change your mind.

I was thinking of starting with the phone call Junior makes from jail, telling Mommy and Daddy the mean ol' cop stopped him for speeding even though he wasn't going that fast (he was only going three miles per hour over the speed limit.)  Because he didn't have his drivers license with him, the mean cop put him in jail.  Predictably, Mommy and Daddy proceed to tell all their friends what the mean cop did to their little angel, and everyone agrees "the cops in this town are all a bunch of assholes."  Of course if Junior was black, the cops in that town would all be "a bunch of racist assholes."  Nobody considers the possibility little Junior was actually going 13 miles per hour over the speed limit (instead of the "three" her reported), and that he wasn't put in jail because he left his drivers license in his other pants, but because his license was suspended for a drunk driving conviction.  No, because people who aren't into personal accountability are always quick to believe the worst about police officers and ministers --and sometimes teachers.  (An earlier conversation with the parents might have gone like this:  "Little Junior was cussing out the teacher." - "What did the teacher do to get our little angel so upset?")

Yep, no proof required, go ahead and spread that rumor.

Now school's out, and the same cop that arrested Junior goes to sit in the school zone, in the area where a large number of kids walk.  He sets up in plain view of everyone coming from any direction as a deterrent to speeding in the vicinity of the children.  Most of the drivers give him a surly look -- he's the cop who's there trying to write speeding tickets, right?  Of course they don't consider that if he was trying to write speeding tickets, he'd probably find a better hiding place, and all he's trying to do is keep some dumbass for running over a kid. 

Sitting there with nothing better to do, he might be amenable to chatting with the children as they pass.  When I was that age, if a police officer deigned to speak to me it would have been the high point of my day.  (Maybe just a reflection on how boring school was?)  But now, all the children who walk past go to great pains to avoid eye contact with the cop.  No doubt they got that from their parents (or whomever they live with) -- cops are the bad guys, cops want to take you to jail, cops want to shut down daddy's meth lab, etc.

Since nobody ran over any kids on his watch, the cop then goes driving around and ends up making a few more traffic stops.  Since he's out there paying attention, he's observed the same phenomena that I have regarding race and driving.  While most people speed, he's observed that the ones who speed fastest are predominately black.  That isn't to say all black people speed, or that no white people speed, but it doesn't matter, nobody can say the ones speeding fastest are black because that would him up to charges of racism.  Though I have no proof, I suspect this phenomena is mostly limited to blacks who were brought up in the United States, should anyone be interested in my take on the nature vs nurture thing.

At the same time, this cop's police department probably has an unwritten (but highly enforced) rule handed down by a judge or prosecutor or police chief that says he can't give anyone a speeding ticket unless the person is going at least x-miles per hour over the speed limit.  Maybe x = 5, or maybe it's 7, or maybe it's 10.  I can't say, each department is different.

So, when some law abiding resident complains about people driving too fast through his neighborhood (40 miles per hour where conditions are not really safe to go the posted 30 mph) and the cop doesn't do anything about it, he's an asshole, right?

So, back to the major streets and this cop who's supposed to be enforcing traffic laws to try to make it safer for the public makes 10 traffic stops for speeding.  Five people (two black, three white) were going x mph over the limit, and five people (three black, two white) were going 2x mph over the limit.  If he issues citations to the 2x crowd, what happens?  According to Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Al Gore, and virtually every news outlet in the nation, he's racist and "targeting" blacks.  So, in order to avoid these accusations, what does he do?  Probably lets more blacks go with a warning then he does whites.  Ironic, isn't it, that the goal of traffic enforcement is to promote compliance with laws intended to make the streets safer, but in letting people go, he's actually reinforcing the idea in their minds that even if they get caught, there are no consequences. 

Or perhaps the real irony is that the guy who isn't issuing speeding tickets to blacks because they are black is the guy who's always being accused of racism.

And when it gets dark and he stops the car that went past him at 3x over the speed limit, the first thing the driver says is "you just stopped me because I'm black" and the cop wants to say "no you stupid fuck, it's dark and you went by so fast I couldn't see the color of your car, much less the color of the driver through the tinted windows" but instead he answers politely "no sir, the reason you were stopped is because...." and maybe the driver doesn't get a ticket because he's black, whereas if he was white he would have, just to keep the numbers looking good for Jesse Jackson.  And in the final accountability, I wonder how many people are dead as a result of people who put their own political agenda over the public's safety.

Oh, but no time to think about that, because the cop now gets a call regarding some woman screaming to her neighbors to call the cops because her live-in boyfriend is beating her to death.  It's an address he recognizes, and hopefully tonight he'll be able to put the dirtbag in jail.  But alas, when he arrives, she realizes the implications of losing her (a) only source of income; or (b) her only source of dick; or more likely (c) only source of drugs -- so she claims nothing happened and the neighbors were lying.  Same story as the previous eleven times.  And since there was no victim, there was no crime.  And next week, when the boyfriend finally puts her in the hospital or beats her to death everyone will say "the cops have been there a dozen times, but they never did anything."

Occasionally, if a cop knows as soon as he leaves the beating will continue, he might get creative and arrest the guy for something not related to the beatings he can't prove have taken place.  A legitimate arrest, of course, but on what some people might consider a bullshit charge, like failure to have the address changed on his drivers license within the designated time frame of moving.  He might have saved the woman's life, at least for one night, but the common perception is he's an asshole for arresting the guy on a bullshit charge ... After all, "all the cops in this town are a bunch of assholes" -- right? Or, if the guy is black, change that to the cops being "racist assholes."

Then it's on to the next call (because the good calls usually start coming in after dark) - one dirtbag stabbed another dirtbag.  It's not life threatening, but still, it's a stabbing.  Pretty cool, huh?  The cops chase down the one what done the stabbing as well as taking care of the one what got stabbed, and guess what?  After all is said and done, the guy who got stabbed doesn't want to press charges.  Instead, him and his homies will take care of it themselves.  Well, in our present system, the prosecutor will not prosecute a case without a victim, and if the victim doesn't want to testify, then that means there's no victim and no need to waste time on a case that can't be won.  So, the cops have to let the dirtbag who did the stabbing go, and the officer whose call it was goes off to do a bunch of paperwork while waiting for his next call, or for another car to go speeding past at 3x over the speed limit.

Oh, and the victim's mommy tells everyone her baby was stabbed and the cops didn't do anything.  Because they're all a bunch assholes.  Or maybe racist assholes.

As for getting fired, it hardly means the cop actually did anything wrong.  Usually, it means just the opposite.  There's the one cop who got fired for not giving preferential treatment to a local star football player.  I know two more who were fired after arresting one of the mayor's friends.  You can tell which cops in a department are doing their jobs .. it's the ones with the greatest number of complaints made against them.  And here's another irony for you.  Because of the large numbers of people who make up false accusations against police officers, they're putting a strain on the resources that should be investigating legitimate complaints.  Kinda ironic, ain't it?

Oh, but please don't change your world view because anything I said here might be true.   I'm sure the cops in your town really are a bunch of racist assholes.
What a shame -- The money you spent on those tattoos could have gone toward a boob job.
===
My Ons and Offs:  https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=97303.0
==============
I have taken The Oath of Don't Waste My Friggin' Time

Cyrano Johnson

#29
Quote from: NiceTexasGuy on July 22, 2013, 10:15:45 AM
Actually, I'm not trying to discuss Zimmerman without discussing Zimmerman.  In fact, I'm not even sure what that means

Uh, who said this? I said the purpose of the article you linked was to derail discussion of Zimmerman and Martin by using false equivalence, not to "discuss Zimmerman without discussing Zimmerman."

QuoteI sometimes wonder why people even want to start up conversations about such controversial subjects?

You tell me, man. Who started this thread again?

Quotethis thread was started as a result of a conversation (some joking around and a little wager) I had with a friend here.  The result was pretty much as expected, with the highly predictable rhetoric.

You mean all "the highly predictable rhetoric" that pointed out that your premise was nonsensical, to which you have no coherent response at all? I guess the claim now that it was all just on "a little wager" makes a certain amount of sense. 

FWIW, the reason I bother debating on the Internet at all is that people sometimes do change their minds and learn something, and sometimes I do. It usually doesn't happen in response to long, rambling, passive-aggressive semi-fictional not-quite-anecdotes, but in the presence of actual quality arguments it does happen.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Neysha

Anecdotes can sometimes make threads suddenly awkward. Like now for example. ;)
My Request Thread
Ons & Offs/Role-Plays Current and Past
FemDex: Index of Fictional Women
F-List Profiles: Constance Carrington, Damashi, SCP6969
Prepare For The Next Eight Years
Find me on Discord at: mnblend6567
Credit for Avatar goes to "LoveandSqualor" on Deviant Art. (and Hayley Williams)

Cyrano Johnson

Yeah... now that I read it in more detail. Yeah.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

meikle

#32
Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on July 22, 2013, 10:19:39 AMUh, who said this? I said the purpose of the article you linked was to derail discussion of Zimmerman and Martin by using false equivalence, not to "discuss Zimmerman without discussing Zimmerman."

"I don't want to talk about the Zimmerman trial, but I'm going to be absolutely certain to make sure that when I start the thread, I start it off talking about the Zimmerman case, to make sure it's on everybody's mind."

Trieste called him out on it directly, but it was obviously his intention from the get-go, right?  There are no "injustices" in the topic he linked, and the only reason to even pretend they were there is because on the surface, with no critical thinking or even a moment's thought applied, the two cases maybe kind of a little bit resemble one another.  The entire article was about comparing the two cases, at that.

There ain't nothin' more powerful than the odor of mendacity.
Kiss your lover with that filthy mouth, you fuckin' monster.

O and O and Discord
A and A

Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: meikle on July 22, 2013, 10:58:24 AM
"I don't want to talk about the Zimmerman trial, but I'm going to be absolutely certain to make sure that when I start the thread, I start it off talking about the Zimmerman case, to make sure it's on everybody's mind."

Trieste called him out on it directly, but it was obviously his intention from the get-go, right? 

Ah, it was Trieste he had in mind. Didn't see that post. (And yes, it seems that way to me.)
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Neysha

#34
Well at the very least, I learned what the word mendacity means so it wasn't a total wash.

Now all I need to do is use it in a sentence, preferably improperly... though not incorrectly.
My Request Thread
Ons & Offs/Role-Plays Current and Past
FemDex: Index of Fictional Women
F-List Profiles: Constance Carrington, Damashi, SCP6969
Prepare For The Next Eight Years
Find me on Discord at: mnblend6567
Credit for Avatar goes to "LoveandSqualor" on Deviant Art. (and Hayley Williams)

Trieste

Quote from: Neysha on July 22, 2013, 10:45:14 AM
Anecdotes can sometimes make threads suddenly awkward. Like now for example. ;)

I got bored halfway through and started scrolling through looking for a point. It's kind of obfuscated. ::)

Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on July 22, 2013, 10:19:39 AM
Uh, who said this?

Yeah, that was me. *raises hand*

vtboy

Quote from: meikle on July 22, 2013, 07:52:33 AM
The people who want to see justice for Trayvon may be content to see it no longer be the case that in Florida, it is legal to kill people if you don't leave anyone alive to counter your claims to self defense being afraid of that person.

Your formulation of Florida law is just a bit demagogic, isn't it? Self defense in Florida, as in other jurisdictions, requires a reasonable perception of risk of physical harm, and a reasonably proportionate response. "Being afraid of [the other] person" is not legally sufficient, in Florida or anywhere else, and Judge Nelson correctly charged the jury on the issue. Obviously, in any jurisdiction, a homicide defendant who relies on self-defense will be better off if there are no eyewitnesses to testify to the contrary.

In any event, the question becomes, how would those "who want to see justice for Trayvon" change the law? If they are asking for the repeal of "stand your ground," or for a prohibition against policeman wannabes packing heat while out on "neighborhood watch," I am all for it. If they would bar defendants from asserting self-defense in the absence of a corroborating witnesses, the cure is likely to be worse than the disease.

Valthazar

Quote from: vtboy on July 22, 2013, 12:05:09 PM
If they would bar defendants from asserting self-defense in the absence of a corroborating witnesses, the cure is likely to be worse than the disease.

I agree with this statement.

Cyrano Johnson

#38
Quote from: vtboy on July 22, 2013, 12:05:09 PM
Your formulation of Florida law is just a bit demagogic, isn't it? Self defense in Florida, as in other jurisdictions, requires a reasonable perception of risk of physical harm, and a reasonably proportionate response.

Of course, you need "Stand Your Ground" laws to make killing into a "reasonably proportionate response."* Or at least to make it likelier to be interpreted as a "reasonably proportionate response." Which is precisely what makes them insane.

(The main part of what makes them insane, anyway. It also doesn't help that the application of Stand Your Ground laws and the degree to which they actually protect defendants of various ethnicities is -- shocker of shockers -- racially biased [cf. the Case of Trayvon Martin thread for links].)

* EDIT: Although actually, you know? Come to think of it, I don't think even Stand Your Ground laws technically should do this; since most of them talk about meeting force with force "in equal proportion," it should not be possible to use them to defend the act of shooting an unarmed attacker. That's presumably why Zimmerman's defense team didn't actually invoke the law, though its presence may have influenced the jury's thinking.

When it comes right down to it, the premise that Zimmerman's acquittal was an inevitability of how the self-defense statutes are written in Florida is wrong; this is the same state that handed Marissa Alexander 20 years for firing in the air. What the case hinged on was whether one was willing to believe that Trayvon Martin was a badass aggressive thug whose hands were potentially lethal weapons: if you believed that portrayal, Zimmerman walks; if you find that portrayal to be a ludicrously racist hatchet job that flies in the face of documented facts about the victim, Zimmerman walking is a travesty. Generally speaking I'd lean toward the latter proposition, and indeed toward the conduct of the whole case being pretty much a travesty.


QuoteIn any event, the question becomes, how would those "who want to see justice for Trayvon" change the law? If they are asking for the repeal of "stand your ground," or for a prohibition against policeman wannabes packing heat while out on "neighborhood watch," I am all for it.

I think this likely is the direction things are heading, yes.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Rogue

I'm just going to glaze over that ramble of assumptions about people. Because in the south, racism is still a very real thing. And in the north for that matter. And every parent I know would look at that kid (with the drunk driving conviction under his belt) like lol. You done goofed kid. Helped him out maybe but... he goofed. The ones who call "angel" typically get ignored if there's no evidence to back it up. (Such as high GPA and such and no prior convictions).

Quote from: vtboy on July 22, 2013, 12:05:09 PM
Your formulation of Florida law is just a bit demagogic, isn't it? Self defense in Florida, as in other jurisdictions, requires a reasonable perception of risk of physical harm, and a reasonably proportionate response. "Being afraid of [the other] person" is not legally sufficient, in Florida or anywhere else, and Judge Nelson correctly charged the jury on the issue. Obviously, in any jurisdiction, a homicide defendant who relies on self-defense will be better off if there are no eyewitnesses to testify to the contrary.

In any event, the question becomes, how would those "who want to see justice for Trayvon" change the law? If they are asking for the repeal of "stand your ground," or for a prohibition against policeman wannabes packing heat while out on "neighborhood watch," I am all for it. If they would bar defendants from asserting self-defense in the absence of a corroborating witnesses, the cure is likely to be worse than the disease.


I'm hoping that that's what's going to happen. Or more like, "Prohibition of nutcases with prior cases of assult/abuse racked against them from carrying guns." That's my opinion anyways. I don't mind guns. Know a few hunters myself, and wish to carry a firearm as well. I wouldn't mind being put through a psych evaluation to do so or having a hunting only permit. Nor would I mind having my gun taken away the moment I was found to be a perpetrator of a violent crime on someone. Just... my opinion.

Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on July 22, 2013, 01:21:55 PM
Of course, you need "Stand Your Ground" laws to make killing into a "reasonably proportionate response."* Or at least to make it likelier to be interpreted as a "reasonably proportionate response." Which is precisely what makes them insane.

(The main part of what makes them insane, anyway. It also doesn't help that the application of Stand Your Ground laws and the degree to which they actually protect defendants of various ethnicities is -- shocker of shockers -- racially biased [cf. the Case of Trayvon Martin thread for links].)

* EDIT: Although actually, you know? Come to think of it, I don't think even Stand Your Ground laws technically should do this; since most of them talk about meeting force with force "in equal proportion," it should not be possible to use them to defend the act of shooting an unarmed attacker. That's presumably why Zimmerman's defense team didn't actually invoke the law, though its presence may have influenced the jury's thinking.

When it comes right down to it, the premise that Zimmerman's acquittal was an inevitability of how the self-defense statutes are written in Florida is wrong; this is the same state that handed Marissa Alexander 20 years for firing in the air. What the case hinged on was whether one was willing to believe that Trayvon Martin was a badass aggressive thug whose hands were potentially lethal weapons: if you believed that portrayal, Zimmerman walks; if you find that portrayal to be a ludicrously racist hatchet job that flies in the face of documented facts about the victim, Zimmerman walking is a travesty. Generally speaking I'd lean toward the latter proposition, and indeed toward the conduct of the whole case being pretty much a travesty.



This. So much of this. All of it about the equal force. Because that obviously was not equal force.

Side topic: This might also be why the woman who shot in the air was still charged for it despite stand your ground... since technically her force was not equal, though she could never hope to bring equal force to that scenario....

Valthazar

Quote from: Rogue of TimeyWimey Stuff on July 22, 2013, 02:08:18 PM

This. So much of this. All of it about the equal force. Because that obviously was not equal force.

Side topic: This might also be why the woman who shot in the air was still charged for it despite stand your ground... since technically her force was not equal, though she could never hope to bring equal force to that scenario....

No that's because in that moment, the man did not use physical force.  In other words, her gunshot in the air was not provoked in that instance with a physical gesture by the man.

Rogue

Quote from: ValthazarElite on July 22, 2013, 02:24:33 PM
No that's because in that moment, the man did not use physical force.  In other words, her gunshot in the air was not provoked in that instance with a physical gesture by the man.

Sorry for the de-rail: Yes. But she was backed into a corner by a man who'd abused her and even supported her in the case saying he had threatened her. Just saying...

Valthazar

#42
I know, I'm aware of the threats and the past history of violence.  I'm just saying that in that particular instance, he did not inflict physical violence on her that would have acted as a pretext for her gunshot.

I'm not saying that this is morally correct.

Rogue

Fair. Going strictly by the law, you are entirely correct. I just don't like it.

BlackRose

People often forget the innocent until proven guilty part of how our justice system functions. A jury of your peers should also include peers of the victim's circumstance as well as the accused.

I did give that anecdote the benefit of the doubt when I started reading it that it would be a piece of total fiction. Unfortunately I was wrong. The amount of cognitive dissonance is staggering. Making claims that people of x type do y thing the most is ludicrous without having clear, unbiased numbers in front of you. If I surveyed 100 people who lived in rich, suburban neighborhoods about what their biggest fear was, I would get a far different answer than if I surveyed 100 people living in a place like St. Louis KY, Provo UT, San Francisco CA, Austin TX, etc. If you look at crime rates per city, per state, per country, or whatever else, the only thing you see, thanks to bias of one kind or another, is what got reported. Did you know Hawaii doesn't even report hate crimes as hate crimes? So if you look at hate crimes across the USA, it looks like Hawaii has no hate crimes, ever, in the history of Hawaii. This isn't true, it's just an artifact of how they handle the crime.

The more I read of this thread the more it seems to me that the OP is just attempting to stir up trouble and not actually have an intellectual conversation. I find this unfortunate.

In the anecdote, there are several problems that should be pointed out aside from the one above. Police officers do not always need a victim's cooperation to prosecute a crime. While there have been cases, such as Crawford v. Washington, that have done a lot to limit the ability for police to prosecute crimes when victims refuse to cooperate, there are plenty of other avenues of evidence that allow for the prosecution when a victim/witness is unwilling or unable to testify, such as was the case in Crawford v. Washington, where the witness was the wife of the defendant and her testimony was deemed protected by the 6th amendment.

One very clear example of when police can prosecute someone if the victim is unwilling/unable to testify is when the victim is murdered. You cannot speak out at trial if you are dead. However, medical evidence can be submitted. In domestic abuse cases, where the person being abused isn't dead, but doesn't want to testify, police still have avenues to pursue criminal charges against the abuser. As you mentioned, they can often arrest the person in question for something else all together, or hold them for questioning. The situation you describe where the victim keeps saying no and the cops keep coming back and then not doing anything at all is not as common as television dramas make us think they are. If the neighbor called the cops, the neighbor is the witness. A witness can testify even if the victim is unwilling to. If, for example, the victim states he or she fell down a flight of stairs and that was how his or her arm got broken, but the x-ray shows a spiral fracture (often a clear sign used for child abuse), it is enough to show that the victim's testimony is untrue. Given how common this trope is in television, it is even easier now to prosecute things like that when there is a neighbor that called 911 and prosecution can play the "unwilling to cooperate" victim trope like everyone has seen on TV.

In the case of stabbings or gunshots, gang related crimes are investigated and prosecuted even if the victim and his homies want to take the justice into their own hands. While I find it unsurprising that this point was brought up, these crimes are far more prevalent in low income areas. This is not because black people are savage beasts or inherently more likely to commit crimes. This is because police don't have the resources to effectively control crime in areas where there isn't enough income to pay enough tax to fund the police department properly. Places like this often lead to exhausted law enforcement officers who spend most of their time chasing the crimes after the fact than being able to enforce peace.

I live in a city where people are afraid of their police officers and it is sad. It's not because they are bad people, it is because they are poorly trained and underfunded. I see speed traps set up all over the place and feel safer because of it. I rarely even drive 1 mile over the speed limit, let alone 5, and it bothers me when people shoot past (regardless of race, age, apparent gender, or any other factor) going 10-15 miles over the speed limit. I don't care who you are or why you are speeding.

The problem is a systemic one. Racism happens. People effected by racism get lower paying jobs for the same amount of work. People congregate in areas where the other people there are like them, it is only natural. Low income areas provide less tax money for funding of public projects and police officers and schools. As the income of the school goes down, so too does the quality of the school. As the funding for the police department goes down, so too does its ability to effectively control crime. With poor education and high crime rates, what choice do youths have besides joining the one group of people that can and will protect them?

This happens in predominantly white areas (Ohio, for example) and in areas where any other skin color or nationality is prevalent. We just only hear about the ones that are minorities because there are far more of them due largely in part to the continued racism in the USA. Racism isn't over. Sexism isn't over. We still have a lot of work to do.

In both cases, the Zimmerman case and the Cervini case, the justice department did what it was supposed to do. It may not have done what you, or any other sensationalist, wanted it to do. It heard the evidence the state was able to bring against the accused. It deemed that the evidence was insufficient to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt the accused was guilty. Whether this was because of poor investigation or because the person really was innocent of crime, we will never know. We did not do the investigation. We did not hear all of the evidence presented at trial.

There were very, very clear differences between the two cases, which very likely leads people to understand why (aside from the fact that this case was in 2009) people did not really hear about it. Zimmerman was told to stand down over the phone, on tape. Zimmerman continued to follow, while on the phone, and was told to stand down. Zimmerman thought he looked suspicious and jumped to the conclusion that Martin was out doing something wrong. Martin, scared of the crazy white guy following him, ran. Whether or not Martin was up to no good, it doesn't matter. Zimmerman followed him and killed him. Zimmerman repeatedly put his life in danger in order to seek justice. He witnessed no crime being committed, and it was, according to public opinion a hate crime. If nothing else, the reason for the outrage was not just that Martin was black and Zimmerman was white, but that the 911 recording showed him being told not to follow Martin and he did it anyway. It seemed clear his intent was to stop a crime he was imagining. He also refused to testify in his own defense. This raises speculation that had he taken the stand, it would have been proven that what he did was wrong. Speculation breeds rumors. Rumors breed opinions. Thus is the media firestorm continued.

In the case of Scott, he testified that he was actively stopping a crime in progress with the intent to detain. He was charged by the victim, and he shot in self defense. He testified, told his part in what happened, and was found not guilty. The only reason to try and force a media storm over this is because the party interested is trying to draw parallels to the Zimmerman trial, which happened after this case was closed, in an attempt to make it look like people who called for the investigation of the events leading up to the trial and acquittal of Zimmerman were racists.

The news in this country has shifted from being informative to being sensationalistic. We see evidence of that all the time. From "Dogs are barking, that is right. Something is definitely happening." to a bus driving by two reporters who are pretending to be far apart when really, they are less than 20 feet from each other. From the explosion over the president's birth certificate to prove he is in fact a legitimate US Citizen born on US soil (which I still feel is a dumb law) to the fact that President Obama didn't use the word God in his statement. These are not things we need to know. These are not news. They are a poor attempt at getting viewers to keep watching so that their sponsor's commercials are seen. It is problematic and detrimental to intellectual discussion.

If you are unwilling to allow your opinion to change on a matter when presented with rational arguments and facts, you are incapable of having an intellectual discussion about it. What you intend to do, instead, is have a philosophical argument. Those two things are not the same.

Thank you for bringing this case to our attention. Your source is not the only source on the internet, however, and a little research into the matter shows quite clearly that there is nothing for the public to latch onto in this case. The justice system did it's job.
Questions are dangerous, for questions have answers.


Rules/Ons and Offs


"Romantics... The original Emos..." ~Storiwyr

vtboy

Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on July 22, 2013, 01:21:55 PMWhen it comes right down to it, the premise that Zimmerman's acquittal was an inevitability of how the self-defense statutes are written in Florida is wrong;

"Inevitability" is your word, not mine. My point was that, in the absence of eyewitness testimony or other direct proof (e.g., a security camera video recording) contradicting Zimmerman's own accounts to the police of his encounter with Martin, the prosecution's burden to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt was an enormously difficult one to meet. Whatever your own conclusions about what actually happened between the two, I don't see how the jury can be faulted for deciding the prosecution failed to meet that burden. Nor do I think the jury could have been faulted if they had convicted Zimmerman, at least on the manslaughter charge. Reasonable minds may disagree over inferences to be drawn from incomplete and unreliable evidence.

QuoteWhat the case hinged on was whether one was willing to believe that Trayvon Martin was a badass aggressive thug whose hands were potentially lethal weapons: if you believed that portrayal, Zimmerman walks; if you find that portrayal to be a ludicrously racist hatchet job that flies in the face of documented facts about the victim, Zimmerman walking is a travesty.

Not really. The jury did not have to believe Martin was a badass aggressive thug; to acquit; it need only have concluded the prosecution failed to dispel reasonable doubt that Martin attacked Zimmerman and that Zimmerman reasonably perceived he was at immediate risk of having his skull cracked open or of being shot with his own gun. While I think Zimmerman's account to police was seriously flawed, the prosecution was required to do more than demonstrate some degree of improbability. 

I am not sure to what "documented facts about the victim" you are referring. While Zimmerman's statements to police may have been "a ludicrously racist hatchet job," I know of no evidence presented to the jury about Martin which established that. Moreover, if "documented facts" had been presented to show Martin was the sort of pacific, decent, law-abiding kid who never would have attacked Zimmerman, any resulting conviction would almost certainly have been reversed on appeal.

George Zimmerman is at least a reckless moron, and perhaps much worse. He was entitled, however, to the fair trial he got.

Ephiral

NiceTexasGuy, I'm not gonna go through that post line-by-line because, well, it's probably the longest way of saying "You're the real racist!" I've seen yet. But... well, if you want that claim to be taken seriously, maybe try not to make blatantly racist remarks in the middle of your speech?

Cyrano Johnson

#47
Quote from: vtboy on July 22, 2013, 05:18:43 PM"Inevitability" is your word, not mine. My point was that, in the absence of eyewitness testimony or other direct proof (e.g., a security camera video recording) contradicting Zimmerman's own accounts to the police of his encounter with Martin, the prosecution's burden to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt was an enormously difficult one to meet.

Not really. It was clear enough who had the gun and who didn't and what reasonable force usually means in that situation. It was clear that Zimmerman wasn't outnumbered. For some juries those factors alone would have been decisive; just not this one. Meikle is right about this: it would be a hugely dangerous precedent to establish that all you need to do is be alone and unrecorded with your victim in order to murder him and credibly claim a "self-defense" that is functionally impossible to challenge. This in effect turns such isolated murder into the perfect crime, at least for those whom the justice system favours.

QuoteThe jury did not have to believe Martin was a badass aggressive thug; to acquit; it need only have concluded the prosecution failed to dispel reasonable doubt that Martin attacked Zimmerman and that Zimmerman reasonably perceived he was at immediate risk of having his skull cracked open or of being shot with his own gun.

This is a distinction without a real difference. The posthumous reframing of Trayvon-as-dangerous-delinquent was done precisely to make the notion of Zimmerman having this "perception" non-ridiculous.

Quoteif "documented facts" had been presented to show Martin was the sort of pacific, decent, law-abiding kid who never would have attacked Zimmerman, any resulting conviction would almost certainly have been reversed on appeal.

No-one can predict the trajectory of the appeals process.

QuoteGeorge Zimmerman is at least a reckless moron, and perhaps much worse. He was entitled, however, to the fair trial he got.

And Trayvon Martin was entitled not to be put on unfair posthumous trial for his own murder.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

meikle

Quote from: Ephiral on July 22, 2013, 08:12:19 PM"You're the real racist!"

These Zimmerman supporters seem perfectly content to let everyone know that they are the real racists, though.
Kiss your lover with that filthy mouth, you fuckin' monster.

O and O and Discord
A and A

Pumpkin Seeds

Wow, that news story wasn't slanted or biased.

BlackRose

It would be nice at this juncture to get back to the topic at hand. That being the case that was settled in 2010 when Scott shot and killed Cervini, claimed self defense, and was found to be not guilty.
Questions are dangerous, for questions have answers.


Rules/Ons and Offs


"Romantics... The original Emos..." ~Storiwyr

meikle

The topic at hand is and has always been "What about this case that is only tangentially like the Trayvon Martin case, but in reality much less controversial because it is not fucking ridiculous," and pretending it has ever been anything else is...

mendacious!
Kiss your lover with that filthy mouth, you fuckin' monster.

O and O and Discord
A and A

vtboy

Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on July 22, 2013, 11:26:04 PM
Not really. It was clear enough who had the gun and who didn't and what reasonable force usually means in that situation. It was clear that Zimmerman wasn't outnumbered. For some juries those factors alone would have been decisive; just not this one. Meikle is right about this: it would be a hugely dangerous precedent to establish that all you need to do is be alone and unrecorded with your victim in order to murder him and credibly claim a "self-defense" that is functionally impossible to challenge. This in effect turns such isolated murder into the perfect crime, at least for those whom the justice system favours.

Only the decisions of judges on questions of law have precedential effect. Jury verdicts do not.

Yes, all else equal, those who commit unwitnessed crimes are more likely to be acquitted than those foolish enough to perform their misdeeds in front of an audience. Luck and good planning affect the outcome of a lot of human endeavors, including crime. The criminal justice system does not promise perfection in result, only fairness in process, and at least aspires to prefer the acquittal of the guilty to the conviction of the innocent. Are you suggesting the presumption of innocence should be reversed for those charged with committing unwitnessed crimes?

I don't disagree that a different jury might have returned a guilty verdict on the same evidence. So what? Zimmerman's acquittal reflected one rational view of the evidence -- that it failed to exclude beyond reasonable doubt the possibility that Zimmerman's confrontation with Martin unfolded essentially as he described it to the police, that Zimmerman rationally perceived mortal threat, and that he reasonably responded with deadly force. That a different verdict would also have been defensible on the evidence does not undermine the legitimacy of this one.   

Quote
This is a distinction without a real difference. The posthumous reframing of Trayvon-as-dangerous-delinquent was done precisely to make the notion of Zimmerman having this "perception" non-ridiculous.

To the contrary, whatever stories may have been floated in the media about Trayvon Martin's alleged thuggishness, none of it made its way into the trial. In fact, Judge Nelson barred the defense from introducing just this sort of evidence. 

Quote
No-one can predict the trajectory of the appeals process.

Lawyers predict the outcome of appeals all the time. The reliability of a prediction depends on how similar or dissimilar a given issue is to ones previously visited by the appellate court. Here, the law is quite well settled that evidence of a victim's good and pacific character is not admissible except to rebut admitted character evidence of his or her propensity for violence. The purpose of the rule is to reduce the risk a jury will convict a criminal defendant on otherwise weak evidence, out of sympathy or admiration for the alleged victim. Whatever passions the Zimmerman verdict may have stirred in you, I trust you see the wisdom of the rule.

Since the defense did not present character evidence showing Martin was inclined to violence, it would have been reversible error had the court permitted the prosecution to present proof of his good character.   

Quote
And Trayvon Martin was entitled not to be put on unfair posthumous trial for his own murder.

The dead don't have legal rights. The living do. These include the right to defend criminal prosecutions vigorously, even at the expense of another's good name.

Cyrano Johnson

#53
Quote from: vtboyOnly the decisions of judges on questions of law have precedential effect.

Such questions of law are of course often afforded by jury verdicts, but I was talking about precedent in the more general social sense.

QuoteAre you suggesting the presumption of innocence should be reversed for those charged with committing unwitnessed crimes?

I supposed I'm suggesting that, when you have a case where either party could technically have claimed "self-defense" by dint of having successfully killed their opponent, what you have is a very glaring deficiency in the law. We agreed on that or something close to it at the outset, I think. [I really recommend the linked article, BTW.]

QuoteI don't disagree that a different jury might have returned a guilty verdict on the same evidence. So what?

So the question of whether prejudice and/or poor prosecution led to this particular verdict is sort of a live one? So it is always cause for alarm if a legal system cannot or will not punish a crime where one has clearly been committed? I can't help feeling like you're playing a bit dumb here; even if you believe the outcome of the case represents a version of the "rational" black-letter law as it currently exists (Amy Dardashtian, linked above, would agree with you), you must surely be aware of this.

QuoteTo the contrary, whatever stories may have been floated in the media about Trayvon Martin's alleged thuggishness, none of it made its way into the trial.

... officially. Which doesn't unfortunately mean that none of the jurors was biased on this account. (And kindly don't offer me any further homilies about process. I know process was technically followed. What's at issue in the controversy is whether process failed despite having been technically followed.)

QuoteSince the defense did not present character evidence showing Martin was inclined to violence, it would have been reversible error had the court permitted the prosecution to present proof of his good character. 

Fair point.

QuoteThe dead don't have legal rights.

I know. Which turns out to be a pretty good motive for murder.

Anyway, Zimmerman may not yet have quite gotten away with it. The questions of a civil suit -- I hope someone comes forward to support the Martins in order to help shelter them from penalty if they go this route -- and of federal prosecution under Civil Rights statutes are both still live AFAIK.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Pumpkin Seeds

I honestly wish they would end this pursuit of civil suits to follow.  The civil court is not meant to be a witch hunt court so that people can circumvent the justice system and receive compensation inside a court system that requires less burden of proof.  I also despise them using the federal court system for this same purpose.  The general feel is, "We don't like this ruling so let's ruin this man's life another way."  The man was found not guilty, whether they approve or disapprove of the ruling does not mean they get to continue to pursue the destruction of this man's life.

Trieste

The two court systems have two different purposes, though. The criminal system cannot merely ruin your life - in some places, it can take it away either by jailing you for life or executing you. They answer two different questions: one answers whether someone's actions were criminal, one answers whether someone's actions caused injury that demands reparations. I... don't think anyone really would dispute the fact that Zimmerman injured Martin's family by killing their son, but because our justice system has a presumption of innocence, he gets a trial for that, too.

The family may not even bring a civil suit (haven't looked, don't care) against Zimmerman. If they did, though, it would by no means be circumventing the justice system. The criminal justice system's role is done unless there is an appeal - and you can't particularly circumvent the civil branch of the justice system by making use of it, I should think.

Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on July 23, 2013, 04:20:08 PMThe man was found not guilty, whether they approve or disapprove of the ruling does not mean they get to continue to pursue the destruction of this man's life.

So long as those courts are available and part of the legal system, people have the right of recourse to them. I don't see why that should apply to Zimmerman and nobody else. As for "the destruction of this man's life," please allow me to locate my smallest violin.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Oniya

"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Cyrano Johnson

Correct, there is no actual word yet on whether there will be a federal case, it is still under review. If there is one it definitely won't involve 'Obama filing charges,' since that's not how such cases work. (That was the urban myth giveaway right there.)
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Trieste

Quote from: Oniya on July 23, 2013, 05:00:38 PM
With regard to the whole 'civil rights charges' thing:  http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/zimmerman.asp

So... much...stuff... wrong...

I think I lost brain cells reading that sample Facebook post. Thanks, Oniya.


Pumpkin Seeds

The problem is that according to the law Zimmerman was within his legal rights and standing to shoot and killer Trayvon Martin.  He was found innocent of any wrong doing by a jury of his peers inside a court of law.  Pursuit of a civil action has been blatantly stated as being punitive against Zimmerman because he was found innocent.  Essentially making use of the civil court in order to pursue action when the criminal court’s ruling was found unsatisfactory for “justice.”  I understand that the purpose of the two courts is not the same, but making use of them to achieve a “similar” result of hurting someone found innocent is wrong.

Also I did not say this should only be applicable to Zimmerman.  I did not approve of this process when used with OJ Simpson either.  I do not think the purpose of the civil courts should be the pursuit of someone found innocent in a criminal trial so that some form of “justice” can be merited out.

I also know that charges are likely not to be filed and if they are there is really no ground.  Yet the federal charges are being swung around like some sort of threat and brandishing iron by the Administration in order to appease protesters and civil liberty leaders.  The law should not be used in this fashion.

Oniya

*nods*  The article goes into more detail about the likelihood of federal charges being filed at all, regardless of 'who' files them.  (As I recall, those sorts of cases usually get titled as 'U.S. vs. ______' anyways, so the 'who' is unlikely to be a person.)

If I do a search on something (like 'federal charges Zimmerman') and there's a Snopes link, that's my first stop.  For srs.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Trieste

Certainly, except he was found innocent of any criminal wrongdoing. He doesn't go to jail for murder. There has been no determination as to whether he's still financially responsible. I understand that you don't approve of differentiating the two, but I do and this is why: the question of whether someone is responsible for someone's injuries should not be the same as determining whether they should go to jail for it. Someone can have done something that they should pay damages for without having broken a law to do it. It's a nuance of the law that very much does need to be there and quite solidly is worth supporting - not only because it gives victims possible monetary recourse but also because it makes the question of guilt or innocence easier on criminal juries. Can you imagine one jury having to make the decision about whether a person is responsible both criminally and civilly, forever? It would be awful. Furthermore, the rules of evidence are different in the various courts and they very much should be. Criminal court can take away someone's life and while bearing a heavy financial burden can make life very difficult, it's not the same as locking someone up in prison or executing them.

Quote from: Oniya on July 23, 2013, 05:09:15 PM
*nods*  The article goes into more detail about the likelihood of federal charges being filed at all, regardless of 'who' files them.  (As I recall, those sorts of cases usually get titled as 'U.S. vs. ______' anyways, so the 'who' is unlikely to be a person.)

If I do a search on something (like 'federal charges Zimmerman') and there's a Snopes link, that's my first stop.  For srs.

It's not only that but the legal idiocy ... combined with the ... and the... gah, I refuse to think about it more.

Cyrano Johnson

#63
Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on July 23, 2013, 05:07:10 PMThe problem is that according to the law Zimmerman was within his legal rights and standing to shoot and killer Trayvon Martin.  He was found innocent of any wrong doing by a jury of his peers inside a court of law. 

Being found not guilty according to the current state of the law, and/or technically within one's legal rights to pursue, confront and murder "defend oneself from" a kid who was guilty of walking home with a bag of Skittles, is not the same as being found "innocent of any wrong doing." If someone is unnecessarily killed in circumstances like that by someone else, the fact is that a crime has been committed. It just may not happen to be a crime that Florida state law could effectively prosecute, which is often the case with race-motivated crimes at the state level and is precisely why Civil Rights law exists at the federal level. It's perverse to demand that nobody should even consider using such laws for the precise situations they were intended to address.

(Which is not to say a federal case against Zimmerman is inevitable or even likely. But it is certainly possible, and it's one of the possibilities he signed up for when he shot and killed somebody.)

QuoteAlso I did not say this should only be applicable to Zimmerman.  I did not approve of this process when used with OJ Simpson either.  I do not think the purpose of the civil courts should be the pursuit of someone found innocent in a criminal trial so that some form of “justice” can be merited out.

Like Trieste said, civil law is about whether injury has been committed by one party against another, not whether criminal liability could be proved beyond reasonable doubt. They're different questions, and also part of what Zimmerman signed up for when he decided to shoot somebody.

Don't mean to sound callous, but the guy still has his life. His victim doesn't. Only so much sympathy I can muster about whether he spends another few months or few years in court.

QuoteI also know that charges are likely not to be filed and if they are there is really no ground.  Yet the federal charges are being swung around like some sort of threat and brandishing iron by the Administration in order to appease protesters and civil liberty leaders.

Though I know there are some who would like the Administration to use federal charges in this way, this is simply not true. Obama has distanced himself from the whole issue and the DOJ has noncommittally said it's "investigating." That's it. The next we'll actually hear from them is whether they decide to proceed or not proceed.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences