>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Evidence, context, circumstance, objective logic, and arbitration.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

How do you propose we determine guilt or innocence without a trial?


Sounds like a trial to me.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Evidence, context, circumstance, objective logic, and arbitration.
Explain to me how the rituals of a courtroom establish true justice, Overcast.

Since you just listed the "rituals" of a courtroom as your preferred method of determining guilt, why don't you explain it?

>> ^NetRunner:

Uhh, so acknowledging that the argument is dividing along right/left lines, while decrying the fact that it has done so...is perpetuating it?

I think you went beyond acknowledging when you made a statement on behalf of The Left™. I think there are a lot of people trying to make this partisan politics because they get an automatic support base if they succeed, but I also think the people who are doing that are a loud minority at this point. Most people, even the self-appointed judge/jury/executioners I mentioned before, have not allowed politics to shape their opinions IMO.

>> ^NetRunner:

Here's the rub, what are those investigations aimed at achieving? An investigation of the local police, and whether they conducted their side of things properly, or an investigation that might result in charges against Zimmerman? From what I've heard it's the former, not the latter.

I'm not sure it's plausible to get a new local investigation without showing some sort of negligence or wrong-doing in the first one. I also can't help but wonder if, even after all the investigations are complete, the case will be tossed out because SYG does protect Zimmerman here. Whether the law is right or wrong is a separate trial. It may be that this case is the first domino that starts the repeal of SYG, but it also may be that Zimmerman goes free because it was the law at the time. I'm not saying I'd be happy about that; just that it seems like a possibility.

>> ^NetRunner:

That's the most generous of my theories, but I don't really think it's that. The things they're pushing back against aren't the handful of people saying calmly "this is why the Stand Your Ground law is bad policy", they're pushing back hardest against the people who're suggesting this was some sort of racially motivated murder. They've apparently lost all sense of reason and proportion when it comes to defending white guys who get accused of being racist.

There are absolutely some weird reactions in all this which are based on race. I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference whether Zimmerman is a racist or not. I guess it could make the difference between murder and a lesser charge, as it could be used to establish motive, but here and now it's a minor issue for me. Whether or not he is a racist will not effect this stage in the process. That won't come into play until a trial begins.

>> ^NetRunner:

I agree, there's a real danger of the "Zimmerman needs to be charged" camp making it impossible for Zimmerman to be tried in an impartial manner. Most of the stuff I see though is people collecting evidence of one type or another that suggests the shooting wasn't in self-defense, as a way to demonstrate the need for a trial. Case in point, the video up top showing Zimmerman looking uninjured and unmolested some 20-30 minutes after the altercation with Martin.

It seems to me like that's what you need to do if you want to convince people that there needs to be an investigation and a trial -- you cast doubt on the story that Zimmerman told the police, which was the reason they released him without further investigation.

Truth is, I think it's going to be hard to build a solid case against Zimmerman at this point, mostly because the opportunity to collect the evidence that could've convicted or conclusively exonerated him is gone now. That's why the police's refusal to conduct an investigation in the immediate aftermath of the shooting feels so criminal to a lot of people.

I've not heard anything about evidence collected from Martin's body though. Perhaps there's something there that would be able to definitively establish what happened.

I worry that the "public investigation" ruins the eventual trial if it goes too far. This video seems like extremely weak evidence. The poor quality could easily be hiding cuts and bruises. I'd put more weight in police documentation and hospital records (or the lack thereof) than this video to establish whether Zimmerman had injuries.

I agree that a lot of evidence has been lost to time now. Examination of the gunshot wound can probably still tell us a lot about the altercation, fortunately. Showing who was on top of who at the time of the shooting will probably go a long way toward telling the real story by itself.

Evidence, context, circumstance, objective logic, and arbitration.

Explain to me how the rituals of a courtroom establish true justice, Overcast.

Troy Davis was "found guilty" of murdering a cop. Even tho all the evidence suggests otherwise.

Casey Anthony was "found innocent" of murdering her child. Even tho all the evidence suggests otherwise.

Trials are just ceremonies.

They don't determine anything but the conviction rates of lawyers.

>> ^xxovercastxx:


How do you propose we determine guilt or innocence without a trial?

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Because you were the one who said, "The left's position isn't 'off with Zimmerman's head!' it's 'we demand a real criminal investigation!'" and "Why is the right fighting that...at all? Why has this turned into another partisan political spat?", apparently unaware of the irony of complaining about how it's become a partisan political spat even as you perpetuate it.

Uhh, so acknowledging that the argument is dividing along right/left lines, while decrying the fact that it has done so...is perpetuating it?

This is like these mystifying conversations I have where I say racism exists and is bad, and in return get flack from some wingnut who claims I'm making racial problems worse by saying racism exists and is bad.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Last I knew there were two investigations underway: Federal and State of Florida.

Here's the rub, what are those investigations aimed at achieving? An investigation of the local police, and whether they conducted their side of things properly, or an investigation that might result in charges against Zimmerman? From what I've heard it's the former, not the latter.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
If I had to guess why some of the Right is touchy about this, I'd say it's because they fear its potential affects on gun rights (of which "Stand Your Ground" is a derivative, IMO).

That's the most generous of my theories, but I don't really think it's that. The things they're pushing back against aren't the handful of people saying calmly "this is why the Stand Your Ground law is bad policy", they're pushing back hardest against the people who're suggesting this was some sort of racially motivated murder. They've apparently lost all sense of reason and proportion when it comes to defending white guys who get accused of being racist.

And BTW, that's what me perpetuating the partisan fight looks like.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
What bothers me, personally, about the whole situation is all these self-appointed jurors who have already reached a verdict. They come in both pro-Trayvon and pro-Zimmerman flavors and they're all a bit light in the skull. There hasn't been a complete investigation yet, let alone a trial where all the evidence is presented, and we've already got millions of judge/jury/executioner types spouting off.
When it comes time for this to go to trial for real, where will we even find impartial jurors? It's getting hard to imagine any result but declaration of mistrial, Zimmerman free to go.


I agree, there's a real danger of the "Zimmerman needs to be charged" camp making it impossible for Zimmerman to be tried in an impartial manner. Most of the stuff I see though is people collecting evidence of one type or another that suggests the shooting wasn't in self-defense, as a way to demonstrate the need for a trial. Case in point, the video up top showing Zimmerman looking uninjured and unmolested some 20-30 minutes after the altercation with Martin.

It seems to me like that's what you need to do if you want to convince people that there needs to be an investigation and a trial -- you cast doubt on the story that Zimmerman told the police, which was the reason they released him without further investigation.

Truth is, I think it's going to be hard to build a solid case against Zimmerman at this point, mostly because the opportunity to collect the evidence that could've convicted or conclusively exonerated him is gone now. That's why the police's refusal to conduct an investigation in the immediate aftermath of the shooting feels so criminal to a lot of people.

I've not heard anything about evidence collected from Martin's body though. Perhaps there's something there that would be able to definitively establish what happened.

>> ^NetRunner:

That's my position too. Why you're putting that at the head of a reply to me, I don't know.

Because you were the one who said, "The left's position isn't 'off with Zimmerman's head!' it's 'we demand a real criminal investigation!'" and "Why is the right fighting that...at all? Why has this turned into another partisan political spat?", apparently unaware of the irony of complaining about how it's become a partisan political spat even as you perpetuate it.

But, to be clear, my comment was not aimed squarely at you even though I quoted you. Your statement was just a good example for me to cite.

>> ^NetRunner:
Except there isn't an investigation under way. That's what people are mad about. That's why I don't get how this spilled into a right vs. left thing.
I have a theory, but rather than jumping to conclusions, I would like to hear someone make their case for why they're mad at people who are demanding Treyvon Martin's death be investigated by police.
So far it seems to be that the people pushing back are misinformed, either about whether the police are investigating (they aren't) or about what the people making noise about this are actually saying (apparently when people say "we want an arrest and investigation" these people hear "we want our pound of flesh").
As you said in the middle of your comment, there are people on "both sides" whose behavior has been reprehensible, but focusing on that kind of stuff is always a form of ad hominem. If Spike Lee does something bad because he's mad about this, it doesn't mean he was wrong to be mad in the first place.
I want to focus on the central dispute over the case, rather than try to litigate which "side's" advocates have acted most shamefully.

Last I knew there were two investigations underway: Federal and State of Florida. If you're trying to say there needs to be a new local investigation (technically there was one at the time of the incident, it just sucked ass), then I agree and I'm not mad at anyone for demanding one.

If I had to guess why some of the Right is touchy about this, I'd say it's because they fear its potential affects on gun rights (of which "Stand Your Ground" is a derivative, IMO).

What bothers me, personally, about the whole situation is all these self-appointed jurors who have already reached a verdict. They come in both pro-Trayvon and pro-Zimmerman flavors and they're all a bit light in the skull. There hasn't been a complete investigation yet, let alone a trial where all the evidence is presented, and we've already got millions of judge/jury/executioner types spouting off.

When it comes time for this to go to trial for real, where will we even find impartial jurors? It's getting hard to imagine any result but declaration of mistrial, Zimmerman free to go.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I think it's embarrassing that there is a "left" and "right" in a potential murder trial and it reinforces my feeling that, in the 21st century, people still can't break away from their primitive tribal mindset.

That's my position too. Why you're putting that at the head of a reply to me, I don't know.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
The investigation is under way. Everyone needs to shut up and wait for the outcome. There will be riots no matter which way it goes if the public outrage machine keeps going like this.


Except there isn't an investigation under way. That's what people are mad about. That's why I don't get how this spilled into a right vs. left thing.

I have a theory, but rather than jumping to conclusions, I would like to hear someone make their case for why they're mad at people who are demanding Treyvon Martin's death be investigated by police.

So far it seems to be that the people pushing back are misinformed, either about whether the police are investigating (they aren't) or about what the people making noise about this are actually saying (apparently when people say "we want an arrest and investigation" these people hear "we want our pound of flesh").

As you said in the middle of your comment, there are people on "both sides" whose behavior has been reprehensible, but focusing on that kind of stuff is always a form of ad hominem. If Spike Lee does something bad because he's mad about this, it doesn't mean he was wrong to be mad in the first place.

I want to focus on the central dispute over the case, rather than try to litigate which "side's" advocates have acted most shamefully.

It is, by a long shot.

In reply to this comment by Darkhand:
Thank god there are more rational people here on Video Sift. I was starting to think it was becoming the minority.

OMFG, why is it so hard for you to see the FLAGRANT corruption that's going on here.

It's not like the police arrived, saw the "fight" ending, observed that Zimmerman was reasonably threatened and was justified in shooting, then interviewed and released him.

The cops lied. They failed to collect crucial evidence. The Sanford City Police INTIMIDATED WITNESSES FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

This case is far from "usual" in the just sense.

[Altho, "privileged man gets of scot-free" is pretty usual in Scam-erica i.e. Goldman Sachs, etc. ..whoa channeling QM there a bit]

Stop being blinded by your fantasies. The United States isn't a Just or Fair or Equal place.

It never has been, and as long as fools like you keep eating the crocks of shit the Oligarchs hand to you.. it never will be.


>> ^Darkhand:


If someone could tell me how long it usually takes a murder suspect to be put on trial I would be interested in learning. To me it seems like people get arrested and then it's months before the case comes to the courts. Having said that this case feels like a natural progression so far.
If they didn't find a reason to arrest him they aren't going to do an about face all of the sudden. They're going to wait till they have their case together then arrest him which I figure will be about the end of April?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

I called Zimmerman was he is, a murder and a scumbag.
Zimmerman is very clearly guilty of murder.
But of course, legal moralists like you and edgeman are gonna defend this whole "The United States is a nation of Laws" bullshit. "We have to let the system runs its course."
Stop pretending like "innocent until proven guilty" means anything.
It's just empty rhetoric you've been indoctrinated with so you'll comply with this fucked up judicial system.
What kind of society puts INNOCENT people on trial?

How do you propose we determine guilt or innocence without a trial?

Kindly go fuck yourself overcast. I never called for vigilante justice so don't try to put words in my mouth.

I called Zimmerman was he is, a murder and a scumbag. I never called for his lynching.

Zimmerman is very clearly guilty of murder.

But of course, legal moralists like you and edgeman are gonna defend this whole "The United States is a nation of Laws" bullshit. "We have to let the system runs its course."

That shit is same reason why Goldman Sachs, etc. stole all our tax dollars and will never be brought to trial for it.

"Well if it's not illegal or there's no evidence to prosecute them then.. what are we supposed to do about?"

Stop pretending like "innocent until proven guilty" means anything.

It's just empty rhetoric you've been indoctrinated with so you'll comply with this fucked up judicial system.

Think about it Overcast and @Edgeman2112. What kind of society puts INNOCENT people on trial?

It's all a game and scumbags like Zimmerman's retired judge father know how to play to win. i.e. get away with murder



>> ^xxovercastxx:


innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is not "defending" anyone; it's the foundation of our legal system.
If it was up to people like you he'd have been strung up in a tree in the public square 3 weeks ago.

>> ^jwray:

dead


Thanks, all fixed now.

There was a case somewhere in the States, my feeling is a large southern California city, where the legal system was found to be discriminatory. The evidence in a nutshell was the low number of cocaine prosecutions vs. the high number of crack prosecutions. The only significant factor separating the two was the demographics of the groups who used the drugs: affluent whites using cocaine, and poor minorities using crack.>> ^longde:
I somewhat agree, but I think that if drug possession and sales laws were enforced uniformly across demographics, you'd see those stats equalize quickly. Drug enforcement alone accounts for most of the 'criminality' on record anyway.

Nobody who's thinking straight has a problem with any criminals getting what they deserve, and if more of them are black, then so be it, if that's what the demographics predict. But they don't, not to the degree that they are arrested and tried. The issue here of Martin vs. Zimmerman has nothing to do with the demographics of poverty. Whether the police reverse profiled Zimmerman, or they were told to let him go because Zimmerman's father was a judge, or there was some other story at play here, the fact remains that if Martin were white and Zimmerman were black, Zimmerman would be in jail. And that's got nothing to do with poverty.>> ^Jinx:

I think even if you could remove the bias from the law enforcement etc you'd still see more black criminals than any other ethnic group. I don't mean to suggest that black men are somehow genetically predisposed to becoming criminals, just that if you're black you're more likely to be growing up in poverty where there is a culture of crime.

I somewhat agree, but I think that if drug possession and sales laws were enforced uniformly across demographics, you'd see those stats equalize quickly. Drug enforcement alone accounts for most of the 'criminality' on record anyway.>> ^Jinx:

I think even if you could remove the bias from the law enforcement etc you'd still see more black criminals than any other ethnic group. I don't mean to suggest that black men are somehow genetically predisposed to becoming criminals, just that if you're black you're more likely to be growing up in poverty where there is a culture of crime. Meanwhile the income gap widens, the jobs thin and go overseas, half your friends enlist and become a legionnaire for an empire that doesn't give a shit about them (maybe they'll earn their citizenship?), and the other half justify their crime on the basis society isn't just to them.
Not that I don't believe that there is bias among those responsible for arrests and convictions, just that I don't think their bias is entirely baseless. Racist perhaps, certainly lazy and definitely not doing anybody any favours in the long run. Yo lets lock this kid up for Mari possession so when he comes out he'll have even less job prospects but a few contacts from his jail time.
I've no idea why that Republican tries to deflect onto car accidents. Yes, they are equally tragic and certainly worthy of attention, but this Trayvon case is a PERFECT case study of the race issues in America and I'm glad its getting attention. He did make a pretty good point though, it seems America has this sort of dichotomous ideologies where its always "us vs them". Blackvswhite, RichvsPoor, DemocratvsRepublican. I think some jump to defend Zimmerman EVEN though deep down they know its wrong purely because defending him is consistent with their ideology. Probably goes the other way too, to an extent (although not so much on this issue I feel...).