I understand what you are saying. What I don't understand is this: Other than admitting that he stopped the man for a LEGAL activity, what was the criminal activity he believed was taking place?

For Clarity: "Reasonable suspicion is defined by a set of factual circumstances that would lead a reasonable police officer to believe criminal activity is occurring. This is different from the probable cause (what a reasonable person would believe) required for an arrest, search, and seizure. If the stop and frisk gives rise to probable cause to believe the detainee has committed a crime, then the police officer should have the power to make a formal arrest and conduct a search of the person." If a citizen reports a suspicious person on the street to a police officer, that officer has every right to stop and determine that the individual is not in fact in the process of a criminal activity. The guy in this video was frankly wrong.

I think even, against his arguments, legalisation of drugs in any country would lead to a short-term increase in users. But at the same time it would generate taxes and CRIPPLE criminal activities in the long term.

I've looked at the numbers. Here's a better correlation: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

The studies have been done ad nauseum. They don't show any reliable (i.e. replicable) impact. IMO the data suggests it's better to attack the root causes of violence and criminal activity (e.g. poverty, parenting, education, mental health) than it is to wage a campaign of prohibition.

Australia has had great success in curbing gun violence. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1224/Could-the-US-learn-from-Australia-s-gun-control-laws

Also, a new study has found that the stand your ground laws are linked to increased homicide and have done nothing to deter criminal activity. http://www.npr.org/2013/01/02/167984117/-stand-your-ground-linked-to-increase-in-homicide

>> ^legacy0100:

I was actually referring to the woman's parenting job as her son was being raised, not her responsibility as a parent currently when he is all grown up.
The argument I'm making is that she's done a shitty job raising her son, hence why he's being chased by DEA agents. This is different from what you guys have pointed out which is that her responsibility as a parent stops once the child becomes an adult and makes his own decisions.
She has no control over her son's individual will as an adult, hence she is free from the blame of her son's criminal activity. But the original argument of her being a shitty parent still stands. The role of parent has an enormous impact on the child's cognitive development and their career choice. And at the end of the day she must live with the fact that she has raised a criminal.


That's a very absolute view on the world which is rarely made up of absolutes when it comes to people. Her son might just be a shithead, or her son might not have been the guy they were looking for thus no conviction/arrest.

I was actually referring to the woman's parenting job as her son was being raised, not her responsibility as a parent currently when he is all grown up.

The argument I'm making is that she's done a shitty job raising her son, hence why he's being chased by DEA agents. This is different from what you guys have pointed out which is that her responsibility as a parent stops once the child becomes an adult and makes his own decisions.

She has no control over her son's individual will as an adult, hence she is free from the blame of her son's criminal activity. But the original argument of her being a shitty parent still stands. The role of parent has an enormous impact on the child's cognitive development and their career choice. And at the end of the day she must live with the fact that she has raised a criminal.

Zimmerman should hope they release a lot of information done by both white and black investigators from all over. If he doesn't get some very public information showing that they can't find evidence to arrest him or put him before a jury and convince them. The only thing that is going to allow him to live any sort of life after this is that kind of public release with many of the investigators involved saying the same exact thing....no discrepancies and no one better be left saying the police didn't interview them. No one should say the security cameras were not checked. No one should say phone records were not collected. The botched investigation has at much to do with the outrage as Zimmerman chasing down Trayvon and killing him. If the investigation were done properly there would not be all of this doubt and intrigue around the case, buy they know they screwed up, otherwise they would have come forward with the information instead of getting outside investigations into it. Or someone knows they screwed up, and ordered it that way to cover their ass.


The racism part of it will never be satisfied to any sort of middle ground for most people...just is not going to happen at this point.

If they fail to do all of this one more time, Zimmerman will be screwed. I don't even think witness protection would keep people from recognizing him for quite awhile after this, if he could get it.

And shang, I don't believe you. I've seen other people say a lot of these things and anything they point to gets debunked a day later.

If they had eye witness reports of Trayvon attacking Zimmerman, they would not have news reports saying there is about a minute of unknown sequence of events between the 911 call ending and a witness seeing Zimmerman on his back with Trayvon on top.

Trayvon has no arrest record that has ever come out. There ARE people making claims that he has a "criminal activity record", making it sounds like a police record. But when questioned the best they can come up with is that the school suspended him for....... and even a lot of that is made up and debunked after the news "breaks" it and they have to retract their claims. Zimmerman has 4 case records, 2 are related to him having an encounter with an officer where he got PTD. 2 are related to domestic violence case in civil court. So he has been arrested and taken what amounts to a "get your shit straight or be found guilty" program in lieu of trial for it being his first offense.

According to a witness, Zimmerman was not found on the ground when police arrived. He was standing over Trayvon just moments after he shot him. Police found him this way. Otherwise, Trayvon would have been laying on top of him if he was still found on the ground..since Trayvon was on top of him during the fight and supposedly when he shot and killed him.

SYG has stipulations for home defense in line with Castle Doctrine, but it does not apply here unless they have unreleased information saying that he was trying to defend his vehicle. I am of the opinion that Trayvon Martin should be covered under SYG, but I won't post all that here...it's in another sift on here regarding TYT covering the case.

So, she started the encounter by doing something extremely annoying and illegal, got caught doing it on video tape. Then FOLLOWED the guy who caught her, bringing her husband along. They put their hands on the guy AND threatened to file false charges against him. And all of this got caught on tape.

And the guy posted the video online and people are arguing that she shouldn't be identified because someone might make a threatening phone call to her. Where this woman and her husband FOLLOWED the guy down the block and threatened him.

This is the kind of mentality that allows criminal activity to take root in your neighborhood. It's not this guys job to protect her from what her words and actions incite in others. Maybe there's a better way to release the info, but we don't know if he went to the police with it and was ignored or if he felt she just deserved it to be made public because she has a pattern of behavior.

You know she'd be raging if you parked your car on the sidewalk so no one could get into her shop.

>> ^Encumberance:

The fact that it is all legal gets me.

I think a combination of rarity, expense, and just plain impracticality is why these things are legal.
Besides, while it may be legal to own one, mounting something like that 50 BMG on your car is probably not legal. These weapons might be big and scary but not suitable for common criminal activities like robbing banks and knocking over convenience stores, subtly is not a common feature of these weapons.
On another note, I wonder how full those gas cans were? Less would be better I imagine since fumes go up easier than the liquid.

Enforcing the law is not an abuse of power. If your car is parked more than 12 inches away from the curb, you're breaking the law. It doesn't matter if it's 12.5 inches or 20 inches. The law's the law. As for selective enforcement, I'm not really sure how else you can enforce the law. There are a finite number of cops and each one can only monitor a very limited area at any given time. They can't monitor everything and everyone unless the government installs optical implants into everyone's head and uses a highly advanced AI to monitor the feeds and filter out criminal activities. Until that happens, the police will have to pick and choose. Is it wrong that they chose to monitor this particular neighborhood? No, not really. It might be inconvenient for those who like to break the law but them's the breaks.

Bottom line is that the cars wouldn't have been ticketed if they had obeyed the law. If you think the law is fundamentally unjust and should never be enforced, write to your favorite politician and voice your opinion. But don't complain when laws are enforced.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^JiggaJonson:
>> ^Sarzy:
Umm... I know we're supposed to automatically be outraged in cases like this, but if I have the story right, the man was pointing an AR-15 at the cops as they came through the door. Google that -- it's a pretty serious looking gun. Were the police supposed to wait until he started shooting at them and only then fire back? They had the siren going before they came in, they yelled something before they broke the door down, so what else were they supposed to do (other than not be there at all)?

What they were supposed to do, is try to get the man out of the house through some non-violent means.

So the fact that the man had an enormous assault rifle and was pointing it at the cops as they came in the door means nothing?
All I'm saying is that I don't think the cops who actually pulled the trigger are at fault here. Should they have even been there in the first place? Probably not. But that's not their call. Someone should be held accountable for this, but it's not those cops.


Sure they are. Why did they lie and say he fired at them first? Why did they seal the search warrant after the case starting getting publicity? Why were they ignorant to the fact of who lived at the house? Why wasn't Guerena's name on the search warrant if he was a suspect of criminal activity? Why is paramilitary police busting down his door and 4 or 5 others that day for marijuana? (Forget the fact they found NOTHING) Why did they have the urgency to bust down his door but then the "SWAT" team decides to clear the house with some sort of robot? Why did they deny paramedics access to Guerena for over an hour? Why did they change their story multiple times and now claim he was a suspect for home invasions?

You seem to be giving the cops a pass and blaming their superiors. I guess we should've applied that to those Third Reich officers that were only following orders too. The cops took an oath to uphold the constitution, so any abridgement of the 4th amendment rests squarely on their shoulders. And any law enforcement agency that makes excuses for it or tries to hide the truth about it is utterly corrupt. Honest and moral people are not going to carry out the orders of tyrants. If the people in charge are violating The Law, then the subordinates by default are going to be lawless thugs "just following orders".

The SWAT team had a ballistic shield, busted the door, and stood on the outside shooting in. Guerena may have a had a gun pointed at them but he never fired and still had the safety on. The SWAT team never clearly identified who they were, and just starting shooting. Even if this wasn't Guerena and it was a drug smuggler with a house full of drugs and money, what the SWAT team did is straight up murder and disregard for human rights.

Cause:
-Even though in both cases bystanders receive informational confirmation of criminal activity, the more statistical indicators of crime that are present, the more urgency the situation acquires.
-Add rap music, the presence of weapons, gang tattoos, and other statistical signals of criminality, and the rate of intervention increases.
-This is the same reason why a woman doing the same thing would elicit a lower intervention rate.

>> ^gwiz665:
Innocent until proven guilty. That's a pretty important thing in a "free society".
>> ^SeesThruYou:
Wait, wait... this guy was a drug addict or drug dealer? If he was a drug addict, they should have gotten him some help for his addiction. If he was a drug DEALER, then they didn't shoot him fast enough or use enough bullets. Drug dealers are not human beings and shouldn't have any fucking rights. I'm so sick of fucking pussy-ass liberal fags supporting criminal activity. "Waaahhhh! The big bad police are hurting all the drug dealers, rapists, and murderers!!! How dare they! Waaahhhhh!!! Where's my iPhone? I'm gunna call mommy Hillary!!!"



Sadly, we have the most laws and the highest amount of prision population in the world, per capita, and per period.

Innocent until proven guilty. That's a pretty important thing in a "free society".
>> ^SeesThruYou:

Wait, wait... this guy was a drug addict or drug dealer? If he was a drug addict, they should have gotten him some help for his addiction. If he was a drug DEALER, then they didn't shoot him fast enough or use enough bullets. Drug dealers are not human beings and shouldn't have any fucking rights. I'm so sick of fucking pussy-ass liberal fags supporting criminal activity. "Waaahhhh! The big bad police are hurting all the drug dealers, rapists, and murderers!!! How dare they! Waaahhhhh!!! Where's my iPhone? I'm gunna call mommy Hillary!!!"