compare it to kids killed in traffic? seriously? accidents vs. a deliberate action? what a sucker.

*nsfw

This video has been flagged as being Not Suitable For Work - declared nsfw by brycewi19.

This was a very scatter shot discussion that covered nearly nothing of the Zimmerman/Martin story. It was like all 3 of the people on the left didn't know information about the case or were afraid to say anything outright.

Does the tape PROVE anything...it looks like it does is that enough? I don't know the timeline of events but if this was after a hospital visit and a change of clothes that would explain it. If he had a doctor who charted his wounds then maybe he's got a defense. So far though we have THIS TAPE and his word...bullshit.

He never went to the hospital, he was said to have been wearing a red sweatshirt by witnesses. He was seen by paramedics, you'll notice one of the officers made note of him telling the paramedics that he was yelling for help in other reports.

He went to the hospital the day after according to lawyers.

And the time line is to be best of my ability to get times from various things.

7:30 police arrived
7:40 Martin declared dead
7:55 we see him show up on this tape
10PMish he was released.

So he was at the police station for a little over 2 hours....whole fiasco took about 3 hours.

He didn't walk police through the events until the next day.

Martin's parents filed missing person report on the 27th (day after event). Were informed of Trayvon's death on the 28th. So police hadn't even figured out Trayvon had some reason for being there until at least the 27th with the report being filed.

Innocent until proven guilty. We can't deevolve into a mob mentality.

@Edgeman2112

Don't forget "Proof beyond reasonable doubt".

The only doubt left was whether or not Zimmerman was being attacked viciously enough to warrant killing Trayvon.

This video shows if Zimmerman was attacked, his life wasn't being threaten.

Zimmerman is guilty of stalking and murdering a child. He should be in prison, plain and simple.

Stop defending a scumbag.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Stop defending a scumbag.

Suggesting that Zimmerman needs to be tried by a jury of his peers and that he is 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.

Let's not forget where the outrage is coming from: it's due to the fact that the entities and people responsible for upholding the foundations of our legal system are not doing their job. It's far from the first time either. This behavior is routine, in fact.

The police and prosecutors should start doing their jobs, the right way, across the board. If not, I may start to favor the mob route. I get tired of seeing one group of people aggressively arrested and prosecuted and having the book thrown at them, while other groups get slapped on the wrist and given 2nd, 3rd, ..99th chances for the same stuff.

.

@quantumushroom This case is an example of why when you pull out comparable crime statistics that say blacks commit the most crimes, I discount it highly. From what I see, the people who are responsible for the arrest and conviction results that underline that data have a strong bias even in the face of hard evidence. And always act on that bias to tilt the scales.

A: We're not convicting Zimmerman in a legal system, and we're not deciding whether or not to murder him in his sleep. We're just some shmucks talking about the evidence we have. Nothing wrong with that. And further...

B: the issue here is that the legal system itself is failing. Considering that, waiting for a conviction from that same legal system and deciding what happened based on that is exactly the wrong thing for us to do.>> ^Edgeman2112:

Innocent until proven guilty. We can't deevolve into a mob mentality.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Stop defending a scumbag.
Suggesting that Zimmerman needs to be tried by a jury of his peers and that he is 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.


Thank god there are more rational people here on Video Sift. I was starting to think it was becoming the minority.

>> ^messenger:
B: the issue here is that the legal system itself is failing. Considering that, waiting for a conviction from that same legal system and deciding what happened based on that is exactly the wrong thing for us to do.>> ^Edgeman2112:
Innocent until proven guilty. We can't deevolve into a mob mentality.



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?

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...).

We already know the local cops botched the investigation. That is the sole reason Zimmerman has not been arrested.

It would be entirely reasonable to have Zimmy arrested now, especially for flight concerns (since his family has lied to officials and the public, and hired spokespeople to lie as well, I don't see why they wouldn't put Zimmerman on a plane to Brazil first chance).

That said, I do see the need for the new prosecution team to get all their ducks in a row, so they don't screw this up on a technicality. Especially since the evidence is probably tainted due to the "work" of the Sanford police. I suspect it is taking so long because the state has to salvage the investigation to glean what is useful at trial.

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...).

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.

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.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jwray.

"This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy against spam, scams, and commercially deceptive content."

Bullshit!

>> ^jwray:

dead


Thanks, all fixed now.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by Fletch.

Thanks, @Fletch.

If you think about how blacks have been historically treated in this country, up to and including modern day. Yeah it's understandable that they tend to commit more crime than whites. We treat them like shit, we treat them like second class citizens. If the situations were reversed and it were whites that were slaves only up until the last 100+ years, you might understand why.

Racism *IS* slowly dying. More and more people inter-marry. More and more people grow up living and playing with friends of a different race. Every generation will be more tolerant than the last. But racism is not dead yet. It never will be completely dead. there is always going to be someone who pre judges.

Sad truth is though, that if you are an old person, odds are you were raised in a time where it was perfectly acceptable to treat "the colored folk" like scum and you drank out of separate water fountains. That mentality doesn't go away just because a law says that they have equal rights.

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.

>> ^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?

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?

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?

The justice system is in need of overhaul. Bill Maher spoke about this a month or two ago. The current justice system doesn't determine what The Truth is. It determines who the best arguers are. It also rewards those who spend the most money, just like our elections.

The problem is, aside from excising money from the justice system, we don't really have a better way of determining justice. There is always going to be someone who "gets away with murder" and there are always going to be someone who gets sent to prison or put to death for a crime they didn't commit.

Welcome to the real world, where there are no guarantees. Until we come up with a better system, we are dependent on people doing their due diligence and we are depending on people to have integrity, but it just doesn't always happen. All you can do is to do your best. It's part of being human.

It's just going to be that way until we figure out a way to read people's memories to see what they really witnessed to find out if they're lying or not. or we learn how to time travel and go back and observe what really happened. or some other sci fi way of determining true or false.

>> ^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?

>> ^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.

I can actually imagine permutations of the sequence of events that would lead one down Zimmerman's logic, up to and including shooting Trayvon.

... and in not ONE of these scenarios is Zimmerman NOT guilty of manslaughter.

He made a mistake and should he admit it, maybe deserves some chance at redemption. I don't see him admitting it though, thats the thing -- he thought he was right.

If he was capable of thinking otherwise, we wouldnt be here at all.

Explain what? There, does that help?

Sorry. I figured you could distinguish between the process of investigation and the pomp of a court trial.

If you comprehend that, you'll know exactly why I refer to trials as a ritual/ceremony.

If you don't, ask yourself how forcing both parties and 12 random people to sit in designated areas while some lawyer in a priest's gown hands out decrees has any bearing on the evidence.

So to reiterate, Evidence alone establishes "guilt". [or the level of obligation to repay suffering cause by one's actions.]

In this case, the evidence is overwhelming.



>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Evidence.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

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

... and in not ONE of these scenarios is Zimmerman NOT guilty of manslaughter.

It is very likely that Zimmerman would be guilty of voluntary manslaughter in some other state, but in this particular case Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law provides a very clear defense against the charge of manslaughter. I'm not trying to make any comment on whether the law is good or bad. I merely state the fact that the law was in effect at the time of the incident.

"A person ... who is attacked ... has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself... A person who uses force as permitted ... is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil actionfor the use of such force..."

That's the law. The general consensus appears to be that Martin and Zimmerman got involved in an altercation. In that altercation, Martin was pounding on Zimmerman, broke his nose, and did some damage to the back of his head. It is going to be VERY hard (legally) to prove that that Zimmerman had no reasonable cause to think he might have experienced "great bodily harm" while Martin was in the process of inflicting "bodily harm". The way I see it, this whole investigation is very much going to come down to a bunch of lawyers arguing over the word "great".

Bill Maher? As usual, he's a total fool and total tool. The only point he ever has is the one on his head, which perfectly fits his dunce cap.

Naw, the guy who even wrote the law says it is not applicable here because he followed trayvon.

You can't stand your ground after you've moved it already in pursuit.

Pursuit + Negligence = Stand your Ground does not apply = manslaughter soon.

The account of events as discussed suggests that at the time of the altercation, Zimmerman was no longer 'in pursuit' but was heading back to his vehicle. If that is the case, then SYG applies. That's the line that Zimmerman's camp is going to follow anyway. It's a solid defense that could very well - as some have said - let him "walk" with only an investigation and no trial at all.

This is why you have the other camp desperately pumping agenda-driven narratives into the mix. They know if they can gin up enough outrage they'll get a trial when otherwise it would have just been thrown out or languish in proceedural limbo. And then there's the human flotsam like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the rest of the professional bigots of the race-shakedown industry. They don't care jack-squat about Zimmerman, Martin or anything else. This is just thier bread & butter - getting people angry so they can make money... The slimeballs are literal carrion fowl.

Naw. Thanks for playin. Go login to your bobknight account


"we don't need you to do that"

"ok"

... fin.


The only person who had rights under the Stand Your Ground law was Trayvon. His inexperience in not choosing the utmost discretion when a lunatic is following him does not make him a deadly threat at any point. It makes him a kid... and it makes George Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter

While I can agree that Sharpton and Jackson are just opportunists looking for their next ambulance to chase.

And while I can see your point PP, Vaire's point still stands. Zimmerman instigated the situation from the start. Even if you're right and Martin jumped Zimmerman on his way to the car, Martin was provoked by Zimmerman following him in the first place.

If SYG applies, it sets a horrible precedence. You can instigate a fight, let the guy pound on you, and viola, you're free to kill!

Aaaaand yet one more further detail on the level of media irresponsibility on this whole thing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YOt1wEDy0SI

So far we have three news outlets (NBC, CBS, and CNN) who have all had to either retract blatant falsehoods they reported or correct misleading reports they previously made. In all three cases, the corrections have had to admit that things that were SAID to be evidence of racism turned out to be either gross exaggerations, or outright falsehoods. This is starting to sound like the Duke LaCrosse case all over again.

Zimmerman instigated the situation from the start. Even if you're right and Martin jumped Zimmerman on his way to the car, Martin was provoked by Zimmerman following him in the first place.

This statement is asserting that the act of following someone to see what they are doing gives the person being followed the legal right to commit an assault. However, if someone is following a suspicious person and the suspect begins an assault, the follower is NOT allowed to defend themselves. Just wanting to be clear on this point, because it sets a rather fascinating legal precedent where you can beat up anyone you think might be following you around and they aren't allowed to fight back.

If SYG applies, it sets a horrible precedence. You can instigate a fight, let the guy pound on you, and viola, you're free to kill

You may not like it, but Vaire is factually incorrect. Your sentence would be more accurate if it said, "It HAS SET a horrible precedent". This isn't some weird issue that's never happened before in the history of US legal jurisprudence. There are Stand Your Ground laws in a half-dozen states, and this kind of "turn around and kill your attacker" problem has been SUCCESSFULLY used to defend multiple of the world's Zimmermans. There are dozens of pages out there arguing this exact issue. Here are two...

http://www.slavinlawfirm.com/lawyer-attorney-1687102.html
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2012/03/trayvon-martin-and-the-initial-aggressor-issue.html

The argument that you and Vaire should be making is that there is DEBATE in the legal community about these SYG laws. And that's true. There are a butt-ton of legal arguments taking place in which it is argued that SYG laws are not "designed" to allow a person to instigate an attack and then kill the person who responds.

But to come out and say that SYG "did not apply" to Zimmerman is simply untrue. Any lawyer could very easily make that case. To say that there is "no way" a laywer could do that for Zimmerman is just plain flat-out-like-a-lizard-drinking wrong. They will do that. They HAVE done that. There are successful cases in precedent that codify it.

You can say, "We should change the law!". You can say, "It's a lousy law!". You can say, "That's totally unfair!". You can say, "That's stupid and they need to fix it." But you can't say, "It doesn't apply" because it does. As far as the Zimmerman case is concerned, there is no clarity on what happened yes. That's what the investigation is for. If - however - the investigation concludes that Zimmerman was justified by the SYG law then that's it. Boom. He'd be immune to both civil and criminal prosecution.