Jenksismyhero Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 03:54 PM) yes, that's fair. An unarmed kid getting gunned down isn't a big deal, and there's no reason for outrage when the person who did it walks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 03:53 PM) But that decision should be made by a jury, not by a Prosecutor who is concerned about their conviction ratio. Actually part of our system is the prosecutor can't just charge people and let juries sort it out. We have demanded that prosecutors be more careful than that. It is a waste of taxpayer money and clogs our courts. And I am not specifically stating that applies to this case, just to the idea that prosecutors should prosecute first and ask questions later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 You know, I'll just add too that it's odd to me that someone like Balta (liberal-commie....j/k!) is probably on the other side of the fence when it comes to the death penalty because it's rare to have a case where it's 100% certain that someone did the crime, and in some cases because of DNA testing and whatnot convictions have been overturned. So in those cases it's "NEVER assume anything, ALWAYS assume that the evidence is wrong and the person is 100% innocent." But in this case it's absolutely flipped. We STILL do not know exactly what happened, it's all a bunch of reports, which if the last Illinois men's basketball coaching search taught me anything, it's that reporting and journalism is pretty f***ing worthless these days. Even so, he's 100% guilty and a dirty racist to boot, and now he's going to go scot-free and this just proves that all whites hate all blacks and the world will end in 21 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 05:09 PM) You know, I'll just add too that it's odd to me that someone like Balta (liberal-commie....j/k!) is probably on the other side of the fence when it comes to the death penalty because it's rare to have a case where it's 100% certain that someone did the crime, and in some cases because of DNA testing and whatnot convictions have been overturned. So in those cases it's "NEVER assume anything, ALWAYS assume that the evidence is wrong and the person is 100% innocent." But in this case it's absolutely flipped. We STILL do not know exactly what happened, it's all a bunch of reports, which if the last Illinois men's basketball coaching search taught me anything, it's that reporting and journalism is pretty f***ing worthless these days. Even so, he's 100% guilty and a dirty racist to boot, and now he's going to go scot-free and this just proves that all whites hate all blacks and the world will end in 21 days. I think it's pretty 100% clear that the kid is dead. Do you disagree? You shouldn't be able to chase a kid and wind up gunning them down without punishment. I don't care what the details are, the part everyone agrees to, the part documented by recorded phone conversations, says that is what happened. If it's legal to do that, because some stupid state has decided that everyone should be armed to the teeth, then that state is wrong and people shouldn't be armed to the teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 04:09 PM) You know, I'll just add too that it's odd to me that someone like Balta (liberal-commie....j/k!) is probably on the other side of the fence when it comes to the death penalty because it's rare to have a case where it's 100% certain that someone did the crime, and in some cases because of DNA testing and whatnot convictions have been overturned. So in those cases it's "NEVER assume anything, ALWAYS assume that the evidence is wrong and the person is 100% innocent." But in this case it's absolutely flipped. We STILL do not know exactly what happened, it's all a bunch of reports, which if the last Illinois men's basketball coaching search taught me anything, it's that reporting and journalism is pretty f***ing worthless these days. Even so, he's 100% guilty and a dirty racist to boot, and now he's going to go scot-free and this just proves that all whites hate all blacks and the world will end in 21 days. Jenks that is an awesome post. You tossed in everything from Illini basketball to commies. I have no f***ing idea what you meant, but I loved reading it. I think I agree with most of your thoughts, but I did get a little lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 04:11 PM) I think it's pretty 100% clear that the kid is dead. Do you disagree? You shouldn't be able to chase a kid and wind up gunning them down without punishment. I don't care what the details are, the part everyone agrees to, the part documented by recorded phone conversations, says that is what happened. If it's legal to do that, because some stupid state has decided that everyone should be armed to the teeth, then that state is wrong and people shouldn't be armed to the teeth. I agree. Here is the but . . . The problem is in writing the law you should be allowed to chase a criminal* and stop him. You should not have to run because some criminal punk is in your neighborhood. Now write a law that allows me to follow someone who will commit a crime while not following someone who will not be committing a crime. I do not believe it can be done. But recognize that there are law abiding citizens who want to take back their neighborhoods. They are tired of watching criminals out their closed windows because they are required by law to give the criminals the streets. The old law requires us to run away from criminals. That ain't right either**. *We know Martin was not a criminal now. ** Earning my screen name lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 04:00 PM) Actually part of our system is the prosecutor can't just charge people and let juries sort it out. We have demanded that prosecutors be more careful than that. It is a waste of taxpayer money and clogs our courts. And I am not specifically stating that applies to this case, just to the idea that prosecutors should prosecute first and ask questions later. Thats not what I mean. Prosecutors want to have a conviction rate north of 95%. They basically take no risks. That isnt justice, thats putting your career first. With Zimmerman, they know he wont plea, thus they have to go to trial. At trial (if its a jury) conviction rate goes down to about 75%. This is a no win position. If you win, you did what you were supposed to, if you lose, its a failure. Edited April 10, 2012 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Zimmerman's legal team has declared that they apparently no longer represent him as they've lost contact with him. Attorneys for neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, who authorities say fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Florida, said Tuesday they have lost contact with their client and will no longer represent him. "He has gone on his own. I'm not sure what he's doing or who he's talking to," legal adviser Craig Sonner said. "If he wants us to come back as counsel, he will contact us." Sonner, who said the last time they had contact with Zimmerman was Sunday, spoke to reporters in Florida with attorney Hal Uhrig. Uhrig said Zimmerman contacted the office of the special prosecutor appointed to lead the investigation on his own. "One of the things every defense attorney tells his client is don't talk to the prosecutors," said Uhrig, adding that he is concerned about his former client's "emotional and physical safety." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 10, 2012 Author Share Posted April 10, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 04:09 PM) You know, I'll just add too that it's odd to me that someone like Balta (liberal-commie....j/k!) is probably on the other side of the fence when it comes to the death penalty because it's rare to have a case where it's 100% certain that someone did the crime, and in some cases because of DNA testing and whatnot convictions have been overturned. So in those cases it's "NEVER assume anything, ALWAYS assume that the evidence is wrong and the person is 100% innocent." But in this case it's absolutely flipped. We STILL do not know exactly what happened, it's all a bunch of reports, which if the last Illinois men's basketball coaching search taught me anything, it's that reporting and journalism is pretty f***ing worthless these days. Even so, he's 100% guilty and a dirty racist to boot, and now he's going to go scot-free and this just proves that all whites hate all blacks and the world will end in 21 days. We know that George Zimmerman admitted to shooting Trayvon Martin, does not deny doing so and did not confess under intense questioning but immediately after the crime! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 05:53 PM) Zimmerman's legal team has declared that they apparently no longer represent him as they've lost contact with him. Zimmerman's former legal team also stated that Zimmerman reached out directly to Sean Hannity for an off-the-record conversation. (also against their advice). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 10, 2012 Author Share Posted April 10, 2012 hahahha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Martin's family is raising the concern that Zimmerman is fleeing any possible prosecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 04:54 PM) We know that George Zimmerman admitted to shooting Trayvon Martin, does not deny doing so and did not confess under intense questioning but immediately after the crime! I just think it's dumb to assume that absolute worst when the investigation is still ongoing. If he ends up walking off into the sunset without any sort of trial or grand jury involvement, then fine, have at it. Until then, what's the point. Zimmerman shooting Martin and Martin ending up dead is not a slam dunk, getting away with murder case no matter how much you guys want to assume that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 04:13 PM) Jenks that is an awesome post. You tossed in everything from Illini basketball to commies. I have no f***ing idea what you meant, but I loved reading it. I think I agree with most of your thoughts, but I did get a little lost. I'm saying it's funny that in one situation you can never, ever believe what you're being told, even in the court of law, but in another situation every piece of speculation and hearsay evidence is 100% irrefutable proof that someone is going to get away with murder. I'm saying everyone just breath and calm the f*** down. Stop putting the cart before the horse. See the picture I posted above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 06:20 PM) I'm saying it's funny that in one situation you can never, ever believe what you're being told, even in the court of law, but in another situation every piece of speculation and hearsay evidence is 100% irrefutable proof that someone is going to get away with murder. I'm saying everyone just breath and calm the f*** down. Stop putting the cart before the horse. See the picture I posted above. I think I've been pretty consistent within this thread at saying you flat out can't believe the "Eyewitness" testimony of anyone involved in this case, except for the portion of it that was actively recorded. A kid is dead. The guy who shot him admitted to initiating things by stalking the kid and also admits to shooting him. This was also recorded. There ought to be a crime in there somewhere. If there isn't, then the law needs rewritten somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 05:24 PM) I think I've been pretty consistent within this thread at saying you flat out can't believe the "Eyewitness" testimony of anyone involved in this case, except for the portion of it that was actively recorded. A kid is dead. The guy who shot him admitted to initiating things by stalking the kid and also admits to shooting him. This was also recorded. There ought to be a crime in there somewhere. If there isn't, then the law needs rewritten somewhere. And you keep with this "stalking" crap. He followed the kid after he lost sight of him. There's nothing illegal about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 04:24 PM) I think I've been pretty consistent within this thread at saying you flat out can't believe the "Eyewitness" testimony of anyone involved in this case, except for the portion of it that was actively recorded. A kid is dead. The guy who shot him admitted to initiating things by stalking the kid and also admits to shooting him. This was also recorded. There ought to be a crime in there somewhere. If there isn't, then the law needs rewritten somewhere. You can keep saying this every day until you are blue in the face...but sometimes real life s*** happens that you just can't bend the law to address, as much as you'd like. How on earth would you write a law which would address what happened in this scenario, with what we reasonably can assume happened here, to convict him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 08:37 PM) You can keep saying this every day until you are blue in the face...but sometimes real life s*** happens that you just can't bend the law to address, as much as you'd like. How on earth would you write a law which would address what happened in this scenario, with what we reasonably can assume happened here, to convict him? Get rid of the gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 06:42 PM) Get rid of the gun. Unfortunately, that's in the Bill of Rights. Be realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 08:48 PM) Unfortunately, that's in the Bill of Rights. Be realistic. Doesn't need to be carrying everywhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 11, 2012 Author Share Posted April 11, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 05:19 PM) I just think it's dumb to assume that absolute worst when the investigation is still ongoing. If he ends up walking off into the sunset without any sort of trial or grand jury involvement, then fine, have at it. Until then, what's the point. Zimmerman shooting Martin and Martin ending up dead is not a slam dunk, getting away with murder case no matter how much you guys want to assume that. I don't know why some people still find this hard to grasp. If it hadn't been for the national outrage, George Zimmerman would have walked off into the sunset. The police weren't investigating. The DA wasn't pressing charges. If the media hadn't picked up this story, that was it. It was done. He was getting away from even being investigated or seriously questioned over shooting someone to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 07:51 PM) Doesn't need to be carrying everywhere Well you'll get no argument from me there, but I'm asking you to do it without significantly altering the current mix of rights...basically, draft a better law for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 11, 2012 Author Share Posted April 11, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 07:48 PM) Unfortunately, that's in the Bill of Rights. Be realistic. It wasn't (for sure) until about three years ago, nor was it for sure incorporated against the states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 07:58 PM) It wasn't (for sure) until about three years ago, nor was it for sure incorporated against the states. Again, you'll get no argument from me in re c&c laws...but that's not the point...if you're going to fault the law (without simultaneously asking to fundamentally change it), then draft a better law for me. If your answer is we need to disallow c&c laws entirely, that's a completely different argument and there is absolutely no point in discussing the nuance of this particular Florida law or this particular type of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 06:19 PM) I just think it's dumb to assume that absolute worst when the investigation is still ongoing. If he ends up walking off into the sunset without any sort of trial or grand jury involvement, then fine, have at it. Until then, what's the point. Zimmerman shooting Martin and Martin ending up dead is not a slam dunk, getting away with murder case no matter how much you guys want to assume that. Oh, and the special prosecutor decided yesterday not to take this case to a grand jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts