News Stories

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

Good find, Urzu.

The only wanker in the story is the stalking Zimmerman disregarding a direct order. Whoever can be lead to think otherwise when reading all about the facts must be below 50 points of IQ, just like those members of the jury.

You're proving my point that on the flack the jury is taking.

A court is supposed to make a just ruling, in accordance to the law, and not necessarily the correct one. And definitely not necessarily a moral one.

Whether we think the law is moral or stupid or whatever is irrelevant, as long as the verdict is legally correct.

[Triple_R]

I'm pretty sure that the "coon" part of that 9/11 recording was later found to be inaccurate and part of a bad version of the tape. The actual word used was "criminal".

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

I'm pretty sure that the "coon" part of that 9/11 recording was later found to be inaccurate and part of a bad version of the tape. The actual word used was "criminal".

I'd like to see if the source of that info is accurate and if that is actually true, or if that is something made up by the Zimmerman supporters like some other things. Zimmerman supporters were trying to say that Zimmerman said "fucking punk" and they also tried to say that he said "It's fucking cold".

[GDB]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Again like I previously posted, the letter of the law is still the law whether it's stupid or not. He was acquitted because technically the law protected his right. The jury for what it's worth followed the law as a jury should. The claim made by some anti-racism groups (and I find the racism card to be hugely overblown) that they're a bunch of tools for letting him get away is an unfair call because the verdict was made in accordance to the law. If they followed the public outcry they'd be undermining the legal process.

People shouldn't be lynching the trial. They should be lynching the law.

That's what some people here have been pointing out. This case now gives precedence to starting a fight and then killing the other person on the grounds that you felt threatened.

Further, the only racism claim I've seen that makes true sense (rather than coincidence) is how a black woman used the same defense to merely fire warning shots, and was sentenced to 20 years for it. Even though the "victim" was her abusive husband who she had previously gotten a protective order from.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Again like I previously posted, the letter of the law is still the law whether it's stupid or not. He was acquitted because technically the law protected his right. The jury for what it's worth followed the law as a jury should. The claim made by some anti-racism groups (and I find the racism card to be hugely overblown) that they're a bunch of tools for letting him get away is an unfair call because the verdict was made in accordance to the law. If they followed the public outcry they'd be undermining the legal process.

People shouldn't be lynching the trial. They should be lynching the law.

I'm not mad at the jury members. I agree, they made the right call considering the law they had to consider.

First, I'm mad at Zimmerman for being a freaking bonehead, who couldn't just follow orders to not pursue Trayvon. It led to this whole mess causing social disharmony in the nation, and it led to the death of Trayvon.

Secondly, the stand your ground law is a law I'm against. I remember reading that questionable events like this case increased threefold in areas where the law came into effect.

@KiraYamato: Read this post. I am not mad at the Jury they were playing by the rules and made the right decision based on those things. Really, ideally, the jury should of had to tackle things differently. I think the trial was really put into Zimmerman's favor based on the foundations of the trial itself and what the trial was based around. The jury had to operate within the confines of this specific trial.

[MeoTwister5]

Which is why I've been saying that the energy of the outcry should be directed at modifying the wording and clauses of the law. IMO it shouldn't be necessarily repealed because it stands as a valid law for self defense, but the trial has shown just how much the law can be bent (abused?) to possibly justify all sorts of actions.

Right now people have been calling for the jury/judge/defense to be lynched, which is nothing more than downright lynch mob stupidity.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

I'd like to see if the source of that info is accurate and if that is actually true, or if that is something made up by the Zimmerman supporters like some other things. Zimmerman supporters were trying to say that Zimmerman said "fucking punk" and they also tried to say that he said "It's fucking cold".

Here is an old CNN report on it.

Admittedly, I misremembered. It was "punks", not "criminals".

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Which is why I've been saying that the energy of the outcry should be directed at modifying the wording and clauses of the law. IMO it shouldn't be necessarily repealed because it stands as a valid law for self defense, but the trial has shown just how much the law can be bent (abused?) to possibly justify all sorts of actions.

Perhaps they should add a clause that if you instigate a fight then you lose the right to claim self-defense if the person you fought gets killed or severely maimed?

That would discourage someone overzealous and reckless like Zimmerman, but still allow Neighborhood Watches to be effective in responding to crimes as they're actually happening.

[Urzu 7]

Okay, I would say after looking at some youtube videos, Zimmerman didn't saying "effing coons" on that phone call. What poor luck for him that the raw sound bite really does sound like that, though.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Which is why I've been saying that the energy of the outcry should be directed at modifying the wording and clauses of the law. IMO it shouldn't be necessarily repealed because it stands as a valid law for self defense, but the trial has shown just how much the law can be bent (abused?) to possibly justify all sorts of actions.

Right now people have been calling for the jury/judge/defense to be lynched, which is nothing more than downright lynch mob stupidity.

That. This. The jury did what the law said. All this trial and other recent incidents reveal is just what a disaster in wording these "stand your ground" laws are. But then they were written by politicians who often fail basic tests in grammar, logic, history, jurisprudence, ... in a word, largely stupid idiots who look good on camera and were well-packaged by their masters.

I should be able to defend myself or someone from mayhem/death using self-defense in their commission of a crime. An *argument* is much murkier but largely depends on who instigated the fight via provocation. The first bar fight I was ever in was over one of my buddies being harassed/grabbed by someone who thought he should be able to take her home whether she wanted to go or not. By grabbing/pulling her, he started the fight. Based on the last few trials involving "stand your ground", it looks like he would have walked legally if he shot us as the fight didn't go his way.

[ganbaru]

Insight: Smuggling rice to Thailand - like coals to Newcastle
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...96D0E520130714

Analysis: As China's economic pain increases, so does reform effort
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...96D0DY20130714

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Don't forget Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, your own President is taking sides without knowing the facts, the media portrays Trayvon as a sweet little 12 year old, instead of the 6'+ 17 year old.

I do hope you realize that this is how some view Zimmerman...





And that this is how some view Trayvon...





And you know, if Trayvon (who was fighting for his life, too) did keep smashing Zimmerman's head into the concrete and Zimmerman never got a chance to fire the shot and kill Trayvon and Zimmerman died that night instead, no doubt they would have arrested Trayvon that night (instead of how Zimmerman wasn't arrested right away, and that was ONLY after public outcry), and with no (very) flawed stand your ground law in his favor, no doubt he'd be locked away for a long time.

[JokerD]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

Good find, Urzu.

The only wanker in the story is the stalking Zimmerman disregarding a direct order. Whoever can be led to think otherwise when reading all about the facts must be below 50 points of IQ, just like those members of the jury.

I do think that the attack on the jury is uncalled for. As the judge said, they are supposed to judge the evidence given again the charges and the law. Liking or disliking the law itself is not for them to decide.

And on the 911 call, wasn't it said that he only offered that the guy following was black after promting from the dispatch?

[Urzu 7]

If Zimmerman didn't pursue the teen, but rather was just patrolling and then Trayvon instigated it all, it would change everything. But Zimmerman instigated it. Even if Trayvon did actually start the altercation, Zimmerman instigated things by stalking the teen and making him feel threatened and concerned for himself. That is so key as to why the weight should mostly fall on Zimmerman.

[MrTerrorist]

Stars pay tribute to Glee star Cory Monteith

Wow. That was tragic. Even though i lost interest with the show, it's sad to hear he died just when it seems his life was getting better. May he rest in peace and condolences to his co-star and girlfriend Lea Michele.

[Vexx]

Here's the Texas escort case where the defense argued the man was "just trying to get his money back because he thought escort==prostitution" shot the woman, she died later, and he walked free. He shot her as she was leaving in a car after refusing to have illegal sex with him, because she was actually an escort.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...er-4581027.php

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...ho_wouldn.html

It is reasonable to be suspicious that prejudice based on her gender, race, or occupation led to that injustice as well. Apparently the jury thought getting his money back was more important than her being forced to perform an illegal act.

[MrTerrorist]

Ok that is just stupid. The man murdered a woman who didn't want to have sex him just because he thought she was a prostitute which was illegal.
Furthermore, in states where prostitution is legal, the prostitutes may choose to whether or not have sex with the client. Even if the escort was a prostitute, it is in her rights to refuse service.
No amount of money is worth in killing another person.

[Vexx]

Well, part of his defense was that he wasn't intending to kill her as he shot his weapon at her car (after she refused to do perform illegal sex acts with him ... which I'll repeat were not part of the escort deal anyway).

Any gun owner should be smacking their head at that little stupid bit of rationalization. If you point and fire a weapon at a car, you are firing at the person inside the car as well. Intent my ass, so to speak.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/10/opinio...exas-craziness

Basically, this:

During closing arguments Tuesday, Gilbert's defense team conceded the shooting did occur but said the intent wasn't to kill. Gilbert's actions were justified, they argued, because he was trying to retrieve stolen property: the $150 he paid Frago. It became theft when she refused to have sex with him or give the money back, they said."
It became theft when she refused to have sex with him (because she's not a prostitute), even though she had spent time with him, which is what she was paid to do (because she's an escort), so he murdered her. Yes. That's what happened.

[Urzu 7]

Texas is pretty much as bad as Florida, all things considered. So he got away Scott free? There is no justice in this. The scumbag wanted a prostitute, shot at the woman because he wants his money and ends up killing her, and then he probably thinks he is entitled to the freedom he still has...

[maplehurry]

He lost $150 or more either way. To be more specific, he "lost" 150 if he didnt shoot. When he did shoot, he lost much more due to having to hire lawyer and negative news coverage and possible further penalty for soliciting prostitute that he admitted he committed. It's a lose-lose situation for both parties the moment he fired the shot. Human stupidity at its finest.

I posted this story on the "silly news" thread before btw, hehe.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by GDB

That's what some people here have been pointing out. This case now gives precedence to starting a fight and then killing the other person on the grounds that you felt threatened.

Further, the only racism claim I've seen that makes true sense (rather than coincidence) is how a black woman used the same defense to merely fire warning shots, and was sentenced to 20 years for it. Even though the "victim" was her abusive husband who she had previously gotten a protective order from.

According to his side of the story, she was

1) Aiming at his head.

2) Two children were nearby. Just saying.