Martin/Zimmerman

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Apr 11, 2013 1:21 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:It has just been a common position of his to discount the lack of opposing first-hand testimony. There are conflicting reports by witnesses, and conflicting interpretations of both parties actions. Yet only one party will be able to personally present his case to the jury.
There is no conflicting testimony in terms of his bloody nose and bloody head. We have the pictures. There is no conflicting testimony that Zimmerman was on the phone for over 4 minutes and the last 2 minutes of that he was clearly not following Martin. There is no conflicting testimony that Martin was aware of Zimmerman and that he could have easily gone home if he was fearful of him.


What conflicting reports am I relying upon?

What we do not know is why when he had the opportunity to avoid confrontation, did he choose not to? That is not to say that he even with absolute certain chose to confront Zimmerman. I believe he chose to based on many things we have learned. Why did you not go home Trayvon? We will never get to hear him offer a reason. Was the his girlfriends statement that he should run away because he was scared the truth or lies fed to her after the fact? If true, it really raises the question of why not go home? I just do not believe her. It makes no sense.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16432
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL


Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby High Sierras » Thu Apr 11, 2013 1:41 pm

WTN10 wrote:I would boot you for being an engineer, but not because you think objectively. This is not a knock, but just an observation: engineers do not think creatively or abstractly. The engineers I've interacted with have a great deal of difficulty interacting with abstract theories and creatively thinking about opposing viewpoints or positions. They are often dogmatic and concrete, unable to change despite the possibility that their position isn't as firm as they think it to be.

I cannot tell you how many times we've explained the theory of our case to one of our engineers and he still doesn't understand it. If it can't be measured, quantified, and run through a simulation, you might as well be speaking Chinese to him. So frustrating.

You're right, abstract theories (legal or otherwise) can not be measured, quantified or verified, so often you can not point out to the engineer what it is about his assesment of the case's theory is 'wrong' in your opinion. If you want to change their opinion, you better be able to point out definitively where their analysis is off.

I think part of the inculcation of becoming a good engineer (I can only speak about the civil engineering profession) is a sense of "Prove my solution to the problem was wrong." We're educated/trained to try to first understand what exactly the problem is, gather the known data pertaining to solving the problem, and then come up with the most effective solution to overcome the problem -- Creativity and emotions do not / should not enter into the solution. We leave the creativity part up to the architects. One example, if the bridge engineers in California had our way back in 1934, the Golden Gate probably would have been a simple strip of concrete running from SF to the Marin headlands, not the city-defining piece of architecture it is. It also would have been more like half the cost to build and maintain and carried twice the traffic load. The world would probably look a lot more like those cities in the former Soviet Union, functional but without form, if engineers ruled the world.

I'd bet that the engineer (assuming he's good at what he does) that frustrates you does understand it, he has just arrived at the conclusion that your theory is flat out wrong, so now it's up to you to show him where his assesment is off...and good luck with that!
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Apr 11, 2013 2:32 pm

High Sierras wrote:he has just arrived at the conclusion that your theory is flat out wrong
or not proven as he thought it was. However, we do speak a different language often.

BTW, I disagree somewhat with your assessment about what the world would look like. We very well might build the Golden Gate Bridge, but we would have no doubt that the reason was to make a city-defining piece of architecture and what the costs of doing that are. That decision is still a value judgment. However, I agree most of these decisions are made out of ignorance and if they were informed decisions it would have changed many of those decisions. I don't know about you, but I love architecture. I love iconic structures. I agree far too many of them are not worth anywhere close to what they cost which is more than money (i.e., massive amounts of hours wasted trying to get across the bay bridge because of reduced capacity).
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16432
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Apr 11, 2013 2:42 pm

High Sierras wrote: I'd be inclined to give Spinner the benefit of the doubt as to whether he would listen to the facts presented at the trial and perhaps re-formulate his opinions based on whatever facts he learns in the jury that the public at large don't know. I'm not sure where you're getting the vibe that Spinner has an attitude that he's already made up his mind and won't change it in light of further information that comes out during the trial.

Um, probably just a stereotypical, simplistic idiot's emotionally based misinterpretation of his opinion! Either that, or the fact that he emphatically stated that he already KNOWS that Zimmerman is not criminally liable! :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby High Sierras » Thu Apr 11, 2013 2:51 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
High Sierras wrote:he has just arrived at the conclusion that your theory is flat out wrong
or not proven as he thought it was. However, we do speak a different language often.

BTW, I disagree somewhat with your assessment about what the world would look like. We very well might build the Golden Gate Bridge, but we would have no doubt that the reason was to make a city-defining piece of architecture and what the costs of doing that are. That decision is still a value judgment. However, I agree most of these decisions are made out of ignorance and if they were informed decisions it would have changed many of those decisions. I don't know about you, but I love architecture. I love iconic structures. I agree far too many of them are not worth anywhere close to what they cost which is more than money (i.e., massive amounts of hours wasted trying to get across the bay bridge because of reduced capacity).

You sure you're not an Architect masquerading as an engineer??? :lol3:




Just kidding! Don't get me wrong, I also love good architecture, I just tend to frown upon spending the $$$ for it in publicly funded structures. I see so much taxpayer money being spent on politically-driven items that it really gets me torqued up when the state architect decides that spending even more taxpayer dollars to make a monument to himself at others expense is somehow a good thing.
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:02 pm

High Sierras wrote:I see so much taxpayer money being spent on politically-driven items that it really gets me torqued up when the state architect decides that spending even more taxpayer dollars to make a monument to himself at others expense
Chicago built a $500,000,000 park, but they did it the right way. They didn't get the taxpayers to pay. They shook down people that wanted to do business in Chicago for "donations" to the park :yes:

I agree completely. Especially about all the lies and incompetence that wildly underestimate the cost both of construction and maintenance.

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/6404.html
City officials originally estimated the park, designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, would cost $150 million, primarily for the garage and supporting foundation.

The enhancements also generated new expenses, which, combined with the addition of a $60 million renovation of the Grant Park North Garage and the underestimation of certain original costs, pushed the final price tag to approximately $475 million.

Major funding came from the Pritzker Foundation, the Crown Foundation, Ann Lurie, the William J. Wrigley Jr. Foundation, the Robert R. McCormick Tribune Foundation, BP America Inc., the Bank One Foundation, and SBC Corp.


And now the city has to pay the maintenance bill for a half billion dollar park, which was more than expected :eek: Ok, not really surprised at all.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16432
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Yuchi1 » Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:21 pm

WTN10 wrote:Sometimes companies settle to help people out. Saw a case settled one time where there was 0% liability on the part of the company, but the guy in charge said taking care of them was the "right thing to do."


IMO, this was likely a situation of where the insurance company's calculus indicated a threshold where the dead gang-banger wannabe's parents took the cash. From the media coverage I've observed, the kid wasn't even close to rigor mortis and his "parents" had already lined up counsel as they probably quickly ascertained his death was going to be a cash cow instead of a potential headache (per his criminal justice history, up to that point) and land them a nice payday.

I wonder if Florida has civil litigation protections in place (as we have in Oklahoma) should Zimmerman be exonerated? Might be why the parents took the Homeowner's Association insurance carrier's offer as a bird (or, cash) in hand is worth far more than a dead hoodlum lying in the grass.
Sent from my Sumerian tablets

Does the number of bands claimed simply mean you have an Ebay account?

FSH Pro Staffer

High Potentate, NSSB (no spinning shotcup brotherhood)
Yuchi1
hunter
 
Posts: 1659
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:15 pm
Location: Creek Nation of Oklahoma

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby WTN10 » Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:27 pm

The insurance company also has pockets. Zimmerman doesn't. They could get a judgment from him, but that doesn't mean they'll ever see much from it.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14149
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Yuchi1 » Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:33 pm

True, however, when Zimmerman does his book/movie deal, those pockets might weigh a tad more.
Sent from my Sumerian tablets

Does the number of bands claimed simply mean you have an Ebay account?

FSH Pro Staffer

High Potentate, NSSB (no spinning shotcup brotherhood)
Yuchi1
hunter
 
Posts: 1659
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:15 pm
Location: Creek Nation of Oklahoma

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:57 pm

Yuchi1 wrote: probably quickly ascertained his death was going to be a cash cow instead of a potential headache (per his criminal justice history, up to that point) and land them a nice payday.



Well considered, other than the fact that Zimmerman actually had a more checkered criminal past than Martin. Also interesting to note that you wouldn't consider seeking legal help if your son was killed under suspicious circumstances and the initial reaction was to write it off as a "justifiable homicide."
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Apr 11, 2013 4:26 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:the fact that Zimmerman actually had a more checkered criminal past than Martin

That is your OPINION. Neither had a spotless past, by any stretch.

However, which is relevant to the case.

Martin is suspected of basically casing the place for robbery by Zimmerman.

http://news.yahoo.com/police-investigated-trayvon-martin-over-jewelry-214702166.html
During a search of his backpack, the report said, campus security officers found 12 pieces of women's jewelry, a watch and a screwdriver that they felt could be used as a burglary tool.
:huh:

The Herald reported that when campus security confronted Martin with the jewelry, he told them that a friend had given it to him, but he wouldn't give a name.
Why wouldn't he give the friends name if all on the up and up? :huh:

How can you be so certain that Zimmerman's suspicions were unwarranted? Martin may well have been casing the place for opportunities. It certainly cannot be disproved any more than it can be proven.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/11808013-george-zimmermans-criminal-records-revealed
In 2005, Zimmerman was arrested and charged with "resisting officer with violence" and "battery of law enforcement officer." Both these felonies are considered third-degree. Due to his desperate attempts, the charges were reduced to "resisting officer without violence" and then the only remaining charge was also completely waived off when he entered an alcohol education program.

Any allegations that he was drinking that night? :huh:

That sounded like George's problem.

Trayvon's problems were the ones that appear more relevant.

That's not the fact, but just my opinion :thumbsup:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16432
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Apr 11, 2013 6:42 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:the fact that Zimmerman actually had a more checkered criminal past than Martin

That is your OPINION. Neither had a spotless past, by any stretch.

However, which is relevant to the case.

Martin is suspected of basically casing the place for robbery by Zimmerman.

http://news.yahoo.com/police-investigated-trayvon-martin-over-jewelry-214702166.html
During a search of his backpack, the report said, campus security officers found 12 pieces of women's jewelry, a watch and a screwdriver that they felt could be used as a burglary tool.
:huh:

The Herald reported that when campus security confronted Martin with the jewelry, he told them that a friend had given it to him, but he wouldn't give a name.
Why wouldn't he give the friends name if all on the up and up? :huh:

How can you be so certain that Zimmerman's suspicions were unwarranted? Martin may well have been casing the place for opportunities. It certainly cannot be disproved any more than it can be proven.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/11808013-george-zimmermans-criminal-records-revealed
In 2005, Zimmerman was arrested and charged with "resisting officer with violence" and "battery of law enforcement officer." Both these felonies are considered third-degree. Due to his desperate attempts, the charges were reduced to "resisting officer without violence" and then the only remaining charge was also completely waived off when he entered an alcohol education program.

Any allegations that he was drinking that night? :huh:

That sounded like George's problem.

Trayvon's problems were the ones that appear more relevant.

That's not the fact, but just my opinion :thumbsup:

Now we're talking! :lol3: :beer:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:39 pm

Now.....what are the odds Zimmerman is convicted of at least manslaughter?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby boney fingers » Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:26 am

Glimmerjim wrote:Now.....what are the odds Zimmerman is convicted of at least manslaughter?


About the same that OJ would walk. Do you remember the LA riots.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby assateague » Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:36 am

Trayvon made a poor decision.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:39 am

Glimmerjim wrote:Now.....what are the odds Zimmerman is convicted of at least manslaughter?

I don't believe they will convict him unless there is some way the prosecutor can stack the jury. The prosecutor overcharged for two reasons.

First to force Zimmerman to risk his entire life behind bars if he goes to trial and doesn't accept a plea bargain. I think this is a possibility. Would you risk the rest of your life behind bars with what boney said?

Second, they will never convict him on the murder charge, but if the prosecutor gets a good jury, they might agree to the lesser charge just to avoid a hung jury. Would you want to be the juror that set him free given what boney said?

Odds. I just don't know the jury pool. If he gets a bunch of white hispanics on his jury, he walks. If he gets 12 Obamas that somehow feel it is relevant that Martin looks like their mythical son, he gets convicted of murder.

I'll put it at 50/50 for a hung jury on the manslaughter. And split the difference on acquittal and conviction if there is a decision.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16432
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby boney fingers » Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:46 am

I believe they will have to give him something, they made the mistake of letting the LA cops walk. Some of us are old enough to remember what happened after that.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby assateague » Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:57 am

That's a piss poor reason for taking someone's freedom.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby assateague » Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:58 am

"Wait, people will engage in criminal acts if we don't do something to this guy who doesn't deserve it". The inmates really are running the asylum.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby boney fingers » Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:17 am

assateague wrote:That's a piss poor reason for taking someone's freedom.



Agreed, I hope Im wrong but I also have come to the conclusion that justice is no longer blind.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:31 am

Glimmerjim wrote:Now.....what are the odds Zimmerman is convicted of at least manslaughter?


SpinnerMan wrote: First to force Zimmerman to risk his entire life behind bars if he goes to trial and doesn't accept a plea bargain. I think this is a possibility. Would you risk the rest of your life behind bars with what boney said? ?

I agree that it is probably a necessary component of our over-taxed justice system, but that "plea-bargain" concept always chaffed my hide for just that reason. It can, and does, force a completely innocent person to accept guilt rather than face the possibility of more onerous punishment.


SpinnerMan wrote: Odds. I just don't know the jury pool. If he gets a bunch of white hispanics on his jury, he walks. If he gets 12 Obamas that somehow feel it is relevant that Martin looks like their mythical son, he gets convicted of murder. ?


Jeez. I sincerely hope it's not that simplistic and indicative of rampant cultural division, but I agree that history does show.....
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby assateague » Tue May 28, 2013 1:51 pm

So the judge has just ruled that photos from Trayvon's cell phone are not admissible. And that his history of violence, including school suspensions for violence was also not admissible. Some of the photos from his phone which are not admissible:

Image


Yes, it may be argued that none of these had anything to do with that night. Nor do I completely understand what makes certain things admissible or not. But to misportray someone as little Mr. Innocent teenager is just stupid. If the guy was "suspicious", then the whole reason for the confrontation is justified. And someone with pictures of weed, guns, school suspensions for drugs, violence, and having a bag full of ladies jewelry and a screwdriver pretty much tells me that he has demonstrated a fairly consistent pattern of criminality and poor judgement. Nor was he somewhere he was supposed to be, and perhaps he was up to no good.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue May 28, 2013 2:15 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:I agree that it is probably a necessary component of our over-taxed justice system, but that "plea-bargain" concept always chaffed my hide for just that reason. It can, and does, force a completely innocent person to accept guilt rather than face the possibility of more onerous punishment.
It's not the plea bargaining that is the problem. It is the overcharging and prosecutors acting more like the guy carrying the rope for a lynch mob which is exactly what is happening here. The accused (Zimmerman) gets ALL of the benefit of the doubt. You know that quaint notion of the presumption of innocence and all that Victorian Utopian nonsense. A government sanctioned lynch mob is still a lynch mob and just because a politician is worried about the next election is no excuse. If you give the accused the benefit of the doubt in this case, you do exactly like was done before the lynch mob arrived and he walks. He was bloodied and beaten and there were witnesses that supported his claim. Then the lynch mob showed up and well, you know how lynch mobs are. They are not prone to give anyone any benefit of any doubt.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16432
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue May 28, 2013 2:25 pm

Glimmerjim wrote: I agree that it is probably a necessary component of our over-taxed justice system, but that "plea-bargain" concept always chaffed my hide for just that reason. It can, and does, force a completely innocent person to accept guilt rather than face the possibility of more onerous punishment.



SpinnerMan wrote: It's not the plea bargaining that is the problem.



Perhaps not THE problem, but it is a problem as in the example cited.

SpinnerMan wrote: It is the overcharging and prosecutors acting more like the guy carrying the rope for a lynch mob which is exactly what is happening here. The accused (Zimmerman) gets ALL of the benefit of the doubt. You know that quaint notion of the presumption of innocence and all that Victorian Utopian nonsense. A government sanctioned lynch mob is still a lynch mob and just because a politician is worried about the next election is no excuse. If you give the accused the benefit of the doubt in this case, you do exactly like was done before the lynch mob arrived and he walks. He was bloodied and beaten and there were witnesses that supported his claim. Then the lynch mob showed up and well, you know how lynch mobs are. They are not prone to give anyone any benefit of any doubt.

I would say that legally both are being given the benefit of the doubt. Hence, a trial is coming up. The court of public opinion? Neither are given the benefit of the doubt by those of opposing opinion.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue May 28, 2013 2:33 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:I would say that legally both are being given the benefit of the doubt.
Enlighten me on your new legal theory where the accused does not get the benefit of the doubt in the trial? There are not two people on trial, so enlighten me as to who the "both" are?

It is quite possible that both are 100% innocent of any crime and I believe that is the case in this regard. So since I believe both are 100% innocent am I not given both them the benefit of the doubt? :huh:

You have just shift the burden of proof on to the accused and empowered the government. I get as a liberal how this doesn't bother you in the slightest. Empowering the government just isn't something that concerns you when you believe you will get the outcome you desire.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16432
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests