Police Power and Racial Tensions in Ferguson, Missouri

[Nate505]

Seriously, right or wrong, corrupt or not, murderers or not, could you please stop constantly referring to cops as pigs.

Oh, my bad, sorry

 

[Nate505]

Zimmerman hunted Martin down while lying to martin about doing so, then, when martin finally felt threatened enough to fight rather than flee, shot Martin. He did not deserve an acquittal.

I sorta think that's how it went down as well (at the very least I have no idea why Zimmerman didn't feel compelled to mind his own business when no crimes were being committed), but I don't blame the jury for believing there was enough reasonable doubt to award an acquittal.

I still wonder why manslaughter instead of murder wasn't the charge, but even there there may have been enough reasonable doubt as well.

 

[LogGrad98]

I sorta think that's how it went down as well (at the very least I have no idea why Zimmerman didn't feel compelled to mind his own business when no crimes were being committed), but I don't blame the jury for believing there was enough reasonable doubt to award an acquittal.

I still wonder why manslaughter instead of murder wasn't the charge, but even there there may have been enough reasonable doubt as well.

I believe the charge has more to do with intent. Did he go after the kid intending to kill him, or did he go after him just intending to harass or even just to observe him, and the death was incidental yet caused by his actions. That would be the main difference in the varying degrees of murder vs manslaughter.

 

[♪alt13]

Oh, my bad, sorry

lol

 

[moevillini]

I believe the charge has more to do with intent. Did he go after the kid intending to kill him, or did he go after him just intending to harass or even just to observe him, and the death was incidental yet caused by his actions. That would be the main difference in the varying degrees of murder vs manslaughter.

I may be totally off-base with this, but my thought was that the charge of "murder" in the Zimmerman/Martin case was perhaps a bit of overcompensation for the fact that initially the Police Dept. and Florida DA's office were ignoring the entire episode. It was almost a month later before anything was done to investigate the incident.

 

[moevillini]

I may be totally off-base with this, but my thought was that the charge of "murder" in the Zimmerman/Martin case was perhaps a bit of overcompensation for the fact that initially the Police Dept. and Florida DA's office were ignoring the entire episode. It was almost a month later before anything was done to investigate the incident.

here's a link with a timeline of the events in the investigation/trial/acquittal of Geo Zimmerman
https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-fast-facts/

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Between you and me, I agree with this to some degree. However, the law is what the law is, and we have to trust the system to do its thing, even if we don't like the outcome sometimes.

I agree. Based on what I know, were I on the jury, I would have voted for acquittal also, though if pressed for a guess, it would be that Zimmerman provoked a confrontation that spun out of control.

Here's the thing about Stand your Ground. IF Martin perceived that Zimmerman was stalking him and posed a threat, then would he not be justified under the logic of Stand Your Ground to assault Zimmerman out of self defense? But, carrying the logic further, IF as a result Zimmerman felt threatened by Martin's act of self defense, then is he not also justified under the logic of Stand Your Ground to defend himself? I've read lots of people who just know in their heart of hearts that Martin attacked Zimmerman, I've not read a single one of them muse over the possibility that the very logic they use to justify Zimmerman's use of force could also easily, and just as legitimately, use used to justify Martin's use of force.

This is one of many reasons why Stand Your Ground is a f'n mess.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

You like A Few Good Men, don't cha?

I'd respond if I had any idea what you're talking about here. (Yes, I've seen the movie, but I'm still stumped.)

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

It would be interesting to see the demographics of admittance based on gender Breed 'em Young University.

of course, one should be careful drawing too many conclusions from this one anecdote. I suspect BYU has plenty of female students. After all, with the LDS' stance on same sex marriage and its disavowal of polygamy, the male students have to find suitable mates in roughly equal number, don't they?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I'd encourage you to read Justice Thomas' opinion in the link above and see how it has impacted his life for your own edification. Yes, AA originally did a lot of good, but it doesn't mean it can't be tweaked. Tweaking it to favor all disadvantaged people will focus on those that need a true leg up. And this will include many blacks. I'm not saying AA should not have existed. I am saying it has done some good but should now be changed. If you keep in at is forever, it will always cause bias.

Just like Unions had amazing purposes and changed the safety and sanity of the workplace. But now we have so many protective laws, that many things Unions used to do are no longer necessary.

I am happy to concede that AA may be tweaked to update and improve it. I've not once said or implied it's perfect as it presently exists.

I would also say that I find your assertion that unions are no longer necessary to be highly suspect bordering on laughable. Protective laws are not the same thing as collective bargaining and counter-vailing power, particularly in an environment where corporations are considered people and corporate money can ever more so influence public policies. Human nature has not changed, and given opportunity to behave badly and in poor faith, corporations will do so. They are amoral soulless, self-interested entities that care only for the bottom line (and enriching the plutocrats who run them). And I say this as an ardent believer in and defender of capitalism. Capitalism is the single best arrangement for maximizing wealth of society, but it has dark impulses that must be managed and directed or the wealth it creates will be distributed in grossly inequitable ways, the apogee of which might be the Gilded Age, but which is once again occurring in line with public policies that favor corporations and the decline of the countervailing power of collective bargaining.

 

[JAZZGASM]

I am happy to concede that AA may be tweaked to update and improve it. I've not once said or implied it's perfect as it presently exists.

I would also say that I find your assertion that unions are no longer necessary to be highly suspect bordering on laughable. Protective laws are not the same thing as collective bargaining and counter-vailing power, particularly in an environment where corporations are considered people and corporate money can ever more so influence public policies. Human nature has not changed, and given opportunity to behave badly and in poor faith, corporations will do so. They are amoral soulless, self-interested entities that care only for the bottom line (and enriching the plutocrats who run them). And I say this as an ardent believer in and defender of capitalism. Capitalism is the single best arrangement for maximizing wealth of society, but it has dark impulses that must be managed and directed or the wealth it creates will be distributed in grossly inequitable ways, the apogee of which might be the Gilded Age, but which is once again occurring in line with public policies that favor corporations and the decline of the countervailing power of collective bargaining.

Please re-read my post. I nevet said unions are no longer necessary. I was stating that we have federal laws for safety, etc., (thanks to unions no less). But now that many of those laws are in placr, that component of Unions is much less necessary.

I think unions make the most sense for limited commodity employees (prof. athletes, etc.), and less necessary for gov't employees and gray in between.

The fact is, attorneys (and top union reps) are the ones that benefit from unions. Workers to a much lesser extent.

 

[Scat]

I believe Johnson when he says Brown was standing with his hands raised (he has nothing to gain by saying this).

What better way to eff the "oppressors of your race"? Seems like this would be pretty strong motivation to lie.