398 replies to this topic

[gryphon strike]

Cloudflare I have seen the same thing on several occasions and have also seen them completly buy a police cover up to the point they actually promoted it claiming a better radio system was needed etc, though it turns out the radio system being used was more than capable and the claim the phone communications went out 5 mins after the attack began was a complete fabrication by the police. I know because I was there and the lady next to me was on the phone to her hubby the entire time.

So yeah don't trust the media and wait for both sides of a story. /when the story doesn't add up then clarification is needed to catch the lie,SOP for a cop.

[RWHamel]

It's seems to me the court ignored the SYG law in Marissa Alexander's case. More specific reports.

Quote

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and (  The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or (  The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or © The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and 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 or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term: (a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. (  “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. © “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.   

[CloudFlare]

gryphon strike, on 21 April 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

Your attacking people about this is not just inapropriate and rude it is also very silly and shows a lack of understanding of humanity as a whole.

No, he understands humanity perfectly. People do love to speculate without facts... but drawing absolute conclusions and inferring new 'facts' from what little we do know is irresponsible. In a serious incident like this one, where there is a lot of emotion involved, it's even more irresponsible.

The goal, for both us and the legal system, should be to look at the facts dispassionately. Early uniformed speculation tends to cloud our judgment, and often leads us to taking unsupportable positions early on.

Edited by CloudFlare, 21 April 2012 - 08:17 PM.

[CloudFlare]

gryphon strike, on 21 April 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

So yeah don't trust the media and wait for both sides of a story. /when the story doesn't add up then clarification is needed to catch the lie,SOP for a cop.

Yep, if the story doesn't make sense, start digging.

Early in the Martin-Zimmerman affair, when it first hit the national media and the cries of racism, murder and injustice went up... the main stream story didn't make sense. Cops will cover up bad to murderous shootings for each other, but not ordinary citizens. Zimmerman's 'stalking' of Martin doesn't make sense either, as he had just called the cops. Zimmerman's 'disobeying police orders' didn't fly either, 911 dispatchers aren't cops and in any event it wasn't a declarative statement. There's no evidence yet that Zimmerman initiated contact with Martin, or started a fight.

[Ser Robin Hill]

Not So Young Wolf, on 21 April 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

I don't have anything else to really talk about.  I'm tired of having to explain myself over, and over, and over again to certain people who just don't want to believe that racism is still out there and thriving in our country.   That this death would have not happened if for one very simple fact:  Z'man simply called the police and let them arrive on the scene to "investigate" this mysterious person in a hoodie.

The last dozen or so news reports of store robberies or break-ins that showed footage from security cameras.  In those reports those committing the crimes wore hoodies.  So the question is this.  If I become suspicious of someone wearing a hoodie, is it racism or common sense?  If you said it was racism, you should be aware that the persons committing these crimes weren't all of one race.  But, if it isn't acceptable to be suspicious of someone wearing a hoodie, what about a ski mask?  Has anyone considered it isn't about race, but about someone concealing his identity?

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

RWHamel, on 21 April 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

It's seems to me the court ignored the SYG law in Marissa Alexander's case. More specific reports.

Wow... really? Are you fucking serious?

[ROLF]

Robin Hill, on 21 April 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

The last dozen or so news reports of store robberies or break-ins that showed footage from security cameras.  In those reports those committing the crimes wore hoodies.  So the question is this.  If I become suspicious of someone wearing a hoodie, is it racism or common sense?  If you said it was racism, you should be aware that the persons committing these crimes weren't all of one race.  But, if it isn't acceptable to be suspicious of someone wearing a hoodie, what about a ski mask?  Has anyone considered it isn't about race, but about someone concealing his identity?

Your hypothetical is irrelevant and stupid.  Its a hooded jacket.  This is a fairly common piece of clothing that people everywhere wear each and every day.  I mean for fucks sake, I work outside every day, I routinely in the have my hood up as I approach customer's doors, the side of customer's houses, or work outside at the electric poles.  I have yet to be accosted or stopped because of my hooded jacked/sweatshirt.

Listen, someone walks into a liquor store with their hood up and approaches a cash register, maybe then you worry...but someone walking in a neighborhood, in a light rain, and talking on his phone??  Seriously, just stop the inane argument now.  Its just beneath us all.

Edited by Not So Young Wolf, 21 April 2012 - 09:57 PM.

[felice]

RWHamel, on 21 April 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

It's seems to me the court ignored the SYG law in Marissa Alexander's case.

Correctly, and just as it should do in the Zimmerman case. Both defendants chose to enter a situation where violence could reasonably be expected, while carrying a gun.

[Ser Robin Hill]

Not So Young Wolf, on 21 April 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

Your hypothetical is irrelevant and stupid.  Its a hooded jacket.  This is a fairly common piece of clothing that people everywhere wear each and every day.  I mean for fucks sake, I work outside every day, I routinely in the have my hood up as I approach customer's doors, the side of customer's houses, or work outside at the electric poles.  I have yet to be accosted or stopped because of my hooded jacked/sweatshirt.

Listen, someone walks into a liquor store with their hood up and approaches a cash register, maybe then you worry...but someone walking in a neighborhood, in a light rain, and talking on his phone??  Seriously, just stop the inane argument now.  Its just beneath us all.

That may be true, but so is this.  It is a commonplace piece of clothing often used during commonplace crimes to conceal identity and people do make that connection.  When I'm out and about, I routinely scan the area I'm in and in the absence of something blatant, someone wearing clothing that conceals their identity, gets my attention, first.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

gryphon strike, on 21 April 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

This a very bogus statement dude.
People speculate until they get real facts, that is the nature of humanity. Your attacking people about this is not just inapropriate and rude it is also very silly and shows a lack of understanding of humanity as a whole.

Well, since my point was that folks here really aren't superior to "average" people in that regard, I think we agree regarding the general nature of "humanity".

However, I do think that people in positions of public trust or influence, whose words amount to more than casual conversation, should be more careful about their public pronouncements when those pronouncements may incite violence.

[gryphon strike]

CloudFlare, on 21 April 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

No, he understands humanity perfectly. People do love to speculate without facts... but drawing absolute conclusions and inferring new 'facts' from what little we do know is irresponsible. In a serious incident like this one, where there is a lot of emotion involved, it's even more irresponsible.

The goal, for both us and the legal system, should be to look at the facts dispassionately. Early uniformed speculation tends to cloud our judgment, and often leads us to taking unsupportable positions early on.

He attacked a group as a whole yes there were people screaming it was a fact that Zimmerman had murdered Trayvon but the majority were saying it looked like it. The main thing that has come out of the discussion was the lack of apparent investigation by the police and that Zimmermans story did not and still does not add up to the facts.
The people involved in the discussion did not deserve that from him. Normally he doesn't do so thus I figure something set him off. His latter post seems to show what and who can disagree?
FLoW superior no but many are indeed smarter that you cannot deny. Humanity as a group is pretty moronic imo I mean look at the self interest morons that democracies elect to lead them.

[Crazydog7]

Well I just saw the video of Zimmerman's statement.  Holy fuckballs

I'm sorry I shot your son I thought he was only a couple of years younger then me
(Yeah because shooting him in that case would have been fine)

Yes with statments like that I am sure a jury will find him to be a tragic sympathetic charecter.

If you are going to portray yourself as the victim of a media witchhunt you have to be able to emote a little

[awesome possum]

Robin Hill, on 22 April 2012 - 12:34 AM, said:

That may be true, but so is this.  It is a commonplace piece of clothing often used during commonplace crimes to conceal identity and people do make that connection.  When I'm out and about, I routinely scan the area I'm in and in the absence of something blatant, someone wearing clothing that conceals their identity, gets my attention, first.

It must be exhausting to be you, being afraid of all those people wearing hoodies and sunglasses and hats and all the things that "conceal their identity" and everything.

CloudFlare, on 21 April 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

There's no evidence yet that Zimmerman initiated contact with Martin, or started a fight.

You mean besides the evidence that he followed Martin after a police dispatcher told him he didn't need to, and getting out of his vehicle to continue pursuit. You mean besides that?

Or are you still just trying to reach for a reason to defend that dipshit?

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 22 April 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

Well, since my point was that folks here really aren't superior to "average" people in that regard

I hope by "folks here" you mean the one or two people you're actually talking about.  I wish you'd just fucking say that instead of trying to paint everyone who has ever taken a certain side in this case as being in the exact same category as a couple dipshits.... unless you're comfortable being labeled in the same category as Res?

Edited by awesome possum, 22 April 2012 - 05:03 AM.

[Nukelavee]

Mind you, FLoW specifically calling out the people he's thinking of would just summon a mod warning not to specifically target people.

Maybe he's just grenade fishing to bring them to the surface.

Or...the issue for most people centered on Zimmerman's SYG defense, and the quick acceptance of that by the Sandford PD.

Btw, my people prefer to be known as TAC's, not TAA's.

Robin- really?  Do you know why hoodies are popular for criminal types?  Because everybody wears them, it's camo.  Remember, if they convince us to fear the hoodie, the thugs win.

[Maia]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 21 April 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

  The more one-sided something sounds initially, the more cautious we should be about the facts being reported.

Not necessarily. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Anyway, the main point is that now there will be a proper investigation, so what's there to speculate about? My conviction that there needs to be a thorough investigation when somebody gets killed, and that the police didn't do it in Martin's case initially, was in no way shaken.

Quote

The second incident was even more obvious than the Martin one, frankly, because that version of events simply sounded bizarre.

The story about the guy being left scot-free for the fatal stabbing of radio thief after a lengthy pursuit still seems deeply bizarre to me. Particularly since I'd assume that not informing the authorities about a death you brought about, whether justifiably or not, would be an offense. Ditto selling stolen goods, without even being able to pretend that you didn't know their provenance.

Re: Marissa Alexander, it seems weird to me that they would baldly lie about such easily verifiable things as evidence of violent battery on this and prior occasions, one of them shortly before the premature birth, or the initial admission made by the husband to the officer who first arrived at the scene. What do they hope to win from this?
Also, that injunction  must have been granted based on something?  But yes, the fact that she supposedly didn't live at the house for some time does change things somewhat. Still, IMHO, unless she and her supporters are complete idiots (which is, granted, possible), I'd imagine that there is a bit more to this case.

Edited by Maia, 22 April 2012 - 04:13 PM.

[Ser Robin Hill]

awesome possum, on 22 April 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

It must be exhausting to be you, being afraid of all those people wearing hoodies and sunglasses and hats and all the things that "conceal their identity" and everything.

You forgot to mention burqas, veils and Guy Fawkes masks.

Nukelavee, on 22 April 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

Robin- really?  Do you know why hoodies are popular for criminal types?  Because everybody wears them, it's camo.  Remember, if they convince us to fear the hoodie, the thugs win.

Actually, criminals wear them because they know surveillance cameras are usually above eye level and the hoods help conceal their faces.

[Nukelavee]

Do you fear ball caps and fedora's?

And, hoodies keep your head warm, they don't just conceal your eyes from certain angles... that's why so many people have them.   So...you blend in, and, if you take the hood down...again, camo, because you look different.

Know what else makes it hard to see a person's face?  Emo haircuts.  And, the buggers lurk in the shadows, wearing black, and looking sullen.

Sigh.

Robin - it's exactly that kind of thinking that got Martin killed - teh assumption that hoodie+black+night= action time!  Being alert for potential threats is fine, being paranoid leads to tragedy too often.

[Maia]

Robin Hill, on 22 April 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

Actually, criminals wear them because they know surveillance cameras are usually above eye level and the hoods help conceal their faces.

Heh, by a fluke of fate I just saw this:

http://superherogirl...l-64.html#links

very appropriate, IMHO...

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 22 April 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

However, I do think that people in positions of public trust or influence, whose words amount to more than casual conversation, should be more careful about their public pronouncements when those pronouncements may incite violence.

I'm guessing this is a shot at Obama. I don't think he said anything that was particularly inciting...

Quote

“I can only imagine what these parents are going through,” he said. “And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together — federal, state and local — to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened."  

If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said. “When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids.”

I suppose he could have avoided personalizing it, but I don't believe it was irresponsible.

Edited by Manhole Eunuchsbane, 22 April 2012 - 11:13 AM.

[TerraPrime]

Here's a blog post by a reporter, detailing the time line. I encourage people to also read the comments section, as there are plenty of people who disagree with the reporter's take on the event that night:

http://blogs.chicago...012/04/411.html