Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

by **Phatscotty** on Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:59 pm

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... artin-case

No Grand Jury

by **patches70** on Mon Apr 09, 2012 1:12 pm

Baron Von PWN wrote:
Well its obviously not murder 1, how could he pre meditate a murder of someone he didn't even know?

I would think the most serious charge that could feasibly be levelled against him would be murder 2. I personally feel that's what he should be charged with. If you get in a bar fight and kill someone usually that's what you'll get charged with.

So if you got into a bar fight and killed the guy you were fighting, you would deserve a 25 to life sentence? What you are describing isn't murder 2, it's manslaughter.

Murder 2 is if you come home, find you wife in bed with another man. A huge argument ensues and the man leaves. The next day, you still fuming, get your gun and decide to go find that man and kill him. While driving you see the man in a car riding with a friend. You pull your gun and start blasting but you don't kill the man you wanted, you kill his buddy.
That's murder 2.

murder 2 relies on the fact that you committed violence knowingly that it would cause serious bodily harm and/or death with a wanton disregard for life (of such bystanders and the like).

Zimmerman won't be charged with murder 2 and if he is he'll beat it.

It's manslaughter at best.

by **patches70** on Mon Apr 09, 2012 1:19 pm

Baron Von PWN wrote:
Well its obviously not murder 1, how could he pre meditate a murder of someone he didn't even know?

You don't need premeditation of a specific person to get murder 1. For instance, you go to rob a liquor store. On your way out you shot and kill the clerk. That would fall under the felony murder law and you'd be charged for first degree murder of the clerk along with armed robbery.

If Zimmerman got his gun with the intention of finding a black person and murdering them (as he's been characterized by so many from the mobs and even members of Congress), that could easily translate into a murder 1 charge.
Why do you think the media was itching with glee when they thought they had Zimmerman on tape using a racial slur? Turns out he was only muttering "It's fucking cold".

Have you not heard the rhetoric used by people? "Zimmerman stalked and killed Martin". Murder 1 is laying in wait for someone. Stalking a person and murdering them is certainly grounds for murder 1.

Just sayin' is all.

by **bedub1** on Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:23 pm

My apologies for using a photo I found off the internet without fully background checking it first. I was planning on creating my own collage, but somebody had already done it. Back to my point though. I find it very unfair to show a picture of the one guy in a jail orange colors, and a photo of the other kid before he reached puberty. How about these 2:

And you can't leave this up to a grand-jury to decide if he should be charged or not. Not taking it to the grand jury is the correct decision. The prosecutor needs to identify if there was a crime committed under the law, and if she has a winnable case, based upon logic and reason and fact and evidence, not based upon the rage and opinion of a jury.

by **patches70** on Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:36 pm

bedub1 wrote:
And you can't leave this up to a grand-jury to decide if he should be charged or not. Not taking it to the grand jury is the correct decision. The prosecutor needs to identify if there was a crime committed under the law, and if she has a winnable case, based upon logic and reason and fact and evidence, not based upon the rage and opinion of a jury.

whoa now, don't forget the 5th amendment-
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If the prosecutor wanted to charge Zimmerman with a capital crime, she would by the rules of Florida's own constitution, have to send it to the Grand Jury first.

That's why we can safely assume that no capital charges will be filed against Zimmerman because the prosecution won't put it to the Grand Jury.

It's the law in Florida. It's not based on rage or emotion, it's the actual law of Florida in regards to capital crimes. They have to go to a Grand Jury.

Just sayin' is all.

by **Phatscotty** on Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:59 pm

patches70 wrote:
bedub1 wrote:
And you can't leave this up to a grand-jury to decide if he should be charged or not. Not taking it to the grand jury is the correct decision. The prosecutor needs to identify if there was a crime committed under the law, and if she has a winnable case, based upon logic and reason and fact and evidence, not based upon the rage and opinion of a jury.

whoa now, don't forget the 5th amendment-
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If the prosecutor wanted to charge Zimmerman with a capital crime, she would by the rules of Florida's own constitution, have to send it to the Grand Jury first.

That's why we can safely assume that no capital charges will be filed against Zimmerman because the prosecution won't put it to the Grand Jury.

It's the law in Florida. It's not based on rage or emotion, it's the actual law of Florida in regards to capital crimes. They have to go to a Grand Jury.

Just sayin' is all.

Thanks for your contributions here Patches. Just curious, do you have any thoughts on the patriot act, NADA impact on the fifth amendment? Is there an impact?

The day we realize a certain long known and long held right has been taken away, we will realize it was taken away years ago, and we ourselves might have even helped a previous president or Congress take away the very rights we hold dear, but it was under that guise of something "compassionate", like Obamacare, or something based on "safety", like the Patriot Act.

by **Juan_Bottom** on Mon Apr 09, 2012 3:35 pm

Yeah, Florida is one of those states that makes it extremely hard to get a wrongful conviction. Every Death Penalty case costs 1 Million dollars by default. If they don't know for a fact that you're guilty, they wont try to dick around with you in front of a jury.

by **patches70** on Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:29 pm

Phatscotty wrote:Thanks for your contributions here Patches. Just curious, do you have any thoughts on the patriot act, NADA impact on the fifth amendment? Is there an impact?

The day we realize a certain long known and long held right has been taken away, we will realize it was taken away years ago, and we ourselves might have even helped a previous president or Congress take away the very rights we hold dear, but it was under that guise of something "compassionate", like Obamacare, or something based on "safety", like the Patriot Act.

Don't even get me started about the Patriot Act and the other BS stuff going on, like the killing of US citizens abroad without trial or due process. All those types of legislation piss on the constitution. I find it reprehensible to make law based on fear and reaction instead of reason and due deliberation/debate. Without regard to long term consequences or how such legislation is in diametric opposition of who we are supposed to be as a people and as a nation.

by **patches70** on Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:33 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:Yeah, Florida is one of those states that makes it extremely hard to get a wrongful conviction. Every Death Penalty case costs 1 Million dollars by default. If they don't know for a fact that you're guilty, they wont try to dick around with you in front of a jury.

That's not such a bad thing I'd think. I certainly wouldn't want anyone executed unless there was incontrovertible proof of guilty beyond any reasonable doubt and the crime was of such a vile nature as to warrant such penalty.

by **Lootifer** on Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:42 pm

Well you will prob get ur wish (if it was genuine PS):

The media now have a genuine-ish bunch of hate crimes to focus on

* the above smiley is actually a grimace

by **patches70** on Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:47 pm

I make my living off the evening news
just give me something
something I can use
people love it when you lose
they love dirty laundry

by **kentington** on Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:25 pm

Lootifer wrote:Well you will prob get ur wish (if it was genuine PS):

The media now have a genuine-ish bunch of hate crimes to focus on

* the above smiley is actually a grimace

Hey Loot did something happen? Been at work no time to look stuff up.

Also, I don't think Scotty will be excited to hear stuff happened. It is one thing to expect it and another thing to wish it.

by **Lootifer** on Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:52 pm

Oh for sure. I was being facious (that how you spell it?)

I was referring to the Tulsa killings, sound pretty bad.

by **Phatscotty** on Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:39 am

How is this anything other than mob intimidation?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101493444

The Trayvon Martin protesters who forced the temporary shutdown of the Sanford Police Department reached an agreement with city officials to hold a community forum — ending today's five-hour demonstration.

Sanford City Manager Norton Bonaparte, Jr. agreed on an April 19 public forum to discuss concerns regarding the police investigation into the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

The demonstrators who were blocking access to the Police Department moved away from the doors after Bonaparte, protest leaders, and acting Police Chief Darren Scott reached the agreement.

Officials said the Police Department will open at 3:30 p.m.

Today's Police Department shutdown was the first result of the Dream Defenders' act of non-violent civil disobedience. The Dream Defenders are a coalition of college students from across Florida who have marched and protested against the handling of the case by police

by **BigBallinStalin** on Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:48 am

How is this anything other than mob intimidation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

The Boston Tea Party was a direct action by colonists in Boston, a town in the British colony of Massachusetts, against the British government and the monopolistic East India Company that controlled all the tea imported into the colonies. On December 16, 1773, after officials in Boston refused to return three shiploads of taxed tea to Britain, a group of colonists boarded the ships and destroyed the tea by throwing it into Boston Harbor. The incident remains an iconic event of American history, and other political protests often refer to it.

by **Phatscotty** on Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:59 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:How is this anything other than mob intimidation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

The Boston Tea Party was a direct action by colonists in Boston, a town in the British colony of Massachusetts, against the British government and the monopolistic East India Company that controlled all the tea imported into the colonies. On December 16, 1773, after officials in Boston refused to return three shiploads of taxed tea to Britain, a group of colonists boarded the ships and destroyed the tea by throwing it into Boston Harbor. The incident remains an iconic event of American history, and other political protests often refer to it.

I see where you are trying to go, but are you going to bring that foreign power comparison with you?

by **BigBallinStalin** on Tue Apr 10, 2012 1:33 am

If you want to criticize civil disobedience, where do you draw the line? When is it unacceptable?

by **patches70** on Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:23 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:If you want to criticize civil disobedience, where do you draw the line? When is it unacceptable?

Government has a clear line, don't they?

As for the Boston Tea party and British response, King George closed the port, removed all the elected officials from Massachusetts and replaced them with people appointed either by the King or by the Governor (who was appointed by the King).
Expanded the quartering act that required colonists to house British soldiers, forced the East India Company to repay the cost of all the damage and the King changed the law so that if British soldiers committed a crime then the soldier would be tried in England as opposed to in the colonies. This last one had the effect that it basically allowed British soldiers to get away with murder because any witnesses that could be called against them wouldn't have the time nor money to spend months long voyages to and from England to testify.
I'm sure you recognize a few of those as they were mentioned in Jefferson's Declaration of Ind.

Civil disobedience is tolerated to a point, at which time a government will act. It depends on the government exactly how far such things will be allowed to go. Iran, for instance, has a short tolerance to civil disobedience.

Governments must be careful in how they respond, for if they respond too harshly then it gets ugly. The British response to the Boston Tea Party so enraged the colonists that is ushered in the war two years later.

As for individuals, few would take themselves being the victim of civil disobedience lightly. Violence is often enough met with violence in kind. If there is a movement that wants me to go around hurting people, well that movement can f*ck off. On the other hand, if there is a popular movement that wants me to stop paying income taxes, well, I might be down for that....

Burning draft cards, refusing government orders and such things is one thing. Going around harming my fellow citizens is quite another matter all together.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:03 am

Patches, how much influence do you exert on the formation of public policy at the federal government level?

by **patches70** on Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:09 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:Patches, how much influence do you exert on the formation of public policy at the federal government level?

Zero, or very very little.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:02 pm

patches70 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Patches, how much influence do you exert on the formation of public policy at the federal government level?

Zero, or very very little.

Before the Boston Tea Party, how much influence did the average Colonial "American" citizen exert on policymaking at the British national/monarch level?

by **kentington** on Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:13 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
patches70 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Patches, how much influence do you exert on the formation of public policy at the federal government level?

Zero, or very very little.

Before the Boston Tea Party, how much influence did the average Colonial "American" citizen exert on policymaking at the British national/monarch level?

Is the correct answer 88.59% of 0?

by **bedub1** on Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:24 pm

There has been another shooting!

At least six shots were fired in the town at around 4.30am, hitting the empty police cruiser which was parked across the street from a primary school close to the gated community where Trayvon was killed in February.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -over.html

That news article is using the same biased pictures as have been used in the past. The media should be ashamed of themselves.

by **Neoteny** on Tue Apr 10, 2012 1:10 pm

Is it biased that Martin is referred to by his first name, while Zimmerman is referred to by his last name in the thread title? Is it because the OP thinks "Trayvon" says something about the culture in which he was raised?

Racist bias.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Tue Apr 10, 2012 1:15 pm

Trayvon sounds like an alien ray gun, so sticking with Martin could avoid much confusion.

Zimmerman is definitely a human being because of the word "man" in his name. Therefore, sticking with Zimmerman is a good call.

I'd say it's discriminatory against aliens. Why don't we just call it like we see it?

Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

Concerning Zimmerman Verdict

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: No Grand Jury

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: NBC "Audio Doctor" Fired

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: NBC "Audio Doctor" Fired

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: No Grand Jury

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: No Grand Jury

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: No Grand Jury

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: No Grand Jury

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: No Grand Jury

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: No Grand Jury

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: No Grand Jury

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: No Grand Jury

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: No Grand Jury

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: No Grand Jury

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: No Grand Jury

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: No Grand Jury

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: No Grand Jury

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: No Grand Jury

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: No Grand Jury

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: No Grand Jury

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: No Grand Jury

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: No Grand Jury

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: No Grand Jury

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: No Grand Jury

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: No Grand Jury

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: No Grand Jury

Who is online