These three seem to have dropped interest in the case.
I wonder why? Usually, if there is an opportunity to lead marches, run rallies, etc., there three are in on it. I think this is turning into another Tawana Brawley case…or at least, one in which there is little opportunity to make money.
Maybe because Zimmerman has been charged w/ a crime?
idk.
I think that’s what they said they were after.
:shrug:
Can we rule out the more obvious and routine explanations before we venture into the realms of hidden motives?
Because they achieved their goal: Zimmerman has been arrested and arraigned for trial. That was the cause of the outrage, he was never arrested and the investigation was dead. When you achieve your goal, it is usually counter productive to continue demonstrating.
If Zimmerman has a probable cause hearing and the judge rules he’s immune from prosecution under Florida’s law, what, if anything, do expect the reaction to be?
Oh, I expect they will be outraged, and direct that outrage against a law that we both agree is insane.
I hope so, because that’s precisely where the outrage should be directed.
What I fear, though, is that some members of the community will believe it’s incompetent or racist authorities choosing not to prosecute Zimmerman.
Even on the Straight Dope, supposedly a bastion for analysis and critical thinking, many reactions have seemed to be almost willful in their efforts to find some way to get Zimmerman. A poster in another thread happily announced if he were on a jury, he’d ignore the law and vote to convict Zimmerman regardless, because “justice” is more important to him than law.
Others will react this way out of a sincere, but incorrect, understanding of concepts like “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This, too, has been exhibited here.
So I’m not as sanguine as you are that the outrage will be limited or oeven largely directed where it belongs.
Which would undoubtedly be equally matched by outrage from a segment of the population were Zimmerman to be found guilty. A lack of critical thinking is not limited to one side.
I would think that rather than lament the people who do not wish to be educated, it is significant that more than a few members of this board, and I include myself, did learn and moved from uninformed reactions because of the threads.
I suppose this news is related to this thread.
From the article:
You have said that, given the evidence we have now, Zimmerman should not be convicted. Suppose the case goes to trial, there is no new evidence for the prosecution, yet Zimmerman is still convicted. Will you conclude that the system worked, and justice was done, or might we hear you say the case was decided wrongly?
That’s really great to hear.
I often wonder if people are reading these things and changing their minds as a result. There’s no helpful dashboard below each thread to show how much it’s affecting opinions and conclusions of readers. So I really appreciate hearing you say this.
My first instinct would be that the jury impermissibly convicted – that is, the record didn’t establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as a matter of law, but the jury convicted anyway.
That’s why we have an appellate system, after all. And plenty of cases that are reversed on appeal because of precisely that - a “common sense, we know he’s guilty” conviction that doesn’t have legal sufficiency.
I think that’s pretty unlikely, though. I’m virtually certain there is additional evidence.
I was watching the hearing and the judge decided that Zimmerman and his wife lied about the money in their paypal account during the bond hearing and revoked Zimmerman’s bond. He has 48 hours to report to the jail.
I wonder what else he lied about…
Turns out, Zimmerman surrendered an expired passport, while keeping a valid passport which he acquired two weeks after he killed Trayvon Martin.
Not good for Zimmerman.
Now he’s going to serve a year in jail, more or less, regardless of how his trial turns out.
ETA:
Not exactly an accurate summary of the ABC News piece:
He was released on bond April 22. If he surrendered that passport, it would not have been expired. Right?
Add me to the list of people learning from this thread. Of course my opinion has moved from “those incompetent racist bastards should be fired” to “holy shit our laws are fucked up,” so I won’t claim it’s a **better **opinion.
I previously said there was no clear evidence he lied about the Paypal business. And there was not.
Now, however, it seems clear he knew about the Paypal account at all relevant times, and deliberately misled the court about his finances.
No, because when the State Department issues a new passport, the old one is invalidated, regardless of the face date of expiration. GZ submitted an invalid passport. I do not wish to engage in any pedantry about the meaning of “expired” versus “invalid”.
I guess it became apparent that he had to know about the money. 