I think they are ultimately a tool. One that I’m quite happy to see restricted, and one that I’d be quite happy to have if they weren’t.
Stop talking about justice. It’s clear you have no idea what that concept means. It is not just for someone to be punished for defending themself from a serious attack, and until we know that’s not what happened here, it is not just to call for punishment for Zimmerman.
It’s clear from your post that you are not looking for justice, however, you are looking for vengeance. You clearly don’t care whether Zimmerman broke any laws, you only care that things didn’t happen the way you want them to, and somebody must pay. That is not justice.
This case, on the face of it, could well be one of those “ridiculously rare instances”. That is, assuming you count someone who attacks someone without provocation as a genuine criminal.
You may well be right about the last part, as I’ve said I’m quite happy to live somewhere guns aren’t prevalent. It’s entirely irrelevant to this case, though, as Zimmerman’s gun was owned and carried legally, and it was apparently used for it’s intended purpose.
I get that you don’t like the idea of people defending themselves, but I don’t get why.
But I do care, just like I post at length in all sorts of threads where I have expertise. That is, I care about accurate dissemination of information about the law and legal process.
To take your sports analogy, you might post extensively in a thread about a controversial call ruling a particular incomplete pass was intentional grounding, even though you have no desire or care about which team benefitted. But you would, in this example, have a great deal of interest in the game of football and it’s rules. You might correct someone who claimed the pass had a clear intended receiver, and turn around and correct someone else who claimed the quarterback was out of the pocket, all without any leaning towards one team or the other… just with an interest in seeing the rules accurately quoted and applied.
That is my position. I don’t want Zimmerman to be innocent. I don’t want him to be guilty.
I want him, and all criminal defendants, to be given the rights guaranteed to them, and I want the public to understand what those rights are.
I think the Florida law conferring immunity in SYG cases is foolish and should be repealed, but I still want Zimmerman to have every inch of benefit that law confers, because it was in place the instant he pulled the trigger and is entitled to its protections.
Just chiming in to say I didn’t call Zimmerman a racist. I said he racially profiled. In a neighborhood that’s 40% black. Even though he has had black people to his house. Remember the email he sent around telling neighbors to be on the lookout for black youths. Are we sure those eight burglaries, nine thefts and one other shooting were all committed by black youths?
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say his was stranger profiling or age profiling or sex profiling? He doesn’t call 911 when he sees one of neighbors and I doubt he would be inclined to call 911 if he saw an 80 year old black man or a woman he didn’t know. Frankly assuming he wouldn’t call 911 on a white teenager wandering in his neighborhood is a pretty big step. If he calls 911 or asks the business of all unknown male youths in his area then it is profiling, but it isn’t racial profiling.
Of course, I expect loud objections from the usual suspects, because they have already profiled Zimmerman and their profile is impervious to evidence.
Funny you just posted nothing but speculation and accused others of being impervious to evidence. What evidence? The email he sent out warning his neighbors about black youths? Are there no white or Latino youths committing crimes in Sanford?
I don’t think Zimmerman was a kkk member looking for black kid to shoot, but it’s naive to think race didn’t play a role in his negative assessment of Martin.
I don’t count you in that camp, Bricker. I think you’re a little anal retentive when it comes to the law, (in terms of the fact that you recognize that Florida’s SYG is bullshit) but I respect the overall POV.
If it does turn out to be the case that Zimmerman provoked the attack, he will probably be convicted. That doesn’t change the fact that, in the event of an unprovoked attack, he is perfectly entitled to defend himself, and if it is an attack that causes reasonable fear of death or serious injury he is perfectly entitled to use lethal force in his defence.
You still haven’t explained why you have a problem with the concept of self defence,
Probably not. Plus how do you know he hasn’t already called the police on one of his neighbors. Lot of neighbors there. Here’s an encounter with one of them
He doesn’t call 911 on all teens. Just some of them. Race seems to be a critaria.
Here is an article favoarble to Zimmerman. Read the 2nd paragaph.
5 of his last 7 calls were suspicious persons. All black.
Well, yes. Just like every time someone posts something damning and contradictory that Zimmerman’s surrogates have said, the gallery will usually find a way discount it as hearsay or a misrepresentation by the press or yadayadda. The expungement is no different. Reporters play fast and loose with terms all the time, and it’s perfectly reasonable to want to see if someone’s cite for such a claim is credible enough to justify certainty.
But why would the record be made accessible to the public, if its been expunged? How would this make it any different, practically speaking, than a non-expunged arrest? If I was a future employer of Zimmerman, there’s nothing stopping me now from letting this info affect my hiring decisions.
And at the bond hearing, was there any mention of these arrest being expunged?
[QUOTE=you with the face]
If the cop’s account is true and the charge was dropped because Zimmerman’s dad pulled some strings, thats very different than if the whole thing had been one big ole misunderstanding.
[/QUOTE]
You are correct - that would be very different.
What evidence do you have that Zimmerman’s father pulled strings? Or is that just a smear you thought you would throw out?
Since you are all about the evidence, let’s see what basis you had for the statement.
That’s true, and in fact, most reports have not mentioned it. It’s fair to question the accuracy of the report.
I guess I’m just surprised that your comment wasn’t something like, “Expunged? Do you have any better cite than the one or two reports we’ve already seen, because I question them.”
By simply saying “Cite?” it’s as though you were inviting a repetition of the earlier dialogue.
True. A routine inquiry does not show it, but an employer with a large investigative budget (or eager interns, like news sources have) can manually comb police blotters, which don’t get modified even after an expungement order.
No, because a defendant in a criminal proceeding doesn’t have any benefit of expungement.
However, at the bond hearing, the judge dismissed consideration of the prior arrests:
As a general rule, I’d opine that the key is coming up with a good lie quickly that fits all the verifiable information. That’s why locking in an early statement is key. It allows the police to get the story, then check it against evidence, and then start feeding back bits of evidence (both true and made up) to the witness to see if, and by how much, the story changes.
You’re reading way too much into what I’m writing (again).
Okay, but it should be noted that he never says this dismissal was due to expungement. He staked his opinion on the “run-of-the-millness” of the arrests themselves.
To date, no one associated with the State has indicated Zimmerman’s priors were expunged. So insisting that they were in the absence of that confirmation makes as much sense as insisting that Zimmerman weighs 250 lbs despite his current appearance. Do you agree with this? I mean, it’s not as though its impossible that Zimmerman weighs that much. He could simply have very dense bones.