OT RFTHP Trayvon Martin

[theget]

The law in FL is different than the law in NY, but I think this case
has (would have had?) RFTHP.

I get the feeling that the shooter is going away.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120321/ARTICLE/120329908/-1/sports?Title=Attorneys-Trayvon-Martin-killing-was-not-self-defense

[David Johnston]

The guy wouldn't have a defense in New York though, so there wouldn't be
much point to it. The really amusing application of the Make My Day
law, was the time a fifteen year old gangster's killing in the middle of
a gang war was declared legal on the grounds that when you're in the
middle of a gang shootout, everyone has a legitimate fear for their
life, and therefore everyone is free to kill other participants without
consequence.

[Porter Smith]

theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in
news:4d5bf839-ffb8-417c...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

Since there are no witnesses, who can say what Trayvon Martin did or say
before he was shot? It will be interesting to hear the shooter's story and
how it is supported (or not) by the forensics.

[David Johnston]

On 3/23/2012 2:45 PM, Porter Smith wrote:
> theget<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in
> news:4d5bf839-ffb8-417c...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> The law in FL is different than the law in NY, but I think this case
>> has (would have had?) RFTHP.
>>
>> I get the feeling that the shooter is going away.
>> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120321/ARTICLE/120329908/-1/spor
>> ts?Title=Attorneys-Trayvon-Martin-killing-was-not-self-defense
>>
> Since there are no witnesses, who can say what Trayvon Martin did or say
> before he was shot?

One woman told a reporter that after she told the police investigator
that she heard Trayvon calling for help, he helpfully corrected her by
telling her that she really heard Zimmerman calling for help.

It will be interesting to hear the shooter's story and
> how it is supported (or not) by the forensics.

The shooter's story was that he got out of his truck to check the street
sign and determine where he was, and then as he was getting back into
his truck, the youth attacked from behind. So naturally he turned
around and shot the kid. I don't think there will be much forensically
to show one way or the other.

[theget]

On Mar 23, 3:53 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 3/23/2012 12:31 PM, theget wrote:
>
> > The law in FL is different than the law in NY, but I think this case
> > has (would have had?) RFTHP.
>
> > I get the feeling that the shooter is going away.

> >http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120321/ARTICLE/120329908/-1/sp...

>
> The guy wouldn't have a defense in New York though, so there wouldn't be
> much point to it.

Like many RFTH eps it would have to be written to be suitable for the
setting and with a few twists. I suspect Zimmerman is going to have a
tough time in FL too.

> The really amusing application of the Make My Day
> law, was the time a fifteen year old gangster's killing in the middle of
> a gang war was declared legal on the grounds that when you're in the
> middle of a gang shootout, everyone has a legitimate fear for their
> life, and therefore everyone is free to kill other participants without
> consequence.

Urp. Is that for real?


Here is Jonathan Turley's take on Zimmerman/Martin with links to some
of the 911 calls.
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/19/the-zimmerman-tapes-911-recordings-released-from-shooting-of-teen-in-florida-by-watchman/

[theget]

On Mar 23, 4:45 pm, Porter Smith <my_port_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Where does the burden of proof rest in this kind of case in FL?

[David Johnston]

On 3/23/2012 8:20 PM, theget wrote:
> On Mar 23, 3:53 pm, David Johnston<Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 3/23/2012 12:31 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>> The law in FL is different than the law in NY, but I think this case
>>> has (would have had?) RFTHP.
>>
>>> I get the feeling that the shooter is going away.
>>> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120321/ARTICLE/120329908/-1/sp...
>>
>> The guy wouldn't have a defense in New York though, so there wouldn't be
>> much point to it.
>
> Like many RFTH eps it would have to be written to be suitable for the
> setting and with a few twists. I suspect Zimmerman is going to have a
> tough time in FL too.

Only because of his 911 call. If he hadn't called in talking like a
nutter, his prospects for acquittal would have been excellent since he
has the benefit of the doubt.

>
>> The really amusing application of the Make My Day
>> law, was the time a fifteen year old gangster's killing in the middle of
>> a gang war was declared legal on the grounds that when you're in the
>> middle of a gang shootout, everyone has a legitimate fear for their
>> life, and therefore everyone is free to kill other participants without
>> consequence.
>
> Urp. Is that for real?

Ah, I probably slanted it because I don't like the law. I'm biased.
The case could have gone differently if they'd been able to introduce
testimony confirming that the men were in fact gang members.

http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=128694

[David Johnston]

It's an affirmative defense, meaning that the court has to agree with
the defendant's claim not just that he felt in fear for his safety but
that his fear was "reasonable". Essentially it boils down to how
plausible the grand jury finds the accused.

[theget]

On Mar 23, 11:21 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 3/23/2012 8:20 PM, theget wrote:
>
> > On Mar 23, 3:53 pm, David Johnston<Da...@block.net>  wrote:
> >> On 3/23/2012 12:31 PM, theget wrote:
>
> >>> The law in FL is different than the law in NY, but I think this case
> >>> has (would have had?) RFTHP.
>
> >>> I get the feeling that the shooter is going away.
> >>>http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120321/ARTICLE/120329908/-1/sp...
>
> >> The guy wouldn't have a defense in New York though, so there wouldn't be
> >> much point to it.
>
> > Like many RFTH eps it would have to be written to be suitable for the
> > setting and with a few twists.  I suspect Zimmerman is going to have a
> > tough time in FL too.
>
> Only because of his 911 call.  If he hadn't called in talking like a
> nutter, his prospects for acquittal would have been excellent since he
> has the benefit of the doubt.

Innocent until proven guilty? But in another post in this thread,
when I asked "Where does the burden of proof rest in this kind of case
in FL?" you responded, "It's an affirmative defense,...."

So I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. The defendant can
have a presumption of innocence, but AFAIK the affirmative defense
means the defendant has to stipulate to actions that would likely
result in a conviction if the affirmative defense doesn't work.
Right?

Even with out the 911 call during which Martin was killed, Zimmerman
looks like he may have some problems. I think.

>
>
>
> >> The really amusing application of the Make My Day
> >> law, was the time a fifteen year old gangster's killing in the middle of
> >> a gang war was declared legal on the grounds that when you're in the
> >> middle of a gang shootout, everyone has a legitimate fear for their
> >> life, and therefore everyone is free to kill other participants without
> >> consequence.
>
> > Urp.  Is that for real?
>
> Ah, I probably slanted it because I don't like the law.

Can you be more specific? I mean why do you think FL's law is bad, and
what would be a good law?

>  I'm biased.
> The case could have gone differently if they'd been able to introduce
> testimony confirming that the men were in fact gang members.
>
> http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=128694

Ah, ok, thanks for the link. I think what you wrote isn't so far
fetched. I can see your point about being able to introduce testimony
that the men were gang members, but I think Brown's defense attorney
makes a good point saying "...our system of justice is supposed to
protect people’s rights as individuals.”

But from what little reading I've done, it appears to me that in order
to use the self-defense defense, you have to be acting lawfully.

I can also see why the police didn't arrest Zimmerman. From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law it looks like the
law in FL, 776.032 "but the agency may not arrest the person for
using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the
force that was used was unlawful." I mention this, because I watched
a talking head on Fox, one who I think of as being comparatively
liberal, complain that Zimmerman had not been arrested. Although he
didn't say what Zimmerman should be charged with. Maybe it's obvious?

[David Johnston]

On 3/23/2012 11:46 PM, theget wrote:
> On Mar 23, 11:21 pm, David Johnston<Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 3/23/2012 8:20 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 23, 3:53 pm, David Johnston<Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>> On 3/23/2012 12:31 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>>>> The law in FL is different than the law in NY, but I think this case
>>>>> has (would have had?) RFTHP.
>>
>>>>> I get the feeling that the shooter is going away.
>>>>> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120321/ARTICLE/120329908/-1/sp...
>>
>>>> The guy wouldn't have a defense in New York though, so there wouldn't be
>>>> much point to it.
>>
>>> Like many RFTH eps it would have to be written to be suitable for the
>>> setting and with a few twists. I suspect Zimmerman is going to have a
>>> tough time in FL too.
>>
>> Only because of his 911 call. If he hadn't called in talking like a
>> nutter, his prospects for acquittal would have been excellent since he
>> has the benefit of the doubt.
>
> Innocent until proven guilty? But in another post in this thread,
> when I asked "Where does the burden of proof rest in this kind of case
> in FL?" you responded, "It's an affirmative defense,...."

Affirmative defense only means that that it must be held to a standard
of "reasonableness". His claim that the kid attacked him would still be
given the benefit of the doubt in the absence of eyewitnesses and then
the question would be whether it would be reasonable to be afraid that
he would be injured by the kid's assault. The dead kid is guilty until
proven innocent.

>>> Urp. Is that for real?
>>
>> Ah, I probably slanted it because I don't like the law.
>
> Can you be more specific? I mean why do you think FL's law is bad, and
> what would be a good law?

I think the law essentially means that any quarrel in which both
participants equally participate could end with one of the parties
shooting the other and successfully claiming self defence.

>
>
>> I'm biased.
>> The case could have gone differently if they'd been able to introduce
>> testimony confirming that the men were in fact gang members.
>>
>> http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=128694
>
> Ah, ok, thanks for the link. I think what you wrote isn't so far
> fetched. I can see your point about being able to introduce testimony
> that the men were gang members, but I think Brown's defense attorney
> makes a good point saying "...our system of justice is supposed to
> protect people’s rights as individuals.”
>
> But from what little reading I've done, it appears to me that in order
> to use the self-defense defense, you have to be acting lawfully.

Yep. So for example in a road rage quarrel you are acting lawfully and
therefore can shoot the other guy.

>
> I can also see why the police didn't arrest Zimmerman. From
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law it looks like the
> law in FL, 776.032 "but the agency may not arrest the person for
> using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the
> force that was used was unlawful." I mention this, because I watched
> a talking head on Fox, one who I think of as being comparatively
> liberal, complain that Zimmerman had not been arrested. Although he
> didn't say what Zimmerman should be charged with. Maybe it's obvious?

Zimmerman got out of his truck against the advice of the 911 guy. He
created the confrontation, and then shot an unarmed kid who was not in
fact doing anything illegal except being a black kid in a hoodie in a
gated community.

[theget]

I'm not quite sure that I follow that. Assuming that a prosecutor
decides he wants to prosecute and gets a grand jury to indict and a
judge doesn't dismiss, doesn't Zimmerman still have to convince a jury
that his belief he would be attacked a reasonable one?

Or is your point that the balance in the FL law has gone the other way
and made it much more likely that police won't arrest, prosecutors
won't prosecute and judges will dismiss?

>
> >>> Urp.  Is that for real?
>
> >> Ah, I probably slanted it because I don't like the law.
>
> > Can you be more specific? I mean why do you think FL's law is bad, and
> > what would be a good law?
>
> I think the law essentially means that any quarrel in which both
> participants equally participate could end with one of the parties
> shooting the other and successfully claiming self defence.

I think that can still happen under current self defense laws in many
(most?) states, because the retreat usually has to made in safety. So
here the difference is that you don't have any obligation to retreat
at all and that throws things too far in one direction?

It seems to me that both the stand your ground and retreat laws have
serious flaws.

> >>   I'm biased.
> >> The case could have gone differently if they'd been able to introduce
> >> testimony confirming that the men were in fact gang members.
>
> >>http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=128694
>
> > Ah, ok, thanks for the link.  I think what you wrote isn't so far
> > fetched.  I can see your point about being able to introduce testimony
> > that the men were gang members, but I think Brown's defense attorney
> > makes a good point saying "...our system of justice is supposed to
> > protect people’s rights as individuals.”
>
> > But from what little reading I've done, it appears to me that in order
> > to use the self-defense  defense, you have to be acting lawfully.
>
> Yep.  So for example in a road rage quarrel you are acting lawfully and
> therefore can shoot the other guy.

Assuming you are acting in self defense. Are you suggesting that a
person might reasonably think that they were going to be killed and
therefore shoot the other driver? Perhaps. But if both persons are
driving, ie in motion, then I don't think it's truly standing one's
ground. I'm in a hair-splitting mood. What if both people are on a
Merry Go Round? In an elevator?

> > I can also see why the police didn't arrest Zimmerman.  From

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_lawit looks like the

> > law in FL,  776.032 "but the agency may not arrest the person for
> > using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the
> > force that was used was unlawful."  I mention this, because I watched
> > a talking head on Fox, one who I think of as being comparatively
> > liberal, complain that Zimmerman had not been arrested.  Although he
> > didn't say what Zimmerman should be charged with.  Maybe it's obvious?
>
> Zimmerman got out of his truck against the advice of the 911 guy.  He
> created the confrontation, and then shot an unarmed kid who was not in
> fact doing anything illegal except being a black kid in a hoodie in a
> gated community.

Almost sounds like an opening argument. Particularly the part about
the kid "not in fact doing anything illegal". Although, isn't that a
question of fact for the jury? Because certainly if he was going to
attack Zimmerman, that would have been something that would be
illegal, so you imply it's *reasonable* to conclude that he wasn't
going to attack Zimmerman.

I'm not sure Zimmerman starting the confrontation is relevant to the
question.

I listened to the 911 call and I think it's more reasonable to
conclude, although I haven't absolutely concluded this, that Zimmerman
had formed an intent.

A smart prosecutor will probably try to find a way to make sure he
takes the stand. I don't know if that's a requirement for an
affirmative defense. If Zimmerman does take the stand I have a feeling
the cross won't go well for him.

I haven't changed my mind, I still think Zimmerman is going to go to
prison.

Although... maybe he won't go to prison, this article
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/03/george-zimmermans-lawyer-says-his-client-is-not-a-racist.html?mid=rss
suggests that he now has a bounty on his head. The link in the
article where they presumably got the info is no longer active.

I thought this was interesting,
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0324/Who-is-George-Zimmerman-and-why-did-he-shoot-Trayvon-Martin

The NYDN has a story about the $10K bounty,
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/black-panther-rage-10g-capture-trayvon-killer-article-1.1050370?localLinksEnabled=false

The whole discussion over stand your ground may be irrelevant
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/24/149310730/family-lawyer-sees-state-charges-against-trayvon-martins-killer

"...Zimmerman attorney Craig Sonner told CNN he wouldn't use the Stand
Your Ground defense should his client be charged. Sonner said he
instead would use self-defense."

and

"[Daryl] Parks [representing Trayvon's parents] said his clients met
Friday with State Attorney Angela Corey, who was appointed by Florida
Gov. Rick Scott as a special prosecutor to head the state
investigation. Parks said he was more optimistic following the meeting
that charges would be forthcoming."

[David Johnston]

His claim that he _was_ attacked gets the benefit of the doubt. All
that leaves is the need to convince the jury that the attack
legitimately seemed dangerous. Which isn't hard to do, because
barehanded attacks really are dangerous.

>>> But from what little reading I've done, it appears to me that in order
>>> to use the self-defense defense, you have to be acting lawfully.
>>
>> Yep. So for example in a road rage quarrel you are acting lawfully and
>> therefore can shoot the other guy.
>
> Assuming you are acting in self defense. Are you suggesting that a
> person might reasonably think that they were going to be killed and
> therefore shoot the other driver?

No, I was suggesting that they got out of their car like in this case:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-results-in-no-charges-in-fatal-hillsborough/1206945

>
> Almost sounds like an opening argument. Particularly the part about
> the kid "not in fact doing anything illegal". Although, isn't that a
> question of fact for the jury?

Yes and the jury has to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt and
assume he was attacked in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Because certainly if he was going to
> attack Zimmerman, that would have been something that would be
> illegal,

Is that certain? The kid was walking to his father's place when a slow
moving vehicle started trailing him. Then a rather excited guy who
outweighed him by 80 pounds got out of the truck.

I'd say the kid had a "Stand Your Ground" defense. If that is, he was
alive to invoke it.

[theget]

I think this is what confuses me most. Can you please point me to
where FL law says this?

> All
> that leaves is the need to convince the jury that the attack
> legitimately seemed dangerous.  Which isn't hard to do, because
> barehanded attacks really are dangerous.
>
> >>> But from what little reading I've done, it appears to me that in order
> >>> to use the self-defense  defense, you have to be acting lawfully.
>
> >> Yep.  So for example in a road rage quarrel you are acting lawfully and
> >> therefore can shoot the other guy.
>
> > Assuming you are acting in self defense.  Are you suggesting that a
> > person might reasonably think that they were going to be killed and
> > therefore shoot the other driver?
>
> No, I was suggesting that they got out of their car like in this case:
>

> http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-gr...

That seems within the law to me.

> > Almost sounds like an opening argument. Particularly the part about
> > the kid "not in fact doing anything illegal".  Although, isn't that a
> > question of fact for the jury?
>
> Yes and the jury has to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt and
> assume he was attacked in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

As Porter Smith said elsethread it will be interesting to see the
forensic evidence in the case.

And I reiterate, I would like to see a reference to the law that says
that a claim he was attacked from a defendant using the stand your
ground defense gets the benefit of the doubt and doesn't have to be
proven.

>
> Because certainly if he was going to
>
> > attack Zimmerman, that would have been something that would be
> > illegal,
>
> Is that certain?  The kid was walking to his father's place when a slow
> moving vehicle started trailing him.  Then a rather excited guy who
> outweighed him by 80 pounds got out of the truck.
>
> I'd say the kid had a "Stand Your Ground" defense.  If that is, he was
> alive to invoke it.

Did the kid move *toward* Zimmerman? Or did Zimmerman move *toward*
the kid?

No matter. If as you say, in what sounds to me more like a closing
argument, that the kid had a Stand Your Ground defense, then it would
seem to me that in these circumstances Zimmerman would not be able to
use that to defend himself.

So my mind is still unchanged, perhaps pending a cite for the law that
says the jury has to give his claim the benefit of the doubt, and I
still think Zimmerman will go to prison.

Yesterday I posted a link to an article that suggested that
Zimmerman's lawyer wasn't going to use the SYG defense. Today things
have changed. Maybe.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-attorney-friend-speak-trayvon-martin-incident/story?id=15999256#.T2_1S5Juivc

Some of that seems a little strange to me

"The Zimmerman family friend also denied that a word the watchman is
heard blurting out on one of the 911 tapes is the racial slur, "coon."
Oliver said the word he hears Zimmerman saying is "goon."

"As far as, I mean as far as George being racist, I didn't take it as
a racist term. I heard 'goon' and talking to my teenage daughter,
apparently goon is a term of endearment in high school these days," he
said. "

Huh?

[David Johnston]

On 3/25/2012 10:55 PM, theget wrote:

>>>> Affirmative defense only means that that it must be held to a standard
>>>> of "reasonableness". His claim that the kid attacked him would still be
>>>> given the benefit of the doubt in the absence of eyewitnesses and then
>>>> the question would be whether it would be reasonable to be afraid that
>>>> he would be injured by the kid's assault. The dead kid is guilty until
>>>> proven innocent.
>>
>>> I'm not quite sure that I follow that. Assuming that a prosecutor
>>> decides he wants to prosecute and gets a grand jury to indict and a
>>> judge doesn't dismiss, doesn't Zimmerman still have to convince a jury
>>> that his belief he would be attacked a reasonable one?
>>
>> His claim that he _was_ attacked gets the benefit of the doubt.
>
> I think this is what confuses me most. Can you please point me to
> where FL law says this?

It has nothing to do with Florida law in particular.

>> Because certainly if he was going to
>>
>>> attack Zimmerman, that would have been something that would be
>>> illegal,
>>
>> Is that certain? The kid was walking to his father's place when a slow
>> moving vehicle started trailing him. Then a rather excited guy who
>> outweighed him by 80 pounds got out of the truck.
>>
>> I'd say the kid had a "Stand Your Ground" defense. If that is, he was
>> alive to invoke it.
>
> Did the kid move *toward* Zimmerman? Or did Zimmerman move *toward*
> the kid?

It's definite that Zimmerman got out of the truck. For the rest, nobody
will ever know.

[theget]

On Mar 26, 1:11 am, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 3/25/2012 10:55 PM, theget wrote:

> >> His claim that he _was_ attacked gets the benefit of the doubt.
>
> > I think this is what confuses me most.  Can you please point me to
> > where FL law says this?
>
> It has nothing to do with Florida law in particular.

Then can you point me to something that says claims of being attacked
get the benefit?

> It's definite that Zimmerman got out of the truck.  For the rest, nobody
> will ever know.

But it appears there may be witnesses to some of what happened.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/report-says-police-reveal-details-of-george-zimmermans-account-of-trayvon/1222087

I'm starting to think I was wrong and he might not go to prison.

[theget]

On Mar 23, 2:31 pm, theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> The law in FL is different than the law in NY, but I think this case
> has (would have had?) RFTHP.
>

> I get the feeling that the shooter is going away.http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120321/ARTICLE/120329908/-1/sp...

Charges have been filed.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trayvon-martin-20120412,0,6596300.story

Because justice must be done, right?

"On Wednesday, African American resident Troy Jackson, 43, said he
might participate in a riot if there were no charges. "I'm going to
loot every Caucasian store," he said, sitting in front of a grocery
store in the majority-black Goldsboro community. "Blood for blood.""

I'm going to nominate Troy Jackson for a Hero of the Republic medal
for his appeal to legal principles and inability to consider the
consequences of his position. Because if that's his attitude I'm
pretty sure we'll never have to worry about another case of Stand Your
Ground being applied.

Wait, what? "Caucasian"? Whatever happened to European-American?
That's racist. Sounds like it could be an intent to violate a Federal
Civil Rights Law of some kind. I surely hope that Eric Holder gets
right on to investigating that threat.

"But as the news of the arrest trickled out, there was a palpable
sense of relief." Until there's a verdict Troy Jackson doesn't like.

[David Johnston]

On 4/11/2012 7:24 PM, theget wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2:31 pm, theget<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>> The law in FL is different than the law in NY, but I think this case
>> has (would have had?) RFTHP.
>>
>> I get the feeling that the shooter is going away.http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120321/ARTICLE/120329908/-1/sp...
>
> Charges have been filed.
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trayvon-martin-20120412,0,6596300.story
>
> Because justice must be done, right?
>
> "On Wednesday, African American resident Troy Jackson, 43, said he
> might participate in a riot if there were no charges. "I'm going to
> loot every Caucasian store," he said, sitting in front of a grocery
> store in the majority-black Goldsboro community. "Blood for blood.""

Well that's a quotation that doesn't ring quite true.

[theget]

On Apr 11, 10:47 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 4/11/2012 7:24 PM, theget wrote:
>
> > On Mar 23, 2:31 pm, theget<the...@bigmailbox.net>  wrote:
> >> The law in FL is different than the law in NY, but I think this case
> >> has (would have had?) RFTHP.
>
> >> I get the feeling that the shooter is going away.http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120321/ARTICLE/120329908/-1/sp...
>
> > Charges have been filed.

> >http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trayvon-martin-2...

>
> > Because justice must be done, right?
>
> > "On Wednesday, African American resident Troy Jackson, 43, said he
> > might participate in a riot if there were no charges. "I'm going to
> > loot every Caucasian store," he said, sitting in front of a grocery
> > store in the majority-black Goldsboro community. "Blood for blood.""
>
> Well that's a quotation that doesn't ring quite true.

In what way?

[David Johnston]

An angry black man saying "I'm going to loot every Caucasian store."
Really? Caucasian? Sounds like something the reporter fed him.

[D.F. Manno]

I don't see you singling out for criticism any of the nut jobs who are
promising to start a race war if Zimmerman is convicted.
--
D.F. Manno

[theget]

On Apr 12, 6:15 pm, D.F. Manno <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
> theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 2:31 pm, theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> >> The law in FL is different than the law in NY, but I think this case
> >> has (would have had?) RFTHP.
>
> >> I get the feeling that the shooter is going
> >> away.http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120321/ARTICLE/120329908/-1/sp...
>
> > Charges have been filed.

> >http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trayvon-martin-2...

>
> > Because justice must be done, right?
>
> > "On Wednesday, African American resident Troy Jackson, 43, said he
> > might participate in a riot if there were no charges. "I'm going to
> > loot every Caucasian store," he said, sitting in front of a grocery
> > store in the majority-black Goldsboro community. "Blood for blood.""
>
> > I'm going to nominate Troy Jackson for a Hero of the Republic medal
> > for his appeal to legal principles and inability to consider the
> > consequences of his position. Because if that's his attitude I'm
> > pretty sure we'll never have to worry about another case of Stand Your
> > Ground being applied.
>
> > Wait, what? "Caucasian"? Whatever happened to European-American?
> > That's racist. Sounds like it could be an intent to violate a Federal
> > Civil Rights Law of some kind.  I surely hope that Eric Holder gets
> > right on to investigating that threat.
>
> > "But as the news of the arrest trickled out, there was a palpable
> > sense of relief."  Until there's a verdict Troy Jackson doesn't like.
>
> I don't see you singling out for criticism any of the nut jobs who are
> promising to start a race war if Zimmerman is convicted.

I accept your implied criticism, but I simply haven't run across
reports of those sorts in the places I've been reading. Perhaps I
ought to get out more? Where have you seen these? BTW, in case there
was some doubt in your mind, I find both those positions equally
despicable. Not just despicable. horrifying. Not just horrifying,
frightening. There's just a thin veneer and we can lift it back and
find a Lebanon or the Hatfields and the McCoys underneath. We can
find a society where people are murdered because of something someone
else did who looks like them, or worships like them, or has the same
name as them. Excuses are easy to find.

If it makes you feel better about me, I've been cringing as I've
watched Bill O'Reilly two nights in a row ask someone who is black if
they think Al Sharpton should apologize for some of the things he's
said regarding the case. Today I saw him ask this of Trayvon Martin's
mother Sybrina Fulton. I enjoyed watching Ms Fulton decline to answer
and her lawyer telling BoR that he should discuss that with Sharpton.
There is cringe inducing video here,
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1559371502001/zimmermans-arrest-the-path-to-justice/?playlist_id=87485

BTW, I think Ms. Fulton comports herself very well considering the
tragedy she's suffered.

On a more positive note, at least someone has taken the high road. And
it's not NBC.
http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2012/04/05/don_cheadle_slams_nbc_over_george_zimm

"Actor Don Cheadle has taken aim at NBC chiefs after the network aired
an edited version of the 911 call in the Trayvon Martin case,
insisting the news piece was "irresponsible" and "counter to the
furtherance of justice.""

[theget]

On Mar 23, 2:31 pm, theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/12032142-418/officials-trayvon-case-cited-in-racial-beating.html

"After he was arrested, Hayes told police he was upset by the racially
charged Trayvon Martin case in Florida and beat the man because he was
white..." The article says that one of the things he's being charged
with is a "hate crime."

And
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120412/ARTICLES/120419865/1002/news?p=1&tc=pg

[theget]

On Apr 12, 6:15 pm, D.F. Manno <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:

> I don't see you singling out for criticism any of the nut jobs who are
> promising to start a race war if Zimmerman is convicted.

I found this,
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/adl-domestic-extremists-seek-to-exploit-trayvon-martin-shooting-by-spreading-racism-and-hatred-2012-04-10
It seems that everyone wants to play.

The Trayvon Martin thread at Stormfront is here, http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t875118/
besides the usual racist garbage I found this gem,

"I just want the people on this blog to know that EVERY racist, or
CLOSET racists will be killed off.
That mentality is old. Prejudice and racism are old.
Our Country needs unification."

So I guess even anti-racists can call for killing people they don't
like.

But the general tone of the comments at SF is that Zimmerman isn't one
of them, he's Hispanic. So they don't much care.

Do you have any links to white extremists who are threatening a race
war if Zimmerman is convicted? Or stories about them?

[theget]

On Mar 23, 2:31 pm, theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:

Allan Dershowitz says that the prosecutor is over reaching. With
video.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/25/dershowitz-trayvon-prosecutor-overreached-with-murder-charge/
Says the prosecution may have committed a crime.

"“This affidavit submitted by the prosecutor in the Florida case is a
crime,” Dershowitz said. “It’s a crime.”"

"He said it is quite possible Zimmerman was guilty of a lesser charge,
but the affidavit does not support a second-degree murder charge.

“There’s nothing in this affidavit that suggests second-degree murder.
The elements of second-degree murder aren’t here.""

Zimmerman's bail might be renegotiated.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-27/news/la-na-nn-zimmerman-reveals-support-fund-2012-0427_1_o-mara-florida-judge-bond