|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ignoring the race baiters on both sides of this, can everyone agree that the initial investigation was lacking? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
[
I assume that due process and forensic evidence matter more then petite demagouges ideas that someone has suffered enough already means that they shouldn't go to court, or their opinion that the victim was a thug has any legal standing.
Weed and graffiti as an adolescent make you thug for life? Really? Pot heads, hippies, and Banksy don't strike me as life long hardcore thugs, assuming much? |
Not much thanks...but there you go assuming yet again (see the part I bolded.). Please tell me where I said that Zimmerman has suffered enough so he shouldn't have to go to court. In fact I think he SHOULD go to court...if only to clear his name and stop people from making baseless assumptions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| [q Please note that I am not defending Trayvon, ? |
Oh please...you've spent days DIRECTLY defending him. What about all those pictures? What about all the claims of school trouble? What about the police stating that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman?
Except for the last none of these are related to the investigation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Character evidence of the victim is admissible if it tends to show a certain behaviour that the victim acts in a certain way, so here evidence of a past violent history could be admissible. However, drug related offenses wouldn't fall under that umbrella.
Which is why Trayvon being suspended for school over being late a few times or carrying around a baggie with weed residue inside it is not admissible, but Zimmerman getting fired from a security job for overt aggression, attacking his ex-fiance, or being arrested for assaulting a police officer is admissible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| [q Please note that I am not defending Trayvon, ? |
Oh please...you've spent days DIRECTLY defending him. What about all those pictures? What about all the claims of school trouble? What about the police stating that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman?
Except for the last none of these are related to the investigation. |
I think it's disgusting that people used a fake photo to defame a dead kid. That's hardly defending Trayvon. I don't know Trayvon, so I see no need to defend him. I think the victim blaming and the effort to make him look like a thug in order to justify the lack of police response is indicative of a systematic failure. I think that race and appearance played a role in the initial investigation based on the history of the police department in question. It's all relevant, but like I said before I am mostly interested in the institutional importance of this case. We do not know for sure if ZImmerman or Trayvon are truly guilty, but we do know that there was a systematic institutional failure.
As to your other post,
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Also not let's forget...whatever happens...Zimmerman's life as an anonymous private citizen is forever over. Plus he has a $10,000 bounty on his head to boot. I think that's enough punishment for his part in this...I'm not buying Trayvon as the innocent victim pure as driven snow. Those marks on Zimmerman's head didn't appear by magic. |
So you're advocating no further investigation? What if you're wrong and Zimmerman initiated the confrontation? If I'm attacked and I resist, and I am subsequently shot and killed, should my attacker go free? I'm not saying that this is what occurred, but such blas� disregard for getting to the truth of the matter is exactly what so many of us are arguing against. |
The only one who knows exactly what went on that night is Zimmerman. It all depends on if a judge and jury find his story believable or not. If Zimmerman sticks to his story there is no way to verify whether I am wrong or not.
Neither will a trial enable us to get to the truth of the matter. Innocent men have been convicted before and will be again. It will give us a clearer picture of what MAY have happened that night. But unless Zimmerman is lying and suddenly makes a full confession...we will never know what really happened...regardless of whether he is convicted or goes free. |
Maybe we read different things, but it sure seems like your are at the very least implying that he has suffered enough and shouldn't go to court. You do seem to have a strong opinion about Zimmerman, the man with a history of violence and thuggery, and his innocence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| [q Please note that I am not defending Trayvon, ? |
Oh please...you've spent days DIRECTLY defending him. What about all those pictures? What about all the claims of school trouble? What about the police stating that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman?
Except for the last none of these are related to the investigation. |
I think it's disgusting that people used a fake photo to defame a dead kid. That's hardly defending Trayvon. I don't know Trayvon, so I see no need to defend him. I think the victim blaming and the effort to make him look like a thug in order to justify the lack of police response is indicative of a systematic failure. I think that race and appearance played a role in the initial investigation based on the history of the police department in question. It's all relevant, but like I said before I am mostly interested in the institutional importance of this case. We do not know for sure if ZImmerman or Trayvon are truly guilty, but we do know that there was a systematic institutional failure.
As to your other post,
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Also not let's forget...whatever happens...Zimmerman's life as an anonymous private citizen is forever over. Plus he has a $10,000 bounty on his head to boot. I think that's enough punishment for his part in this...I'm not buying Trayvon as the innocent victim pure as driven snow. Those marks on Zimmerman's head didn't appear by magic. |
So you're advocating no further investigation? What if you're wrong and Zimmerman initiated the confrontation? If I'm attacked and I resist, and I am subsequently shot and killed, should my attacker go free? I'm not saying that this is what occurred, but such blas� disregard for getting to the truth of the matter is exactly what so many of us are arguing against. |
The only one who knows exactly what went on that night is Zimmerman. It all depends on if a judge and jury find his story believable or not. If Zimmerman sticks to his story there is no way to verify whether I am wrong or not.
Neither will a trial enable us to get to the truth of the matter. Innocent men have been convicted before and will be again. It will give us a clearer picture of what MAY have happened that night. But unless Zimmerman is lying and suddenly makes a full confession...we will never know what really happened...regardless of whether he is convicted or goes free. |
Maybe we read different things, but it sure seems like your are at the very least implying that he has suffered enough and shouldn't go to court. You do seem to have a strong opinion about Zimmerman, the man with a history of violence and thuggery, and his innocence. |
I clearly said "punishment" nothing was said about not going to court. In fact I believe my statement about the judge and jury above shows an assumption of a court date and trial.
As for my "strong opinion" I'm just correcting your assumptions and your seemingly strong opinion about Trayvon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
I clearly said "punishment" nothing was said about not going to court. In fact I believe my statement about the judge and jury above shows an assumption of a court date and trial.
As for my "strong opinion" I'm just correcting your assumptions and your seemingly strong opinion about Trayvon. |
This will be the last thing I say until new information surfaces. I don't have many opinions about Trayvon, but I do have strong opinions about due process, and about the picture that has been painted by the evidence that is available to the public thus far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Three things people don't know about the Trayvon Martin case (but think they do)
| Quote: |
Is Florida's "stand your ground" law the reason Zimmerman has not been arrested? Zimmerman claims Martin knocked him down and repeatedly smacked his head against the pavement. He says his gun was exposed during the scuffle and he feared Martin would grab it, so he drew the pistol and fired. In these circumstances, a right to "stand your ground" would make no difference, since there would be no feasible way to safely escape.
Under Florida law, the crucial question is whether Zimmerman reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent Martin from killing or seriously injuring him. The same defense would have been available to him under the "duty to retreat" standard that applied in public places prior to 2005�even if Zimmerman threw the first punch.
Another change to the law seems more relevant: To arrest Zimmerman, police need "probable cause" to conclude not simply that he killed someone but also that his use of force was unlawful. Yet probable cause is the same test that applies to all other crimes, and if it has not been met so far the fault probably lies in an incomplete investigation, rather than the requirement that police have a "reasonable belief" a suspect broke the law before they charge him.
Showing probable cause, of course, is not the same as proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt�something to keep in mind if, as now seems likely, George Zimmerman's claims are scrutinized by a jury. |
The aspects of the Stand your Ground law so lamented in the media probably aren't even applicable here. More problematic is that probable cause is needed to arrest Zimmerman. This seems backwards. He killed a man, that should be probable cause. Whether he may raise self-defense as a valid justification should come later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| 3. Except that Trayvon is a thug is not opinion. The guy was in trouble over drugs. He was also in trouble at school for graffiti and being tardy. That seems to fit the description. |
Your use of the term "thug" is rather problematic, IMO. If Trayvon was an upper-middle class white kid who was in trouble for some weed, some graffiti, and being tardy, he'd be "troubled", at worst (or just a kid). Trayvon being black, however, gets branded a thug. Perhaps my perception of marijuana is skewed, but 90% or more of the males I grew up around at the very least tried the drug during their high school years. Were they all thugs? Were the rich Korean kids at my prep school who spent every Friday night in detention due to chronic tardiness thugs? The use of the term thug, in this case, is an ugly one with ugly connotations. Trayvon was a seventeen year old kid who might have dabbled on the wrong side of the law, but we don't have any evidence that he did anything far beyond standard adolescent stupidity.
I'll also say that calling him a "guy" is a bit of a misnomer. He was 17 years old. TUM, I don't know what age your students are, but if you were teaching high school classes would you refer to your male students as "guys" or as "kids"? Because I certainly wouldn't refer to the average seventeen year old as "guy", as it implies adulthood.
TUM: by no means am I accusing you of racism here, but the term you used is most definitely weighed down with racial baggage. You may claim that you would use the term for any teenager with a similar history, but I'm highly doubtful that you would actually do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| He killed a man, that should be probable cause. Whether he may raise self-defense as a valid justification should come later. |
Except that killing isn't necessarily a crime. If police determine that the killing was in self-defense and no crime has been committed (as they did at the scene after hearing witness testimony) then there's no crime to arrest someone for.
There's no reason not to investigate further if some believe a crime may have been committed, but this possibility has little to do with who followed whom, who was which race, or how much physical damage a party sustained. It has -everything- to do with which party initiated the physical violence, and I don't see any chance (short of a time machine or psychic Minority Report) of anything disproving Zimmerman's account. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Looks like self defense.
Zimmerman's account has come up fairly solid. He was treated for the injuries to his head and nose. The injuries actually do show up on the police video where he appears after being treated by paramedics.
He should not, and hopefully will not, be charged with a crime. Given the rampant racism in the US, and the improbability that he could get an unbiased non-racist jury, it is unlikely that Zimmerman could get a fair trial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| He killed a man, that should be probable cause. Whether he may raise self-defense as a valid justification should come later. |
Except that killing isn't necessarily a crime. If police determine that the killing was in self-defense and no crime has been committed (as they did at the scene after hearing witness testimony) then there's no crime to arrest someone for.
There's no reason not to investigate further if some believe a crime may have been committed, but this possibility has little to do with who followed whom, who was which race, or how much physical damage a party sustained. It has -everything- to do with which party initiated the physical violence, and I don't see any chance (short of a time machine or psychic Minority Report) of anything disproving Zimmerman's account. |
I'm talking about probable cause, not criminal guilt.
| Quote: |
| The best-known definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime." Another common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true" |
You'll notice its a very similar standard to your statement I bolded.
There's certainly probable cause that Zimmerman killed Martin. That should be enough. The standard shouldn't be probable cause to show the use of force was unlawful. That is what is so terrible about the so-called Stand Your Ground law in Florida. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Either way, Zimmerman will probably go down hard in Civil Court for wrongful death. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| 3. Except that Trayvon is a thug is not opinion. The guy was in trouble over drugs. He was also in trouble at school for graffiti and being tardy. That seems to fit the description. |
(1) Your use of the term "thug" is rather problematic, IMO. If Trayvon was an upper-middle class white kid who was in trouble for some weed, some graffiti, and being tardy, he'd be "troubled", at worst (or just a kid). Trayvon being black, however, gets branded a thug.
(2) TUM: by no means am I accusing you of racism here, but the term you used is most definitely weighed down with racial baggage. You may claim that you would use the term for any teenager with a similar history, but I'm highly doubtful that you would actually do so. |
I took the liberty of editing your post because I wanted to comment on just these points here.
1. You do realize that I was the only one calling Trayvon a thug? So yes whether you realize it or not...you've just accused me of racism.
| Quote: |
| "Trayvon being black, however, gets branded a thug." |
2. You then FURTHER implied that I am guilty of racism by stating that you are "highly doubtful" that I would use the term for any teenager with a similar history.
I STRONGLY suggest you either withdraw that remark or refrain from repeating that claim. I do not appreciate your accusation of racism and YES you are accusing me of such.
It is my opinion that Trayvon is a thug (please note that the connotations that you've attached to said word are YOURS and NOT mine)
And yes I would call anyone who did the above stuff AND carried a sharpened screwdriver (either as a burglar tool or weapon of self-defense...what other reasons does one carry a modifed screwdriver) as a thug be he or she black or white or polka-dot.
In fact if you do a search you will see 22 threads in which I either mentioned the word "thug" or quoted it. In 2 I just looked at I applied that label to a Korean man and a group of Canadians.
So regardless of whatever doubts you have...my posting history speaks for itself.
Not to mention if that Zimmerman's claims are true...that's evidence of some hard-core thuggery right there.
Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A thug, to me, is a violent person. Was martin involved in numerous violent instances in the past? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
