Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Trayvon Martin - We Hear From Zimmerman's Father | Main | Last Map Of The Retreat At Twin Lakes »

March 29, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e201676462abc1970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Perils Of Placating Progressive Paranoia:

Comments

Threadkiller

Good luck Ig.

Rob Crawford

RobC -- you're joking at 1:33... right?

No. Why would you even think that?

Tyson initiated the encounter. Then the banker's wife escalated the encounter.

In order to claim self defense, you cannot have either initiated or escalated the encounter. To quote the Ohio Attorney General's pamphlet on CCW: "First, the defendant must prove that he was not at fault for creating the
situation." Tyson could not prove that, because he initiated the confrontation.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman initiated the encounter. There is no evidence he escalated it. Yes, we only have his word -- but the other evidence is consistent with what he's said and there are no witnesses that contradict him.

And, no, following Martin does not count as initiation or escalation. Even going by the questionable account given by the girlfriend, the two had lost sight of each other when Martin approached Zimmerman.

boatbuilder

I suspect that this has been covered earlier, but has it been established that Trayvon even had a cell phone? The NYT says unequivocally that all he had was iced tea and skittles. TM is puzzled as to why the police didn't follow up on the cellphone, and the girlfriend's account doesn't really jibe with the timeline. So maybe there wasn't any cellphone?

Captain Hate

O/T Since there doesn't seem to be a non-Saint Trayvon thread, El JEFe has already spent more campaign money than all the Repub primary contenders combined.

NK

Enlightened-- if Chief Lee arrested GZ on suspicion; GZ hired an attorney and made a statement of self-defense, and the prosecutor took all evidence to the GJ and no bill was returned? The world would have told the race hustlers to pound sand and the hustler in Chief would have kept his mouth shut.

Pofarmer

Nk, rob c is EXACTLY right at 1:33.

You really should get informed, or shut up.

Rob Crawford

The world would have told the race hustlers to pound sand and the hustler in Chief would have kept his mouth shut.

*sigh*

Wrong. They would have said the grand jury was biased.

Theirs (and, apparently, your) position is unfalsifiable. They know racism is to blame, and no amount of procedure or abuse of the Zimmerman will convince them otherwise. They want blood, not justice.

Pofarmer

NK, what world are you living in? At 1:51. It just would have meant the grand jury was impaneled with racist white crackers. The narrTive must be maintained.

I R A Darth Aggie

the distinction is that Seminole county did operate that bootcamp where Anderson did perish

If by "Anderson" you mean Martin Lee Anderson, then you mispelled "Bay County".

NK

qrstuv-- first off take it up with RobC he says fists always justify lETHAL self-defense even for Mike Tyson and the Banker's wife (don't know if he's serious), second- lethal force self defense is not just in life threatening situations , it's also belief of threat of serious injury to yourself or others, third.... uh... be more polite.

Rocco

Jeffrey Syder's "A Nation of Cowards"

The Gift of Life

Although difficult for modern man to fathom, it was once widely believed that life was a gift from God, that to not defend that life when offered violence was to hold God's gift in contempt, to be a coward and to breach one's duty to one's community. A sermon given in Philadelphia in 1747 unequivocally equated the failure to defend oneself with suicide:

He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself.

"Cowardice" and "self-respect" have largely disappeared from public discourse. In their place we are offered "self-esteem" as the bellwether of success and a proxy for dignity. "Self-respect" implies that one recognizes standards, and judges oneself worthy by the degree to which one lives up to them. "Self-esteem" simply means that one feels good about oneself. "Dignity" used to refer to the self-mastery and fortitude with which a person conducted himself in the face of life's vicissitudes and the boorish behavior of others. Now, judging by campus speech codes, dignity requires that we never encounter a discouraging word and that others be coerced into acting respectfully, evidently on the assumption that we are powerless to prevent our degradation if exposed to the demeaning behavior of others. These are signposts proclaiming the insubstantiality of our character, the hollowness of our souls.

It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim. Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens. Crime is not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We are a nation of cowards and shirkers.

boatbuilder

TM--as a legal proposition, Crump doesn't need an arrest, a conviction, or even an illegal act to succeed on a wrongful death suit. All he needs is negligence (which is one thing that might be relatively easy to argue for here--and it could be covered by insurance!).

qrstuv

No, you're being dishonest again.

Be more honest.

Porchlight

Porch-- why circular? If Chief Lee's judgment were exemplary, why leave duty?

Perhaps because of political pressure. Perhaps because as others have pointed out, he thought it would be better for more objective parties to take over and/or review his actions. Perhaps his boss threatened to fire him if he didn't. Perhaps some combination or all of these.

Your statement was something like this: "I think Lee made a mistake; he obviously agrees since he stepped down."

That leaves no opening for alternative explanations.

FRONT TOWARD LEFT

The world would have told the race hustlers to pound sand and the hustler in Chief would have kept his mouth shut.

Nobody can know that. Most of the "new" facts trickling out over the last week were part of the public record before this was sensationalized into the Saint Trayvon narrative. The hustlers told the lies they needed to tell to paint this as an execution knowing full well that existing evidence points to something else, entirely.

What is so magical about a no bill? Instead of racist shooter and racist cops, they'd be carping about racist shooter, racist cops, and the racist grand jury.

Enlightened

NK, again I'm not trying to be unfair. The Chief was told he did not have enough evidence to arrest GZ. So he let him go. That's the law. End of story.

boris

How is making false statements about what someone here "says" more polite than "shut up"?

narciso

Btw, Karen Finney i s denying she said what she said, while ratifying what she intended,
about Rush and co.

Stephanie

NK, what world are you living in? At 1:51. It just would have meant the grand jury was impaneled with racist white crackers. The narrTive must be maintained.


Or if there were any minorities on the GJ, they were either Uncle Tom's or intimidated by the other GJ members.

NK

Enlightened-- true enough, Chief Lee and the prosecutor combined made misjudgments that night, and chief lee is paying a price for it.

Po/RobC-- let me say this -- if you whistle at a 40yo Banker's on the street and she swings at you with her fist, don't drop her with a gunshot-- you won't like how the criminal justice system treats you. No charge for the legal advice.

Extraneus

My takeaways so far:

1. As a rule, liberals are against neighborhood watchmen.

2. They instinctively oppose the notion self-defense.

3. They see little value in motivating or counseling young people to treat their elders with respect.

4. They oppose the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

5. They are willing to make dumb, senseless arguments, even as their own credibility pines for the fjords, because they somehow think this will help their side politically.

One thing's for certain: The lawless thug vote is not in jeopardy.

qrstuv

NK, if you apply yourself a little to RC at 1:33, you'll see that the scenario you name is not one of self-defense. This doesn't seem difficult to understand.

YOu might have a little trouble with the next part. If it's not self-defense, it would be a crime for Tyson to shoot the woman. That's not hard to understand either.

I don't know how you interpreted RC at 1:33, though.

NK

Boris-- examples please-- I always want the public record to be clear.

narciso

Meanwhile torching that many strawmen should be classified as a f ire hazard.


http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/obama-touts-higher-taxes-on-oil-companies/

Rob Crawford

first off take it up with RobC he says fists always justify lETHAL self-defense even for Mike Tyson and the Banker's wife (don't know if he's serious)

???

Yes, if all the conditions apply, then you can use lethal defense against someone using their fists.

And apparently, my response to your hypothetical wasn't adequately explained:

Tyson initiated the encounter. He cannot claim self defense. He is therefore going to be charged with all manner of crimes.

boris

NK, do your own damn work and apologize when you find them ... or not. Mox nix.

qrstuv

Here's an example. You accused Rob Crawford of saying "fists always justify lETHAL self-defense."

Show us where he said that.

FRONT TOWARD LEFT


One thing I've noticed in discussions of this is that people are pushing their "what-ought-to-be" ideas of deadly force and self-defense. Many of these ideas are sophomoric in the most perfect sense in that they presume that nobody else in all of history has ever given these subjects even a passing thought.

Each state has a well established body of legislation and/or case law that covers these topics pretty well, and the theories (as opposed to pulled-from-the-ass, ought-to-be hypotheses) are there for all to see and understand.

NK

qrstuv-- see RobC@1:47-- he beleves Mike Tyson committed a crime because he 'initiated' a confrontation by swearing at a 40yo woman-- absurd. Mike Tyson committed a crime because he used lethal force where he had no reasonable fear of serious injury from a Banker's wife swinging her fist at him. This is a simple hypothetical-- it wasn't an Edward Bennett Williams trick question at the Georgetown Law School.

qrstuv

NK,
You're not very good at reading. RC at 1:47 is pretty clear that the crime is the shooting, which was not in self-defense.

You probably need help tying your shoes.

Stephanie

true enough, Chief Lee and the prosecutor combined made misjudgments that night, and chief lee is paying a price for it.

Says you based on what? That they didn't act as you see fit?

There is no evidence that either 'made misjudgments.' There is evidence that they made a judgment and that they have asked others to decide if it was the proper one.

The investigation and decision is still out on that one, and if you don't see that, you are acting no differently than those calling for Zimmerman's head ie decision first, proof later.

Decision first, proof later is abhorrent. I feel like Alice in Wonderland...

jwest

Off topic, but since this is such a well-heeled group…

Does anyone have any banking contacts in Libya? I need a little help arranging a payment coming from one of Libyan associates.

Tom Maguire
Now, if Trayvon's father thought he'd just gone to the 7-11, and a shot was heard in the neighborhood and he didn't report his son missing or walk out to see what had happened, what are we to think?

I have read or been told that dad and the woman were out to dinner; Trayvon was minding the little one, with a break for a walk.

NK

qrstuv-- as I said above see RobC@1:46, but RobC did finally qualify that @207 when he acknowledged that lethal force against fists depends on the circumstances -- he said "if all conditions apply". I think in my hypothetical, Mike Tyson has no reasonable fear of serious injury, he has no right to use lethal force of any kind -- the Baretta 9mm made that point stark (if he killed her with one punch-- that would be a tough case for all involved-- he's not a licensed boxer any longer, so he can defend himself with fists.)

Stephanie

Damn, jwest, I was just gonna ask for help for a Lady Janette that appealed for some assistance with banking matters in Haiti.. Now you done gone and busted my jack.

Hater.

sbw

To quote Janice, from "Friends": Oh! My! Gawd!

The "Now" worm in the brain appears to have infected everyone at JOM. They have become consumed by the present; lost touch with the past and the future.

The idea of letting what passes for justice take its course and only then making judgments is so passé. So yesterday. So whatever.

Everyone seems sucked into the progressive disease "I need what I want now." You know, the disease whose primary symptom is meaningless verbal diarrhea.

Captain Hate

Meanwhile torching that many strawmen should be classified as a f ire hazard.

I was looking in vain for any fragment of a sentence that had any foundation in reality.

FRONT TOWARD LEFT

qrstuv-- see RobC@1:47-- he beleves Mike Tyson committed a crime because he 'initiated' a confrontation by swearing at a 40yo woman-- absurd.

That's not absurd. Your scenario was absurd.

Forget the punch in the nose. If in response to the verbal provocation, the woman pulled a gun from her purse and shot at Tyson and then Tyson pulled a gun from his pocket and shot her, they would both be culpable for what happened.

This is not a zero-sum game of charge one or the other. The third interested party is the state, and the state would charge both.

What if Tyson had said to his buddy, "Hey hold my beer--I'm going to make this woman draw on me so I can kill her" before the encounter?

Extraneus

Tyson initiated the encounter.

I don't understand this notion that the person who initiated a conflict has forfeited the right to self-defense if the conflict escalates.

Say one person shouts to another: "Your mother wears Army boots!" Maybe the shouter is drunk. If the recipient responds by repeatedly slamming that person's head onto the pavement, is it really true that the initiator has no legal right to self-defense, even if he reasonably fears for his life?

NK

Stephanie-- the problem Chief Lee and the prosecutor have is that they released GZ on his say so, very limited physical evidence and no GJ review. They have very little evidence to defend their judgments. A full investigation may corroborate their judgments -- or it may contradict their judgments. That's their problem --they made final judgments on too little evidence. The looking glass is fine.

FRONT TOWARD LEFT

If the recipient responds by repeatedly slamming that person's head onto the pavement, is it really true that the initiator has no legal right to self-defense, even if he reasonably fears for his life?

He has a right to defend himself, but he does not have the right to walk away from the situation without facing consequences.

boris

"forfeited the right to self-defense"

Not forfeit, just subject to prosecution.

NK

Ex-- let's stick with my hypothetical. Tyson swears, the woman sings at him, punches him in the nose-- then change the facts, Tyson doesn't use his lawful handgun, holds the woman's hands at arms length and does nothing more, other people take the woman away. Has Tyson committed any crime? Has the woman?

Jane (Where is Jon Corzine?)

I have read or been told that dad and the woman were out to dinner; Trayvon was minding the little one, with a break for a walk.

And the parents didn't notice he was gone when they got home? What time was that and what was "the little one" doing?

qrstuv

Scenario A: Tyson swears, the woman sings at him, punches him in the nose.

The woman committed assault. Tyson has not committed a crime.

Scenario B: Tyson swears, the woman sings at him, punches him in the nose. Tyson shoots her.

Both have committed crimes.

Scenario C: Tyson swears, the woman sings at him, punches him in the nose. Tyson doesn't use his lawful handgun, holds the woman's hands at arms length and does nothing more, other people take the woman away.

Same as scenario A.

Jane (Where is Jon Corzine?)

the problem Chief Lee and the prosecutor have is that they released GZ on his say so, very limited physical evidence and no GJ review. They have very little evidence to defend their judgments.

Why? They could arrest him at any time -if and when they got the evidence to charge him.

Grand Juries are never immediate.

Pofarmer

This is a ridivulous hypothetical, for starters. I'll say again. NK have you ever taken a CCW course?

boris

Lady calls Tyson the n-word.
Tyson knocks her down with one punch, gets on top and starts pounding her head into the concrete. Lady takes it for a few seconds then pulls out a knitting needle and impales Tyson through the eye. What then ? huh ?

She just provoked the beating so she could murder Tyson because she objects to his treatment of women. Hero or villian? You decide.

NK

qrstuv@2:30-- I agree -- and every state common law agrees -- with you, because Tyson used reasonable force in Scenario C and unreasonable force in B. The fact that Tyson's vulgar swearing 'initiated' the encounter has no bearing if he used reasonable force in response to the smaller woman's physical assault. Take this up with RobC, apparently he disagrees.

Rob Crawford

I don't understand this notion that the person who initiated a conflict has forfeited the right to self-defense if the conflict escalates.

*shrug*

And yet, that's the law.

The funny thing is, it's that way precisely to prevent the kind of situations NK and bubu are supposedly concerned about. It's to prevent a person from starting a fight as an excuse to use deadly force.

And as FTL and boris point out, it means you have to stand trial for your actions. You may still be acquitted; it's just going to be a lot harder.

NK

JaneWhere-- they COULD have but didn't. Lee and the prosecutor dropped the case completely-- that's their problem.

qrstuv

NK, I don't see where Rob Crawford supposedly disagrees.

Where did he ever claim Mike Tyson would not be guilty of a crime if he shot a woman who had just punched him in the nose?

Rob Crawford

Take this up with RobC, apparently he disagrees.

Given my repeated attempts to clarify, and that others have restated my position, I have to believe you're willfully misstating my position.

Please stop it.

NK

Boris@2:35-- if the woman plotted to kill Tyson by putting herself at risk, a good prosecutor would follow up on that. they would interview associates, did she tell people she planned this, check for her membership in radical feminist organizations, did she routinely knit or did she buy titanium needles the day before etc-- this may not have been self-defense. it may have been a crazy plot. That's why prosecutors have police detectives.

Enlightened

Stephanie-- the problem Chief Lee and the prosecutor have is that they released GZ on his say so, very limited physical evidence and no GJ review.

The police were told they did NOT have enough evidence for a probable cause determination.

They only have 24 hours to arrest him and bring him in front of a judge to detemine probable cause which is a fairly low standard to meet.

Exactly what evidence has come forward after his release that would have reversed the DA's call?

The girlfriends phone call? Easily rebutted since she did not come forward for weeks, her story directly contradicts TM's attorney and half her story supports GZ's story. And there is no one to corroborate her version.

What other evidence has come forward that the Sanford PD missed?


NK

RobC-- see qrstuv's scenario C @230, is tyson guilty of a crime because he initiated the encounter?

Stephanie

...the problem Chief Lee and the prosecutor have is that they released GZ on his say so, very limited physical evidence and no GJ review. They have very little evidence to defend their judgments. A full investigation may corroborate their judgments -- or it may contradict their judgments. That's their problem --they made final judgments on too little evidence. The looking glass is fine.

FINAL JUDGEMENTS?

NK. Where to begin...

They didn't make final judgments. The investigation was just beginning. AT THAT TIME they did not find there was enough evidence to hold him in jail. That doesn't mean that it was FINAL. Geez man get out of the fog of emotion and apply what you know about criminal investigations. They are always 'on going' until all the facts are in. The damned autopsy wasn't even begun then. Or do you advocate holding someone for however long it takes to complete an investigation. That puts us on the same footing as ARUBA.


There is also that pesky 'how long can you hold someone without charges' (24 or 48 hours in many states). Some actions by the police start clocks that can not be stopped without due process violations. Holding someone is one of those actions. Did they want to risk the final results of the investigation by starting those clocks too early?

How long can you hold someone without an appearance before a judge after charges are filed? At that time a whole set of time restrictions begin - bail hearings, stuff like that. Affirmative responses to judges that there is 'probable cause' for those specific charges to be filed are also problematic.

Exactly what should they have charged him with? At what level? The government only gets so many bites at that apple.

Overcharging is a pile of shit that results in undermining your case. It also results in folks like Scooter Libby getting the 'well he must be guilty of something, so we'll convict on the lesser charge.'

Police investigations are open ended in this country and people aren't willy nilly thrown in jail on suspicion that a crime has occurred. In fact, some cases require multiple contacts with a potential perpetrator where he is released each time and where the investigators reevaluate the case to see if they have met the burden of a 'probable cause' threshold. If it isn't at that level, the threshold isn't met.

The fooking case was less than 24 hours old. There was just no probable cause established in that time frame. BTW, there usually isn't.

Don't forget the semantics game of 'person if interest' or 'suspect' either. Those also cause certain actions to be performed in certain time periods - hence the reticence to label a person one or the other too soon.

The Green River killer was interviewed multiple times before the 'probable cause' issue was met... do you think they should have held him for the duration of the investigation if they hadn't met their burden... BTW additional killings occurred during that time frame of his continued interactions with the police....

Buy a clue.

boris

they would interview associates, did he tell people he planned this, check for membership in La Raza, did he routinely carry or did buy a weapon the day before ...

So that's what you want, full scale witch hunt into GZ's past to look for "evidence"? That's the so called "facts" you want before letting him get away with self defense?

That's fukt.

NK

Stephanie-- were Lee and the prosecutor giving evidence to a GJ in the weeks after the killing? It's a rhetorical question, they weren't. I can be persuaded NOT arresting GZ pending grand jury action was the most just course-- in fact lets agree about that. Lee and the prosecutors problem is there was no grand jury, nor any investigation by Sanford PD as far as I can see. Where the Sanford PD going door to door for witnesses?, checking GZ's 911 history? BTW-- not investigating the cell phone data and having the body for 3 days, just makes it look real bad.

Stephanie

Before and after...

LUN

NK

Boris-- yes -- when a man shoots an unarmed 17yo on the street, there should be a thorough investigation, including the shooter's backround. Yes, IMO.

boris

Then let's be clear about these "facts" and "assumptions" you are concerned with here. Witch hunt justice and thought crime defined by prevailing notions of critical race theory. No thanks pal.

boris

Oh and BTW I was 17 in '65 middle of VN war when I enlisted so stuff the 17yo carp.

Stephanie

as far as I can see.

Glad to know you can see through the walls of the police building and followed all the parties around to see if they were doing their jobs.

You don't empanel a GJ until you have completed a substantial part of your investigation. They have limited terms and you don't want to start it with one and have to restart it if the term expires.

Where the Sanford PD going door to door for witnesses?,

Gee I guess all the witness statements so far reported were taken at the scene cause they immediately ran up to the police to get involved and that the police had no followup phone calls. /sarc

Shep is going all 'smoking gun' on the damned ABC tape. F*cker. Would that someone had done that on his ass when he hit that pedestrian in Tallahassee trying to park to get to a hearing during the Bush/Gore fiasco.

Extraneus

Sarah Palin: I think the president’s comments on Trayvon Martin were orchestrated

“I’m going to get clobbered for even suggesting this, but it is what I believe.”
Rob Crawford

when a man shoots an unarmed 17yo on the street

Why do you keep mentioning "unarmed" as if it's of importance, and leaving out "who was beating the man's head against the concrete" as if it's of no importance?

Janet

bumper sticker of the day -

Rob Crawford

Sarah Palin: I think the president’s comments on Trayvon Martin were orchestrated

Didn't The Wan's press secretary confer with the guy who tossed the softball?

sbw

I think I'll go do something useful like shout against the tide. ;-)

Stephanie

Me too, but my something useful involves handicaps that are actually lowerable. ;)

NK

Stephanie-- you're missing something -- the shooting was Feb 26th. Several weeks later,the State AG took the case away. When they did, the public statements from the AG were that an inquiry was being started and a GJ empaneled on April 10th. I admit, I'm from NYC, and here GJs are used quickly for any controversial police or self-defense shooting. It's the right and smart thing to do IMO--and the Florida AG is doing that now. I am not accusing Chief Lee or the local prosecutor of anything -- except bad judgment.

MarkO

While we're at these substantive criminal law hypos, what about a good Mann Act discussion. Start with West Memphis, AK.

Enlightened

Sigh...I've been scammed by a kindygardner...

"having the body for 3 days" ......you give yourself away by spewing this crap.

please.take.your.ball.and.leave.

Sue

There is a full on race war breaking out around us and Obama started it.

Rob Crawford

including the shooter's backround

What bearing does that have on the case?


Stephanie

BTW has anyone determined if the jacket Z was wearing in the video was his or if it was provided for cover by the paramedics.

Did they escort him home to change and take his clothes then for evidence? Hmmm...

There is so much that is not filled into the timeline yet some are demanding the evidence is in.

Some fool on Shep just stated that this video must be the threshold to arrest Z. Idiot.

I am reminded of the musings of both Reagan and Emily Littella. Reagan in the 'we know there is so much that we don't know' and Littella for the 'never mind.'

The 'never mind' from the press is usually relegated to page 12C, bottom left hand corner...

FRONT TOWARD LEFT

Boris-- yes -- when a man shoots an unarmed 17yo on the street, there should be a thorough investigation, including the shooter's backround. Yes, IMO.

That's not how it is. Too bad for you.

As icing on the cake, the pendulum has been swinging away from your "IMO" since the AWB, and it's been picking up speed because of the incitement antics of the race-baiting grievance industry.

Other commenters have been trying to explain why "unarmed" (and "stand your ground, for that matter) is meaningless in this case.

To echo boris, I was a soldier less than four months after my seventeenth birthday.

Your inflammatory words fail to inflame me.

Jane (Where is Jon Corzine?)

I agree with Sarah. The race war of desperation has started.

Lee and the prosecutor dropped the case completely-- that's their problem.

I don't see the problem since they were satisfied it was a justifiable homicide. I've seen no evidence that disputes that. If you have some, post it.

And by "evidence" I mean "facts".

Clarice

Poor, sbw. I know how you feel. It's wonderful to have so many people paying attention to releant facts and law an a complete bother to watch sane people try to talk sense to numbskulls.

Postolas, please!

NK

RobC@3:07-- the significance of TMartin being unarmed is that the police and DA have a more compelling reason to investigate fully and faster, and bring in a GJ panel sooner than if Martin was brandishng a gun when he an GZ fought. As I said before, if the facts were that TMartin brandished a gun, confronted GZ and GZ shot TMartin, I piss on Martin, he assumed the risk. That didn't happen here, TMartin had no weapon.

Sue

that was completed at 3:07 a.m. on Feb. 27 lists Trayvon’s full name, city of birth, address and phone number.”

How did they know all of this? Fingerprints? Because we are told he didn't have any id on him.

Extraneus

Justice Breyer on the Commerce Clause

I look back into history, and I think if we look back into history we see sometimes Congress can create commerce out of nothing. That's the national bank, which was created out of nothing to create other commerce out of nothing. I look back into history, and I see it seems pretty clear that if there are substantial effects on interstate commerce, Congress can act.

And I look at the person who's growing marijuana in her house, or I look at the farmer who is growing the wheat for home consumption. This seems to have more substantial effects.

Is this commerce? Well, it seems to me more commerce than marijuana. I mean, is it, in fact, a regulation? Well, why not? If creating a bank is, why isn't this?

And then you say, ah, but one thing here out of all those things is different, and that is you're making somebody do something.

I say, hey, can't Congress make people drive faster than 45 -- 40 miles an hour on a road? Didn't they make that man growing his own wheat go into the market and buy other wheat for his -- for his cows? Didn't they make Mrs. -- if she married somebody who had marijuana in her basement, wouldn't she have to go and get rid of it? Affirmative action?

Rob Crawford

the significance of TMartin being unarmed is that the police and DA have a more compelling reason to investigate fully and faster

No, they don't. Because as far as self defense law is concerned, unarmed doesn't matter.

Question: is there ever a case when it's justified (meaning "perfectly legal and you won't even face charges") to shoot an unarmed man assaulting someone else?

NK

RobC@315-- just for example-- the shooter never did nabe watch in his life, he never carried a gun before, his grandmother is mugged 2 weeks earlier, he tells friends that he's going to fight back, he buys a gun, he joins a local community watch, and his first night out patrolling he shoots an unarmed man. Does that background affect self-defense? I think it does.

Stephanie

Several weeks later,the State AG took the case away.

Because? It was politicized? It was not being investigated? It was demanded by the feds?

Just cause the case was taken to a higher level does not imply they won't affirm the actions taken at the lower level.

As far as 'impaneling' a GJ. Sounds like they are taking those to specially impaneled GJ which means that even had they started that on Feb 27, the notices would still have had to go out to the potential jurors with requisite notice to them of when it would start. There are timelines on impaneling special GJs, too. That is why I posited a regular GJ that was already impaneled and available immediately as you demand.

Nice rationalization for the swampy foundations required to satisfy your demands, though.

It should have been taken to a grand jury, but I'm actually talking about a grand jury that hasn't been notified or impaneled yet but they shoulda been meeting last month!!!!

FRONT TOWARD LEFT

As I said before, if the facts were that TMartin brandished a gun, confronted GZ and GZ shot TMartin, I piss on Martin, he assumed the risk.

There's an awful lot of daylight between *your* standards and the way things work in the real world.

If we're going to talk personal standards, then let me make it clear that I am in complete favor of making all registered democrats (including Zimmerman) prohibited persons when it comes to firearm ownership. If they're armed, then the simple larceny of their every vote becomes armed robbery.

Stephanie

If we're going to talk personal standards, then let me make it clear that I am in complete favor of making all registered democrats (including Zimmerman) prohibited persons when it comes to firearm ownership. If they're armed, then the simple larceny of their every vote becomes armed robbery.

Bravo! Brava! Whatever, that was teh awesome.

Enlightened

1) Trayvon shot on Feb 26
2) Father tells mother Trayvon dead on Feb 27

ONE DAY LATER.

“He said, ‘Somebody shot Trayvon and killed him.’ And I was like, ‘Are you sure?’ ” Fulton continued in disbelief. “I said ‘How do you know that’s Trayvon?’ And he said because they showed him a picture.”

That was Feb. 27, one day after Trayvon was shot

LUN

NK

RobC@322-- yes-- Mike Tyson attacking with his fists the 40yo Banker's wife who swore at Tyson. Third person can use lethal force to defend the 40yo from serious injury or death. Ancient common law.

BTW-- the unarmed fact is huge for reasonable belief justifying lethal force. Mike Tyson beating on someone with his fists is very different than a large professional boxer being punched by a small unarmed woman. The woman can reasonably fear serious injury or death and can use lethal force-- the large boxer --probably-- can't.

Stephanie
“This court would not only have to stretch, it would have to abandon and completely overrule a lot of modern precedent, which would do grave damage to this court, in its credibility and power,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D), a former attorney general of Connecticut. “The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility. The only reason people obey it is because it has that credibility. And the court risks grave damage if it strikes down a statute of this magnitude and importance, and stretches so dramatically and drastically to do it.”

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said the law has been thoroughly vetted.

“As a senior member of the Finance Committee,” he said, “I can tell you that we had one of the most rigorous and transparent legislative processes that I have witnessed in almost 3 decades here in the Congress. We worked with some of the brightest, most thoughtful and experienced constitutional lawyers in order to make sure that the law was constitutional.”

From Geoffb at PW:

So with that, they reduce SCOTUS to nothing more than a fancy debate club, and reduce their rulings and opinions to nothing more than an issue of ‘credibility’- however much, that is, that the left deems them worthy of having.

Interesting choice of words, also. “The court commands no armies; it has no money. It depends for it’s power on it’s credibility”. Reminds me of Stalin, who when advised to beware of the Pope’s opinion and influence, replied- “this Pope you speak of. How many divisions does he have?”

LUN to PW w links to the links of the quotes

Stephanie

John f'n Kerry:

We worked with some of the brightest, most thoughtful and experienced constitutional lawyers in order to make sure that the law was constitutional.

I'll ask whether Toobin could be reached for comment... ;)

NK

Stephanie-- of course Kerry and Blumenthal are moronic slags. Their opinion of the constitutionality of the mandate THEY THEMSELVES passed is nice to know, but irrelevant. After a full review, the SCOTUS ultimately decides constitutionality. Isn't that also true about determining lawful self-defense in the case we've been discussing-- shouldn't a grand jury get the final say not the opinion of the shooter or the Chief?

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet

I've been reading the Trayvon threads for the past few days but haven't commented because the incessant flashbacks to first year Criminal Law are paralyzing me.

After reading all of this, I am convinced of only two things:

That FLA's "stand your ground" statute will have no bearing whatever on the disposition of the Zimmerman/Martin criminal investigation.

That race had nothing whatever to do with Martin's death.

NK

JimR-- agree, this will be a "reasonable" use of lethal force self-defense case. I'm not optomistic we'll ever know the whole truth-- the State and GZ will litigate this zealously, and when that happens, the truth can get trampled by the lawyers and politicians.

Danube of Thought

I think it's all connected. I believe Sheriff Joe and Orly Taitz will soon show us how.

Rob Crawford

Mike Tyson attacking with his fists the 40yo Banker's wife who swore at Tyson. Third person can use lethal force to defend the 40yo from serious injury or death. Ancient common law.

Actually, no. You'd be up on charges if you did that. "A person may defend another only if the protected person would have
had the right to use deadly force in self-defense himself." (Again, Ohio Attorney General's office)

She initiated by swearing at Tyson. *SHE* would be facing charges if *SHE* used deadly force. A third party would as well.

the unarmed fact is huge for reasonable belief justifying lethal force

Not to the extent you keep waving it around. You're claiming that a person who was knocked to the ground, pinned, and was being beaten is somehow less justified in believing he was in danger because he was attacked with fists.

If the "unarmed" man had never thrown a punch, then, yes, the putative unarmed status could be used to cast doubt on whether the shooter was reasonably in fear of serious harm or death.

But the shooter was already on the ground and being beaten.

FRONT TOWARD LEFT

Isn't that also true about determining lawful self-defense in the case we've been discussing-- shouldn't a grand jury get the final say not the opinion of the shooter or the Chief?

No. It is not true. Zimmerman gets charged for the homicide or he doesn't. It is not a matter for any court until then.

DebinNC

Local news report/video at the scene the day after Trayvon died, both Mr. Martin and John the eyewitness are heard from.

Rob Crawford

So with that, they reduce SCOTUS to nothing more than a fancy debate club, and reduce their rulings and opinions to nothing more than an issue of ‘credibility’- however much, that is, that the left deems them worthy of having.

Do they realize how many of their pet issues depend on that credibility? If they intend on playing the "let the court enforce it, if they can" game, then what's to stop states from outlawing abortion across the board?

MarkO

Breyer cannot really be that stupid. Or, can he? This is how one defends the indefensible.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon





Traffic

Wilson/Plame