New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Travon Martin.

JP Cusick

Mr know-it-all
I am going to be one of those really upset and unhappy people if the murderer Zimmerman is found not guilty.

Some commentaries say he might get convicted as "man-slaughter" instead of 2nd degree, but even that will not make me happy.

I watch the trial, and I see the defense as reprehensible - IMO.

Just venting here, as the Courts seem to be so crooked, and the Prosecutors so corrupt.
 

NightSwimmer

Senator
All justice systems are imperfect. Now that Zimmerman has been prosecuted for the killing of Martin, I'm satisfied that justice is being served to the best of the ability of the state of Florida. I'm not following this trial. It is one of many murder trials taking place in the US.

Public outrage was required, and proved adequate, to prevent the Sanford Police Department from sweeping this killing under the rug without proper investigation and prosecution. That is now behind us, and when it was put behind us is when I lost interest in this case.
 

Dino

Russian Asset
I am going to be one of those really upset and unhappy people if the murderer Zimmerman is found not guilty.

Some commentaries say he might get convicted as "man-slaughter" instead of 2nd degree, but even that will not make me happy.

I watch the trial, and I see the defense as reprehensible - IMO.

Just venting here, as the Courts seem to be so crooked, and the Prosecutors so corrupt.
So you don't like the defendant, the defense team, or the prosecutors? Interesting. What in the world makes you think Z is guilty of a murder?

I don't see a motive or malice on his part against a victim he'd never met.
 

JP Cusick

Mr know-it-all
What in the world makes you think Z is guilty of a murder?

I don't see a motive or malice on his part against a victim he'd never met.
Dino makes an interesting argument: It is impossible to commit murder by shooting and killing someone that you do not know personally.
That is completely ridiculous.

You can not murder a stranger - and you 2 expect to be respected for a statement like that?

The malice is demonstrated in the words F...ing punks and A...holes, spoken against a stranger whom he later kills.

Also the malice and murder of a stranger is manifested in the physical reality of the victim being an African American.

Like duh!

=====================
P.S.
For some reason I did not get any email notification about replies to this thread, and the box was checked, so that troubles me.
 

NightSwimmer

Senator
JP,

I never said that I agreed with Dino's perspective. Doubt that I've ever agreed with Dino about anything.

Perhaps you have a different e-mail address listed on your personal settings? If not, then you may need to contact Brent to see what the problem is with your e-mail notifications. I'd also check to make sure that my e-mail client wasn't redirecting the e-mails to the "Junk" folder.



Best Regards,
NS
 

Dino

Russian Asset
That is completely ridiculous.

Also the malice and murder of a stranger is manifested in the physical reality of the victim being an African American.

Like duh!
This is without doubt one of the most repulsive/ignorant statements I've ever seen in print.

Where does it say there's an inherent "malice" or presumption of a "murder" because an "African-American" person winds up dead? Is this a separate rule than applies to whites?

When was it passed or the courtroom precedent established? Case and year please?
 

Openmind

Council Member
All justice systems are imperfect. Now that Zimmerman has been prosecuted for the killing of Martin, I'm satisfied that justice is being served to the best of the ability of the state of Florida. I'm not following this trial. It is one of many murder trials taking place in the US.

Public outrage was required, and proved adequate, to prevent the Sanford Police Department from sweeping this killing under the rug without proper investigation and prosecution. That is now behind us, and when it was put behind us is when I lost interest in this case.
I appreciate your leveled, balanced outlook on this case. I am also satisfied that the trial was held, but I will be disappointed if Zimmerman goes free. . .although I do not think he should be found guilty of murder 2. . .but manslaugher . . . YES!

I would be happy if he spend anywhere from 5 to 15 years in jail. . .but if he doesn't. . .I do believe in karma. . .and I think it would be a lot worse for him than a 5 to 15 years jail sentence!
 
Last edited:

Openmind

Council Member
This is without doubt one of the most repulsive/ignorant statements I've ever seen in print.

Where does it say there's an inherent "malice" or presumption of a "murder" because an "African-American" person winds up dead? Is this a separate rule than applies to whites?

When was it passed or the courtroom precedent established? Case and year please?
I have never thought this case was a racial issue. . .until RACIST people (on both sides) made it so.

But the fact remains that, if Trayvon had been a WHITE teenager having gone to the store to buy skittles and ice tea, and IF Zimmerman had been a 27 year old BLACK vigilante wannabe, frustrated by having been refused the chance to be a police officer, and having been frustrated by his own inabilities to get any of his "suspicious" reports taken seriously. . .there would have been NO QUESTION that the death of the "White" teenager was foul play. . . and that the BLACK vigilante wannabe should be found guilty of murder 2.

And NOTHING you can say about this would change that.
 

JP Cusick

Mr know-it-all
JP,
Dino makes an interesting argument: It is impossible to commit murder by shooting and killing someone that you do not know personally.
I never said that I agreed with Dino's perspective. Doubt that I've ever agreed with Dino about anything.
You sure fooled me, and I still can not see any such distinction.

I would seriously suggest if you are truly misunderstood here then you need to improve your style of writing as we do not ever want such a thing to get so confused as THAT.

You did not use the word "agree" but you did indeed give a full agreement.

Dino did not make an interesting argument - as the very basis of that is absurd.

Would we say that the 9-11 terrorist did not commit murder (or malice) because they did not personally know the people in the aircraft or in the twin towers or in the Pentagon? That would be a ridiculous argument.

How about the guy at Newtown Ct., as he did not personally know those 1st grade students so it too was not murder - which is totally absurd.

Or the white racist crowds who lynched black people, so only the whites who knew the victims were committing murder, and the other whites who did not know the victims were simply having some fun, as in good-ol-white-boy fun since they did not personally know the black victim.

But I doubt (or hope) that neither of you two agree with any of that, as I suspect your argument is restricted just to the claim that it was not murder or malice simply in killing the African American teenager Trayvon Martin.

P.S.
I just noticed that I have been spelling his name wrong, as it has a "y" in it.

Perhaps you have a different e-mail address listed on your personal settings? If not, then you may need to contact Brent to see what the problem is with your e-mail notifications. I'd also check to make sure that my e-mail client wasn't redirecting the e-mails to the "Junk" folder.
I got an email notification this time.

So maybe it is okay now?
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
You sure fooled me, and I still can not see any such distinction.

I would seriously suggest if you are truly misunderstood here then you need to improve your style of writing as we do not ever want such a thing to get so confused as THAT.

You did not use the word "agree" but you did indeed give a full agreement.

Dino did not make an interesting argument - as the very basis of that is absurd.

Would we say that the 9-11 terrorist did not commit murder (or malice) because they did not personally know the people in the aircraft or in the twin towers or in the Pentagon? That would be a ridiculous argument.

How about the guy at Newtown Ct., as he did not personally know those 1st grade students so it too was not murder - which is totally absurd.

Or the white racist crowds who lynched black people, so only the whites who knew the victims were committing murder, and the other whites who did not know the victims were simply having some fun, as in good-ol-white-boy fun since they did not personally know the black victim.

But I doubt (or hope) that neither of you two agree with any of that, as I suspect your argument is restricted just to the claim that it was not murder or malice simply in killing the African American teenager Trayvon Martin.

P.S.
I just noticed that I have been spelling his name wrong, as it has a "y" in it.


I got an email notification this time.

So maybe it is okay now?

In each of the instances you describe (9/11, Newtown, lynching) the differentiator is that there was malice present, and intent. Neither has been established in this case, other than by the ascribing of same to the defendant.
 

NightSwimmer

Senator
You sure fooled me, and I still can not see any such distinction.

I would seriously suggest if you are truly misunderstood here then you need to improve your style of writing as we do not ever want such a thing to get so confused as THAT.

You did not use the word "agree" but you did indeed give a full agreement.

Dino did not make an interesting argument - as the very basis of that is absurd.

Would we say that the 9-11 terrorist did not commit murder (or malice) because they did not personally know the people in the aircraft or in the twin towers or in the Pentagon? That would be a ridiculous argument.

How about the guy at Newtown Ct., as he did not personally know those 1st grade students so it too was not murder - which is totally absurd.

Or the white racist crowds who lynched black people, so only the whites who knew the victims were committing murder, and the other whites who did not know the victims were simply having some fun, as in good-ol-white-boy fun since they did not personally know the black victim.

But I doubt (or hope) that neither of you two agree with any of that, as I suspect your argument is restricted just to the claim that it was not murder or malice simply in killing the African American teenager Trayvon Martin.

P.S.
I just noticed that I have been spelling his name wrong, as it has a "y" in it.


I got an email notification this time.

So maybe it is okay now?
Wiki Link
 

JP Cusick

Mr know-it-all
To call that as sarcasm then that is being said excessively late, but it is better late than never.

I learned years ago to stay away from sarcasm myself, and it is hard for me to resist it, and even my posting #10 above is very near to sarcasm in the reference to 9-11 and to Newtown and the lynchings.

So if it must be done then we need to specifically tell people that it is sarcastic, because as in your words it was not and is not made clear.

Sarcasm is not a healthy way nor a productive way to communicate.

So if you would clarify - does that mean that you do not agree with the absurd claim that it is not and can not be murder unless the victim is personally known to the killer?

Your saying (giving a link without any words) that it was sarcasm does not declare whether you view the sarcasm as being a truth or a falsehood.

:(
 

JP Cusick

Mr know-it-all
In each of the instances you describe (9/11, Newtown, lynching) the differentiator is that there was malice present, and intent. Neither has been established in this case, other than by the ascribing of same to the defendant.
Neither malice nor murder was ever established in any of those (9/11, Newtown, lynchings), so the same equation is used in the Z case.

There is no differentiators, as each are ascribed the same.
 

NightSwimmer

Senator
To call that as sarcasm then that is being said excessively late, but it is better late than never.

I learned years ago to stay away from sarcasm myself, and it is hard for me to resist it, and even my posting #10 above is very near to sarcasm in the reference to 9-11 and to Newtown and the lynchings.

So if it must be done then we need to specifically tell people that it is sarcastic, because as in your words it was not and is not made clear.

Sarcasm is not a healthy way nor a productive way to communicate.

So if you would clarify - does that mean that you do not agree with the absurd claim that it is not and can not be murder unless the victim is personally known to the killer?

Your saying (giving a link without any words) that it was sarcasm does not declare whether you view the sarcasm as being a truth or a falsehood.

:(

I can't spend my life worrying that you may fail to understand a sarcastic remark. Dino's proposition was so absurd on it's face that I couldn't imagine anyone mistaking my poking fun at it for supporting what he had said.

Besides, I subsequently specifically told you that I didn't agree with what Dino had said, but you still wanted to argue with me about it. You're just being silly now. I suspect that you are some sort of sock-puppet.

Have a nice day.
 

JP Cusick

Mr know-it-all
This is without doubt one of the most repulsive/ignorant statements I've ever seen in print.
It is rather obvious as to why you would view it that way.

Duh.

But you can still pretend not to know.

Where does it say there's an inherent "malice" or presumption of a "murder" because an "African-American" person winds up dead? Is this a separate rule than applies to whites?
I am the one who said it, and what I said is a bit different from what you twisted around.

The point was applied to the Trayvon Martin murder case, and it was in reference to your absurd claim that some how a person can not murder a stranger, and my point was that Trayvon was not really a stranger because Z had already identified Trayvon as an F...ing punk and as an A...hole and as being black.

Therefore this overrules your absurd claim that there could not be either malice or murder of a stranger, because Z had indeed projected his racism and his hatred and his malice onto the person (the stranger) whom he then murdered.

When was it passed or the courtroom precedent established? Case and year please?
This is just an internet discussion forum and not a Court argument.

I understand the point and purpose of hiding behind the law, but I do not respect doing that.
 

Dino

Russian Asset
It is rather obvious as to why you would view it that way.

Duh.

But you can still pretend not to know.


I am the one who said it, and what I said is a bit different from what you twisted around.

The point was applied to the Trayvon Martin murder case, and it was in reference to your absurd claim that some how a person can not murder a stranger, and my point was that Trayvon was not really a stranger because Z had already identified Trayvon as an F...ing punk and as an A...hole and as being black.

Therefore this overrules your absurd claim that there could not be either malice or murder of a stranger, because Z had indeed projected his racism and his hatred and his malice onto the person (the stranger) whom he then murdered.


This is just an internet discussion forum and not a Court argument.

I understand the point and purpose of hiding behind the law, but I do not respect doing that.
Thanks for admitting you don't know the facts of this case. You clearly don't know what lead up to the confrontation. You raccusation of racism is unfounded and seems solely predicated on a falsified reporting of the phone call made by Zimmerman. For your ignorance of the facts, or disregard of the truth, I find your standing totally faulty and biased.
 
It is rather obvious as to why you would view it that way.

Duh.

But you can still pretend not to know.


I am the one who said it, and what I said is a bit different from what you twisted around.

The point was applied to the Trayvon Martin murder case, and it was in reference to your absurd claim that some how a person can not murder a stranger, and my point was that Trayvon was not really a stranger because Z had already identified Trayvon as an F...ing punk and as an A...hole and as being black.

Therefore this overrules your absurd claim that there could not be either malice or murder of a stranger, because Z had indeed projected his racism and his hatred and his malice onto the person (the stranger) whom he then murdered.


This is just an internet discussion forum and not a Court argument.

I understand the point and purpose of hiding behind the law, but I do not respect doing that.
Zimmerman only identified Martin as being black because the police dispatcher asked him if he could determine the race of the person he was observing. It sounds like you only listened to the version of the tape that NBC doctored (and will be sued over).

You're a perfect example of what happens when a media with an agenda deliberately disseminates false information and people who don't know any better (you) go ahead and fall for it...
 

JP Cusick

Mr know-it-all
Zimmerman only identified Martin as being black because the police dispatcher asked him if he could determine the race of the person he was observing. It sounds like you only listened to the version of the tape that NBC doctored (and will be sued over).

You're a perfect example of what happens when a media with an agenda deliberately disseminates false information and people who don't know any better (you) go ahead and fall for it...
Actually I have a different view on that.

My take is that the 911 operator was a racist too, and that is why he asked for the race of the suspect.

If Z had reported that it was a white-boy then the dispatcher would have told Z to back-off.

There is no other reason to ask for the person's racial identity.

This was the bigger problem in this case that the local police are racist with their racist policies, and Z was just one of their pawns, or one of their hit men.

There would not have been any big news reports or large protest or any such thing if the local police would have simply done their jobs and prosecuted the murderer in the first place.

Z is a murderer - oh yes, but the whole State of Florida is a long-standing racist territory, which is really the bigger problem in this case.
 

NightSwimmer

Senator
I'll say this much about the George Zimmerman murder case:

In most murder trials, including the O.J. Simpson trial, the jury is asked to determine whether the defendant actually killed the victim. That is the primary determination that they need to make in order to mete out justice.

In this trial, that much is given at the outset. The only thing that this jury is being asked to determine is whether George Zimmerman is to be excused for the killing of Trayvon Martin. There is no doubt that he shot and killed him.
 
Top