Your correct is doesn't change what evidence has been presented...
Which is funny because now the prosecutors are changing their argument
They were arguing Zimmerman was ontop....now they are saying Trayvon was ontop...
Not only that but the judge thew out all the text messages, saying any 7 year old could "hack" his phone password and his text application password and send those tests. So yes, the MEDIA is creating a bias, and the judge has seem to also conformed to this bias as well.
Are you even paying attention to this trial?
So your answer is: yes, prosecutors and judges are spineless sycophants who lack integrity and are bowing to the whims of a belligerent and ill-informed media? Cool. No bias there and I'm sure that "lack" of bias doesn't jade or influence how you view the trial I'm apparently not paying attention to.
As a prosecutor myself, I'd take offense if the commentary wasn't from an anonymous internet source.
Carry on.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Following someone doesn't mean you lose your right to self-defense, right?
You’re right, but Zimmerman not only followed Martin, he left his vehicle to pursue and confront Martin. Did Martin forfeit the right to fear for his life as this pursuit continued from vehicle to an foot pursuit?
At what point did Martin also have the right of protection under the Stand Your Ground law?
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Heard a really reasoned discussion on the trial so far with Judge Alex Ferrer on Opie & Anthony this morning. They start out with some general talk and the Casey Anthony trial. Zimmerman trial discussion starts around 22:45:
Following someone doesn't mean you lose your right to self-defense, right?
All of this "it wouldn't never happened if Zimmerman just went home or didn't follow him" stuff is nonsense.
No, it doesn't, but it sure goes a long way to showing you were looking for something. Perhaps trouble? Perhaps a confrontation? Being a "confronter" is a short step away from being an "aggressor," in which case, you would lose your right to claim self-defense in a confrontation.
Perhaps this is why so much testimony and evidence has been presented on this issue (i.e. Zimmerman following Martin).
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Following someone doesn't mean you lose your right to self-defense, right?
All of this "it wouldn't never happened if Zimmerman just went home or didn't follow him" stuff is nonsense.
No, it doesn't, but it sure goes a long way to showing you were looking for something. Perhaps trouble? Perhaps a confrontation? Being a "confronter" is a short step away from being an "aggressor," in which case, you would lose your right to claim self-defense in a confrontation.
Perhaps this is why so much testimony and evidence has been presented on this issue (i.e. Zimmerman following Martin).
From my understanding, Zimmerman lost sight of Martin sometime after he left his vehicle. There's no evidence that I've heard that shows Zimmerman saw him again and pursued him further. I believe that Martin confronted Zimmerman and punched him in the face. That would mean he is innocent and should be acquitted.
Following someone doesn't mean you lose your right to self-defense, right?
All of this "it wouldn't never happened if Zimmerman just went home or didn't follow him" stuff is nonsense.
No, it doesn't, but it sure goes a long way to showing you were looking for something. Perhaps trouble? Perhaps a confrontation? Being a "confronter" is a short step away from being an "aggressor," in which case, you would lose your right to claim self-defense in a confrontation.
Perhaps this is why so much testimony and evidence has been presented on this issue (i.e. Zimmerman following Martin).
From my understanding, Zimmerman lost sight of Martin sometime after he left his vehicle. There's no evidence that I've heard that shows Zimmerman saw him again and pursued him further. I believe that Martin confronted Zimmerman and punched him in the face. That would mean he is innocent and should be acquitted.
I agree 100 % but some of the posters on this topic are more about the "what if" side of the story.
Your correct is doesn't change what evidence has been presented...
Which is funny because now the prosecutors are changing their argument
They were arguing Zimmerman was ontop....now they are saying Trayvon was ontop...
Not only that but the judge thew out all the text messages, saying any 7 year old could "hack" his phone password and his text application password and send those tests. So yes, the MEDIA is creating a bias, and the judge has seem to also conformed to this bias as well.
Are you even paying attention to this trial?
So your answer is: yes, prosecutors and judges are spineless sycophants who lack integrity and are bowing to the whims of a belligerent and ill-informed media? Cool. No bias there and I'm sure that "lack" of bias doesn't jade or influence how you view the trial I'm apparently not paying attention to.
As a prosecutor myself, I'd take offense if the commentary wasn't from an anonymous internet source.
Carry on.
In this case, Its fairly evident... Try looking at this objectively.
Ill ask again, why are the prosecutors changing their argument continually to fit whatever evidence is presented?
since your a prosecutor, ill ask you a question, since your paying so much attention to this trial. :roll:
Why is the judge asking Zimmerman if he wants to take the stand? His lawyers were trying to speak on his behalf and she would not listen to them...
Somebody is out for blood...
Hopefully your not biased and you can answer this question honestly
Following someone doesn't mean you lose your right to self-defense, right?
All of this "it wouldn't never happened if Zimmerman just went home or didn't follow him" stuff is nonsense.
No, it doesn't, but it sure goes a long way to showing you were looking for something. Perhaps trouble? Perhaps a confrontation? Being a "confronter" is a short step away from being an "aggressor," in which case, you would lose your right to claim self-defense in a confrontation.
Perhaps this is why so much testimony and evidence has been presented on this issue (i.e. Zimmerman following Martin).
LOL.
Following someone does not = looking for trouble.
Following someone does not = looking for a confrontation
Following someone does not = confronter
Following someone does not = aggressor
If he was looking for trouble/confrontation/ being an aggressor, why did he call the cops in the first place?
If I lived in a gated community had recent criminal activity and I saw someone I didn't know with a hoody up walking around late at night, I would follow, I would ask questions also. All of which are LEGAL.
SO to me.
Following = concerned neighbor
Following = concerned citizen
Following = neighborhood watch
Your game of "perhaps" is the exact reason why the prosecution keeps changing their story to anything that sticks. How many stories are they up to now? You can't play the "perhaps" game when you have to PROVE that Zimmerman didn't act in self defense.
In this case, Its fairly evident... Try looking at this objectively.
Ill ask again, why are the prosecutors changing their argument continually to fit whatever evidence is presented?
since your a prosecutor, ill ask you a question, since your paying so much attention to this trial. :roll:
Why is the judge asking Zimmerman if he wants to take the stand? His lawyers were trying to speak on his behalf and she would not listen to them...
Somebody is out for blood...
Hopefully your not biased and you can answer this question honestly
The judge is asking Zimmerman if he wants to take the stand because it's his and only his decision to do so. His attorneys cannot waive that right for him and they cannot "speak" on his behalf. They can advocate for him, they can argue his cause, but his right to testify is his and his alone. The judge is likely inquiring about whether he'll testify or not because to testify, he needs to waive his right to remain silent, something that would be put on the record in open court. If he chooses to remain silent and not testify, a waiver could also be put on the record, waiving his right to testify.
Not everything is a conspiracy just because you don't understand it.
Incontrovertible facts show that Zimmerman had previously called about "suspicious black males." Incontrovertible facts show that Zimmerman and Martin got into a confrontation. Incontrovertible facts show that Martin is dead by Zimmerman's hand.
Does that mean he's guilty? I have no idea; that's what trials are for.
To argue that he's not guilty because X, Y, or Z is one thing; to argue that he shouldn't even stand trial is another. Believe me, self-defense cases are always close calls and always emotional. It seems a lot of people are upset that he's even standing trial, forgetting the danger in deciding if someone is guilty or innocent from the sidelines. You don't know what happened any more than I do, but with the uncontested facts as we know them, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that a crime may or may not have been committed. Keep in mind: probable cause to stand trial means there are facts that point to guilt. Probable cause is a LOWER standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So the fact that he was charged and at trial you believe there's not enough evidence to convict isn't a sign that there's bias in the charging process, it's a sign that our system of checks and balances is working.
I'd rather have a jury deliberate over whether the exception applies 100 times out of 100, rather than have an officer unchecked and arbitrarily deciding if someone gets charged on a case-by-case basis. Inevitably, there will come situations where the officer acts in ill will, makes a mistake, or would change his or her mind if further investigation happened. In this case, the officers forwarded the case, and based on the facts as we knew them, a charge was issued. That's our process.
Arguing that he's not guilty because there's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial is one thing. Arguing that the media has influenced the chargingdecision because there's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial is a misunderstanding of our criminal justice system.
As I've said all along, if he's acquitted, our system has worked and he's entitled to his freedom. If he's convicted, it's because a jury believed the State had met its burden and found that Zimmerman couldn't meet a sufficient threshold to prove he acted in self-defense.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Your game of "perhaps" is the exact reason why the prosecution keeps changing their story to anything that sticks. How many stories are they up to now? You can't play the "perhaps" game when you have to PROVE that Zimmerman didn't act in self defense.
I'll say this politely: when you've argued before a jury, you're qualified to say what is and what is not persuasive for juries. Have you presented a case to a jury?
Trials are all about "what if." It's not bad lawyering or "second-guessing" or "lack of facts" to speculate as to what' was reasonable about George Zimmerman's conduct that night. It's effective advocacy and it can persuade juries.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Not everything is a conspiracy just because you don't understand it.
Ill touch on this little personal attack.
Understand what? saying their is a bias (especially with the judge who said "My objection") is saying their is a conspiracy theory?
Your the one saying following = Confronter/Agressor/looking for trouble.
Your game of "perhaps" is the exact reason why the prosecution keeps changing their story to anything that sticks. How many stories are they up to now? You can't play the "perhaps" game when you have to PROVE that Zimmerman didn't act in self defense.
I'll say this politely: when you've argued before a jury, you're qualified to say what is and what is not persuasive for juries. Have you presented a case to a jury?
Trials are all about "what if." It's not bad lawyering or "second-guessing" or "lack of facts" to speculate as to what' was reasonable about George Zimmerman's conduct that night. It's effective advocacy and it can persuade juries.
that's reality TV for you Vant, everyone's an expert. No need for educated and reasoned debate when you make decisions based on your gut.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
Your game of "perhaps" is the exact reason why the prosecution keeps changing their story to anything that sticks. How many stories are they up to now? You can't play the "perhaps" game when you have to PROVE that Zimmerman didn't act in self defense.
I'll say this politely: when you've argued before a jury, you're qualified to say what is and what is not persuasive for juries. Have you presented a case to a jury?
Trials are all about "what if." It's not bad lawyering or "second-guessing" or "lack of facts" to speculate as to what' was reasonable about George Zimmerman's conduct that night. It's effective advocacy and it can persuade juries.
I am not arguing that it isn't a tactic used. I am asking you why the prosecution is CONTINUALLY changing their story to fit the evidence as its presented.
I'll say this politely, You have yet to say anything that actually resembles a professional prosecutor. If you were, you would be wiping the floor with every poster here, yet you can't seem to manage to do anything but play "what if/perhaps/interpretation" games... All the while proclaiming that Following someone = Aggressor
Your correct is doesn't change what evidence has been presented...
Which is funny because now the prosecutors are changing their argument
They were arguing Zimmerman was ontop....now they are saying Trayvon was ontop...
Not only that but the judge thew out all the text messages, saying any 7 year old could "hack" his phone password and his text application password and send those tests. So yes, the MEDIA is creating a bias, and the judge has seem to also conformed to this bias as well.
Are you even paying attention to this trial?
So your answer is: yes, prosecutors and judges are spineless sycophants who lack integrity and are bowing to the whims of a belligerent and ill-informed media? Cool. No bias there and I'm sure that "lack" of bias doesn't jade or influence how you view the trial I'm apparently not paying attention to.
As a prosecutor myself, I'd take offense if the commentary wasn't from an anonymous internet source.
If I lived in a gated community had recent criminal activity and I saw someone I didn't know with a hoody up walking around late at night, I would follow, I would ask questions also. All of which are LEGAL.
SO to me.
Following = concerned neighbor
Following = concerned citizen
Following = neighborhood watch
Your game of "perhaps" is the exact reason why the prosecution keeps changing their story to anything that sticks. How many stories are they up to now? You can't play the "perhaps" game when you have to PROVE that Zimmerman didn't act in self defense.
This is really mostly a matter of do we believe Zimmerman's story or not. Because that's all there is. You can tell yourself that he's being a good neighbor and a concerned citizen all you want. from what I've heard, he's unreliable, over-dramatic, and a liar. That's why I doubt his story. As I said before, I think Trayvon and Zimmerman are both asshole idiots, but one didnt deserve death.
And Blockhead, I would appreciate someone like you or unsung watching after my community if we lived in the same neighborhood. But Zimmerman? I would be scared for my kids and others kids. He's dangerous. He might have started out with good intentions, but I simply believe this is one person who has terrible decision making skills and got himself in over his head...then FORCED his way out of it by killing someone.
Not everything is a conspiracy just because you don't understand it.
Ill touch on this little personal attack.
Understand what? saying their is a bias (especially with the judge who said "My objection") is saying their is a conspiracy theory?
Your the one saying following = Confronter/Agressor/looking for trouble.
I apologize if you took it as one, but it wasn't a personal attack. You asked me a question about why the judge would be inquiring into whether he will testify. I answered, and commented that the fact that you may not know the answer to something does not mean it's a conspiracy, as you not-so-subtly implied (with your comment that someone -- the judge? -- was out for blood).
All apologies if you took it as a personal attack (I mean that sincerely). I may be still reeling from the suggestion that we attorneys are spineless and so susceptible to the whims of TV and Barack Obama.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Boy that looks official, and from an unbiased, reputable source like "pjmedia.com" too. Cool. Case closed then.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I'll say this politely, You have yet to say anything that actually resembles a professional prosecutor. If you were, you would be wiping the floor with every poster here, yet you can't seem to manage to do anything but play "what if/perhaps/interpretation" games... All the while proclaiming that Following someone = Aggressor
:? :roll:
Personally, I think vant is trying to be somewhat neutral and has explained things well.
Plus, no matter what side you're on, there's no "wiping the floor," it's a polarizing case surrounding a subjective and poorly written law (stand your ground). :roll:
The Community Relations Service is the Department's "peacemaker" for community conflicts and tensions arising from differences of race, color, and national origin. Created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, CRS is the only Federal agency dedicated to assist State and local units of government, private and public organizations, and community groups with preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and civil disorders, and in restoring racial stability and harmony.
With passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, CRS also works with communities to employ strategies to prevent and respond to alleged violent hate crimes committed on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion or disability. CRS facilitates the development of viable, mutual understandings and agreements as alternatives to coercion, violence, or litigation. It also assists communities in developing local mechanisms, conducting training, and other proactive measures to prevent racial/ethnic tension and violent hate crimes committed on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, or disability. CRS does not take sides among disputing parties and, in promoting the principles and ideals of non-discrimination, applies skills that allow parties to come to their own agreement. In performing this mission, CRS deploys highly skilled professional conciliators, who are able to assist people of diverse backgrounds.
Educate – Communicate – Conciliate – Mediate – Facilitate
For more than 45 years, CRS has been asked to provide its experienced mediators to help local communities resolve conflicts and disturbances relating to race, color, or national origin. Each year CRS' highly skilled conciliators bring hundreds of community-wide conflicts to peaceful closure across America and its territories.
CRS lends its services when requested or accepted by the parties. The Service uses impartial mediation practices and conflict resolution procedures to help local leaders resolve problems and restore stability. CRS has no law enforcement authority and does not impose solutions, investigate, prosecute, or assign blame and fault. All CRS mediators are required by law to conduct their activities in confidence, without publicity, and are prohibited from disclosing confidential information.
CRS conciliators work with State and local officials and community leaders to provide a wide variety of services to address racial issues and prevent violent hate crimes committed on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, or disability. CRS' services include:
Contributing expertise and guidance on methods and policies that calm tension and conflicts associated with race, color, or national origin or with preventing and responding to violent hate crimes committed on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, or disability.
Enhancing strategies of State and local governments and community groups to prevent and respond to civil disorders.
Improving lines of communication between parties experiencing tension or conflict, including Federal, State, and local officials, community leaders and residents.
Helping schools and universities effectively deal with incidents of tension or violence associated with race, color, or national origin or with preventing and responding to violent hate crimes committed on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, or disability.
How CRS Works
CRS assists willing parties and explores opportunities to develop and implement local strategies that can help law enforcement, local officials, civil rights organizations, and interested community groups respond to alleged hate crimes and find ways to prevent future incidents.
State and local law enforcement officials and community leaders may contact CRS to request assistance in improving communication between law enforcement and community members in the aftermath of a hate crime. CRS may help facilitate dialogues between law enforcement and community members to increase mutual understanding about the investigative and prosecutorial process as well as the concerns of people in the community.
CRS improves community response mechanisms, by facilitating the development of community capacity to help prevent hate crimes with services and programs that include: conciliation, mediation, training, technical assistance, and other tension reduction techniques.
CRS may introduce the community to representatives of agencies that respond to hate crimes, including federal, state, and local law enforcement officials, local government resources as well as community organizations (advocacy organizations, and other service organizations).
CRS also responds to requests for assistance from law enforcement and community organizations for contingency planning and self-marshalling training before large protests or events to help keep events safe. We facilitate meetings between all parties involved, and serve as a neutral entity to ensure logistics are coordinated and that information is shared appropriately.
I'll say this politely, You have yet to say anything that actually resembles a professional prosecutor. If you were, you would be wiping the floor with every poster here, yet you can't seem to manage to do anything but play "what if/perhaps/interpretation" games... All the while proclaiming that Following someone = Aggressor
The biggest trick I ever pulled was convincing the world I didn't exist.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
For those actually interested in what the CRS does and not just in the latest non-sensical rightwing conspiracy theory...
because we have not had a federal agency act outside its nice online mission statement (IRS, NSA, DOJ again)
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
For those actually interested in what the CRS does and not just in the latest non-sensical rightwing conspiracy theory...
because we have not had a federal agency act outside its nice online mission statement (IRS, NSA, DOJ again)
No, because even the horrific crimes they are accused of in that fair and balanced piece you linked to:
March 25 – 27, 2012, CRS spent $674.14 upon being “deployed to Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”
March 25 – 28, 2012, CRS spent $1,142.84 “in Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”
March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent $892.55 in Sanford, FL “to provide support for protest deployment in Florida.”
March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent an additional $751.60 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31.”
April 3 – 12, 2012, CRS spent $1,307.40 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance, conciliation, and onsite mediation during demonstrations planned in Sanford.”
April 11-12, 2012, CRS spent $552.35 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance for the preparation of possible marches and rallies related to the fatal shooting of a 17 year old African American male.” – expenses for employees to travel, eat, sleep?
seem to fall well within their mission. Their function is to make sure these communities do not blow up with violence when racially charged events occur. I see nothing in what you linked to that indicates they did anything other than that in Sanford.
“to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31.”
For those actually interested in what the CRS does and not just in the latest non-sensical rightwing conspiracy theory...
because we have not had a federal agency act outside its nice online mission statement (IRS, NSA, DOJ again)
No, because even the horrific crimes they are accused of in that fair and balanced piece you linked to:
you gotta do better then alinsky lite tactics, mock the link fine but the source documents are all from the DOJ through a FOIA request. You might not like the conclusions pulled from this but you need a better counter then government was only doing what government says they will do. They should not have been on the scene of a murder that took place over a month earlier assisting "community organizers" with further inciting racial tensions, getting the Sanford police chief to resign and forcing such a weak prosecution to trial (all of which in the end is going to lead to rioting) sounds like "willfully ignorant" disregard of their mission statement.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
you gotta do better then alinsky lite tactics, mock the link fine but the source documents are all from the DOJ through a FOIA request. You might not like the conclusions pulled from this but you need a better counter then government was only doing what government says they will do. They should not have been on the scene of a murder that took place over a month earlier assisting "community organizers" with further inciting racial tensions, getting the Sanford police chief to resign and forcing such a weak prosecution to trial (all of which in the end is going to lead to rioting) sounds like "willfully ignorant" disregard of their mission statement.
No, YOU say they were further inciting racial tensions without a single shred of proof that is/was the case. One of their functions is to be on the ground when protest marches occur so that they can be in position to prevent violence from occurring. Was there racial violence in Sanford? Rioting? It may still be to come but as of now you are making baseless accusations.
(Editor’s note: Mel Robbins is a criminal defense attorney and HLN legal contributor. She is an author, talk radio host and the editor-in-chief of Robbins Rundown. She is on Twitter.)
The prosecution has rested. What did you think of its case?
Here's what I think: A manslaughter conviction is on the table. Murder two? No way.
Let's start with murder two: There's just too much doubt about what actually happened to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that when George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, he did so with a depraved mind.
The prosecution is relying on Zimmerman muttering "f---ing punk" and "these a--holes always get away" to prove that he had a depraved mind when he followed Martin. Here's the problem: We still don't know beyond a reasonable doubt who confronted whom. Did the prosecution prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman chased down Martin and shoved him (as Rachel Jeantel claims)? Or did you wonder if Martin might have jumped out of the bushes and sucker-punched Zimmerman, as Zimmerman says he did?
The prosecution was unable to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" exactly what happened, what was said, and who did what to whom when Zimmerman and Martin confronted one another. Where there are two versions of the story and no one is proven a liar, there is doubt as to what happened.
Keep in mind, for murder two, the "depraved mind" aspect is a requirement. Zimmerman claims he was walking back to his car to meet the police, which refutes the depraved mind claim. Other witnesses (including the woman from the police department who trained Zimmerman as the neighborhood watch captain) called Zimmerman "meek," "concerned," a "good neighbor" and "professional" -- which is the opposite of a vigilante with a depraved mind and corroborates his story.
If a juror doesn't know what to believe about Zimmerman's state of mind, then there is doubt. And I guarantee you'll hear the defense say in its closing argument, “One thing we do know for sure is that when Zimmerman left his home to run to Target that night, he wasn't planning on killing Martin.” And, if you then add in the testimony of Jonathan Good -- who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman crying for help -- as well as the fact that both investigators believed Zimmerman's self-defense claims and found no evidence to contradict it, it's just too murky to convict him of murder two.
Manslaughter, though, is a different ball game all together. To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted with culpable negligence the night he shot Martin. Let's take Martin's actions out of the equation for a minute and consider just the decisions that Zimmerman made that night. Here's how the jury could reach that verdict by looking at the totality of Zimmerman's actions:
He made the decision to get out of the car with a gun, knowing police were on their way
He followed someone on a dark and rainy night
He muttered "f---ing punk" and "these a--holes always get away" while following Martin
He did not identify himself as the neighborhood watch captain when they confronted one another
None of these four facts is disputed. If the jurors add up all the decisions and actions that Zimmerman made that night, they could easily conclude that Zimmerman acted negligently that night and that, if it weren't for his negligence, Martin would still be alive.
If the jury goes down this path, they might not be as amenable to Zimmerman's self-defense claim, because they would have concluded that it was Zimmerman's actions that set the killing into motion; therefore, he should not be able to claim self-defense (that's not the law, but it could happen when the jurors get the case). If that's what the six women on the jury conclude, there will be a manslaughter conviction and Zimmerman will go to jail.
It's true, a trial isn't a football game. This is a tragedy in which everyone involved has already lost, particularly the Martin family. But the fact is that one side will win and one side will lose. The Martins will either see their son's killer go to jail, or Zimmerman will be acquitted by a jury of his peers.
No doubt you and I will have a reaction to either outcome, but the only people whose opinion matters are the six women on the jury. And as of this moment, they might just convict Zimmerman of manslaughter
Comments
So your answer is: yes, prosecutors and judges are spineless sycophants who lack integrity and are bowing to the whims of a belligerent and ill-informed media? Cool. No bias there and I'm sure that "lack" of bias doesn't jade or influence how you view the trial I'm apparently not paying attention to.
As a prosecutor myself, I'd take offense if the commentary wasn't from an anonymous internet source.
Carry on.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
You’re right, but Zimmerman not only followed Martin, he left his vehicle to pursue and confront Martin. Did Martin forfeit the right to fear for his life as this pursuit continued from vehicle to an foot pursuit?
At what point did Martin also have the right of protection under the Stand Your Ground law?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8WQJQtJ9as
No, it doesn't, but it sure goes a long way to showing you were looking for something. Perhaps trouble? Perhaps a confrontation? Being a "confronter" is a short step away from being an "aggressor," in which case, you would lose your right to claim self-defense in a confrontation.
Perhaps this is why so much testimony and evidence has been presented on this issue (i.e. Zimmerman following Martin).
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I agree 100 % but some of the posters on this topic are more about the "what if" side of the story.
Godfather.
Ill ask again, why are the prosecutors changing their argument continually to fit whatever evidence is presented?
since your a prosecutor, ill ask you a question, since your paying so much attention to this trial. :roll:
Why is the judge asking Zimmerman if he wants to take the stand? His lawyers were trying to speak on his behalf and she would not listen to them...
Somebody is out for blood...
Hopefully your not biased and you can answer this question honestly
Following someone does not = looking for trouble.
Following someone does not = looking for a confrontation
Following someone does not = confronter
Following someone does not = aggressor
If he was looking for trouble/confrontation/ being an aggressor, why did he call the cops in the first place?
If I lived in a gated community had recent criminal activity and I saw someone I didn't know with a hoody up walking around late at night, I would follow, I would ask questions also. All of which are LEGAL.
SO to me.
Following = concerned neighbor
Following = concerned citizen
Following = neighborhood watch
Your game of "perhaps" is the exact reason why the prosecution keeps changing their story to anything that sticks. How many stories are they up to now? You can't play the "perhaps" game when you have to PROVE that Zimmerman didn't act in self defense.
The judge is asking Zimmerman if he wants to take the stand because it's his and only his decision to do so. His attorneys cannot waive that right for him and they cannot "speak" on his behalf. They can advocate for him, they can argue his cause, but his right to testify is his and his alone. The judge is likely inquiring about whether he'll testify or not because to testify, he needs to waive his right to remain silent, something that would be put on the record in open court. If he chooses to remain silent and not testify, a waiver could also be put on the record, waiving his right to testify.
Not everything is a conspiracy just because you don't understand it.
Incontrovertible facts show that Zimmerman had previously called about "suspicious black males." Incontrovertible facts show that Zimmerman and Martin got into a confrontation. Incontrovertible facts show that Martin is dead by Zimmerman's hand.
Does that mean he's guilty? I have no idea; that's what trials are for.
To argue that he's not guilty because X, Y, or Z is one thing; to argue that he shouldn't even stand trial is another. Believe me, self-defense cases are always close calls and always emotional. It seems a lot of people are upset that he's even standing trial, forgetting the danger in deciding if someone is guilty or innocent from the sidelines. You don't know what happened any more than I do, but with the uncontested facts as we know them, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that a crime may or may not have been committed. Keep in mind: probable cause to stand trial means there are facts that point to guilt. Probable cause is a LOWER standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So the fact that he was charged and at trial you believe there's not enough evidence to convict isn't a sign that there's bias in the charging process, it's a sign that our system of checks and balances is working.
I'd rather have a jury deliberate over whether the exception applies 100 times out of 100, rather than have an officer unchecked and arbitrarily deciding if someone gets charged on a case-by-case basis. Inevitably, there will come situations where the officer acts in ill will, makes a mistake, or would change his or her mind if further investigation happened. In this case, the officers forwarded the case, and based on the facts as we knew them, a charge was issued. That's our process.
Arguing that he's not guilty because there's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial is one thing. Arguing that the media has influenced the chargingdecision because there's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial is a misunderstanding of our criminal justice system.
As I've said all along, if he's acquitted, our system has worked and he's entitled to his freedom. If he's convicted, it's because a jury believed the State had met its burden and found that Zimmerman couldn't meet a sufficient threshold to prove he acted in self-defense.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I'll say this politely: when you've argued before a jury, you're qualified to say what is and what is not persuasive for juries. Have you presented a case to a jury?
Trials are all about "what if." It's not bad lawyering or "second-guessing" or "lack of facts" to speculate as to what' was reasonable about George Zimmerman's conduct that night. It's effective advocacy and it can persuade juries.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Understand what? saying their is a bias (especially with the judge who said "My objection") is saying their is a conspiracy theory?
Your the one saying following = Confronter/Agressor/looking for trouble.
that's reality TV for you Vant, everyone's an expert. No need for educated and reasoned debate when you make decisions based on your gut.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/07/10/ne ... -protests/
— Socrates
Disgusting.
I'll say this politely, You have yet to say anything that actually resembles a professional prosecutor. If you were, you would be wiping the floor with every poster here, yet you can't seem to manage to do anything but play "what if/perhaps/interpretation" games... All the while proclaiming that Following someone = Aggressor
You were saying...
This is really mostly a matter of do we believe Zimmerman's story or not. Because that's all there is. You can tell yourself that he's being a good neighbor and a concerned citizen all you want. from what I've heard, he's unreliable, over-dramatic, and a liar. That's why I doubt his story. As I said before, I think Trayvon and Zimmerman are both asshole idiots, but one didnt deserve death.
And Blockhead, I would appreciate someone like you or unsung watching after my community if we lived in the same neighborhood. But Zimmerman? I would be scared for my kids and others kids. He's dangerous. He might have started out with good intentions, but I simply believe this is one person who has terrible decision making skills and got himself in over his head...then FORCED his way out of it by killing someone.
I apologize if you took it as one, but it wasn't a personal attack. You asked me a question about why the judge would be inquiring into whether he will testify. I answered, and commented that the fact that you may not know the answer to something does not mean it's a conspiracy, as you not-so-subtly implied (with your comment that someone -- the judge? -- was out for blood).
All apologies if you took it as a personal attack (I mean that sincerely). I may be still reeling from the suggestion that we attorneys are spineless and so susceptible to the whims of TV and Barack Obama.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Boy that looks official, and from an unbiased, reputable source like "pjmedia.com" too. Cool. Case closed then.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
:? :roll:
Personally, I think vant is trying to be somewhat neutral and has explained things well.
Plus, no matter what side you're on, there's no "wiping the floor," it's a polarizing case surrounding a subjective and poorly written law (stand your ground). :roll:
http://www.justice.gov/crs/about-crs.htm
Mission
The Community Relations Service is the Department's "peacemaker" for community conflicts and tensions arising from differences of race, color, and national origin. Created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, CRS is the only Federal agency dedicated to assist State and local units of government, private and public organizations, and community groups with preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and civil disorders, and in restoring racial stability and harmony.
With passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, CRS also works with communities to employ strategies to prevent and respond to alleged violent hate crimes committed on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion or disability. CRS facilitates the development of viable, mutual understandings and agreements as alternatives to coercion, violence, or litigation. It also assists communities in developing local mechanisms, conducting training, and other proactive measures to prevent racial/ethnic tension and violent hate crimes committed on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, or disability. CRS does not take sides among disputing parties and, in promoting the principles and ideals of non-discrimination, applies skills that allow parties to come to their own agreement. In performing this mission, CRS deploys highly skilled professional conciliators, who are able to assist people of diverse backgrounds.
Educate – Communicate – Conciliate – Mediate – Facilitate
For more than 45 years, CRS has been asked to provide its experienced mediators to help local communities resolve conflicts and disturbances relating to race, color, or national origin. Each year CRS' highly skilled conciliators bring hundreds of community-wide conflicts to peaceful closure across America and its territories.
CRS lends its services when requested or accepted by the parties. The Service uses impartial mediation practices and conflict resolution procedures to help local leaders resolve problems and restore stability. CRS has no law enforcement authority and does not impose solutions, investigate, prosecute, or assign blame and fault. All CRS mediators are required by law to conduct their activities in confidence, without publicity, and are prohibited from disclosing confidential information.
CRS conciliators work with State and local officials and community leaders to provide a wide variety of services to address racial issues and prevent violent hate crimes committed on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, or disability. CRS' services include:
Contributing expertise and guidance on methods and policies that calm tension and conflicts associated with race, color, or national origin or with preventing and responding to violent hate crimes committed on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, or disability.
Enhancing strategies of State and local governments and community groups to prevent and respond to civil disorders.
Improving lines of communication between parties experiencing tension or conflict, including Federal, State, and local officials, community leaders and residents.
Helping schools and universities effectively deal with incidents of tension or violence associated with race, color, or national origin or with preventing and responding to violent hate crimes committed on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, or disability.
How CRS Works
CRS assists willing parties and explores opportunities to develop and implement local strategies that can help law enforcement, local officials, civil rights organizations, and interested community groups respond to alleged hate crimes and find ways to prevent future incidents.
State and local law enforcement officials and community leaders may contact CRS to request assistance in improving communication between law enforcement and community members in the aftermath of a hate crime. CRS may help facilitate dialogues between law enforcement and community members to increase mutual understanding about the investigative and prosecutorial process as well as the concerns of people in the community.
CRS improves community response mechanisms, by facilitating the development of community capacity to help prevent hate crimes with services and programs that include: conciliation, mediation, training, technical assistance, and other tension reduction techniques.
CRS may introduce the community to representatives of agencies that respond to hate crimes, including federal, state, and local law enforcement officials, local government resources as well as community organizations (advocacy organizations, and other service organizations).
CRS also responds to requests for assistance from law enforcement and community organizations for contingency planning and self-marshalling training before large protests or events to help keep events safe. We facilitate meetings between all parties involved, and serve as a neutral entity to ensure logistics are coordinated and that information is shared appropriately.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
The biggest trick I ever pulled was convincing the world I didn't exist.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
because we have not had a federal agency act outside its nice online mission statement (IRS, NSA, DOJ again)
— Socrates
No, because even the horrific crimes they are accused of in that fair and balanced piece you linked to:
March 25 – 27, 2012, CRS spent $674.14 upon being “deployed to Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”
March 25 – 28, 2012, CRS spent $1,142.84 “in Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”
March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent $892.55 in Sanford, FL “to provide support for protest deployment in Florida.”
March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent an additional $751.60 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31.”
April 3 – 12, 2012, CRS spent $1,307.40 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance, conciliation, and onsite mediation during demonstrations planned in Sanford.”
April 11-12, 2012, CRS spent $552.35 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance for the preparation of possible marches and rallies related to the fatal shooting of a 17 year old African American male.” – expenses for employees to travel, eat, sleep?
seem to fall well within their mission. Their function is to make sure these communities do not blow up with violence when racially charged events occur. I see nothing in what you linked to that indicates they did anything other than that in Sanford.
“to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31.”
OH MY GOD THE HORROR!
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
:fp:
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
you gotta do better then alinsky lite tactics, mock the link fine but the source documents are all from the DOJ through a FOIA request. You might not like the conclusions pulled from this but you need a better counter then government was only doing what government says they will do. They should not have been on the scene of a murder that took place over a month earlier assisting "community organizers" with further inciting racial tensions, getting the Sanford police chief to resign and forcing such a weak prosecution to trial (all of which in the end is going to lead to rioting) sounds like "willfully ignorant" disregard of their mission statement.
— Socrates
No, YOU say they were further inciting racial tensions without a single shred of proof that is/was the case. One of their functions is to be on the ground when protest marches occur so that they can be in position to prevent violence from occurring. Was there racial violence in Sanford? Rioting? It may still be to come but as of now you are making baseless accusations.
The right wing media machine spins on...
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/07/08 ... pt=hp_bn17
(Editor’s note: Mel Robbins is a criminal defense attorney and HLN legal contributor. She is an author, talk radio host and the editor-in-chief of Robbins Rundown. She is on Twitter.)
The prosecution has rested. What did you think of its case?
Here's what I think: A manslaughter conviction is on the table. Murder two? No way.
Let's start with murder two: There's just too much doubt about what actually happened to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that when George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, he did so with a depraved mind.
The prosecution is relying on Zimmerman muttering "f---ing punk" and "these a--holes always get away" to prove that he had a depraved mind when he followed Martin. Here's the problem: We still don't know beyond a reasonable doubt who confronted whom. Did the prosecution prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman chased down Martin and shoved him (as Rachel Jeantel claims)? Or did you wonder if Martin might have jumped out of the bushes and sucker-punched Zimmerman, as Zimmerman says he did?
The prosecution was unable to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" exactly what happened, what was said, and who did what to whom when Zimmerman and Martin confronted one another. Where there are two versions of the story and no one is proven a liar, there is doubt as to what happened.
Keep in mind, for murder two, the "depraved mind" aspect is a requirement. Zimmerman claims he was walking back to his car to meet the police, which refutes the depraved mind claim. Other witnesses (including the woman from the police department who trained Zimmerman as the neighborhood watch captain) called Zimmerman "meek," "concerned," a "good neighbor" and "professional" -- which is the opposite of a vigilante with a depraved mind and corroborates his story.
If a juror doesn't know what to believe about Zimmerman's state of mind, then there is doubt. And I guarantee you'll hear the defense say in its closing argument, “One thing we do know for sure is that when Zimmerman left his home to run to Target that night, he wasn't planning on killing Martin.” And, if you then add in the testimony of Jonathan Good -- who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman crying for help -- as well as the fact that both investigators believed Zimmerman's self-defense claims and found no evidence to contradict it, it's just too murky to convict him of murder two.
Manslaughter, though, is a different ball game all together. To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted with culpable negligence the night he shot Martin. Let's take Martin's actions out of the equation for a minute and consider just the decisions that Zimmerman made that night. Here's how the jury could reach that verdict by looking at the totality of Zimmerman's actions:
He made the decision to get out of the car with a gun, knowing police were on their way
He followed someone on a dark and rainy night
He muttered "f---ing punk" and "these a--holes always get away" while following Martin
He did not identify himself as the neighborhood watch captain when they confronted one another
None of these four facts is disputed. If the jurors add up all the decisions and actions that Zimmerman made that night, they could easily conclude that Zimmerman acted negligently that night and that, if it weren't for his negligence, Martin would still be alive.
If the jury goes down this path, they might not be as amenable to Zimmerman's self-defense claim, because they would have concluded that it was Zimmerman's actions that set the killing into motion; therefore, he should not be able to claim self-defense (that's not the law, but it could happen when the jurors get the case). If that's what the six women on the jury conclude, there will be a manslaughter conviction and Zimmerman will go to jail.
It's true, a trial isn't a football game. This is a tragedy in which everyone involved has already lost, particularly the Martin family. But the fact is that one side will win and one side will lose. The Martins will either see their son's killer go to jail, or Zimmerman will be acquitted by a jury of his peers.
No doubt you and I will have a reaction to either outcome, but the only people whose opinion matters are the six women on the jury. And as of this moment, they might just convict Zimmerman of manslaughter