zimmerman shoots martin

[Homer]

The arab spring is largly a movement of people with rifles rising up against governments with much more firepower.

Is there a chance in hell? Yes. Wars are mostly political.

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by Jeff Smith

A little research will show that is exactly the debate that was taking place when looking to ratify the amendment. It was a check against potential tyranny by a federal gov't military, and these dudes were worried about it interfering with state gov't. I do believe it is a deterrent. I hate guns.

I concede the point, Jeff. It was a debated issue, and "resistance to usurpation of power and tyranny" was one of the reasons given for the Amendment.

However, it couldn't possibly be a deterrent now.

[jazz oud]

Originally Posted by engelbach

I concede the point, Jeff. It was a debated issue, and "resistance to usurpation of power and tyranny" was one of the reasons given for the Amendment.

However, it couldn't possibly be a deterrant now.

Jerry, I agree that you are right that it would be very difficult now.

However, you have to remember that the army is made up of American citizens. If there truly were a popular uprising, it is possible, even likely that many military members would refuse to fight against their fellow Americans. Some would even join in the resistance.

But in practical terms the whole idea is extremely unlikely.

Anyway, in 10 years much of the military will be robots, who won't have any moral qualms.

[Jeff Smith]

Originally Posted by jkelman

Funny, there are so many other democratic countries, like Canada, UK, Norway and others, who don't feel it necessary for its citizens to have a constitutional right to bear arms in the 21st century, to protect us from the big bad government.

No disrespect, Jeff, but this kind of justification made sense 200 years ago. Do you really believe it's necessary now (or, for that matter, that if you had to rise up against your government, with its military armed to the teeth as it is with sophisticated weaponry, that your weapons would have a chance in hell anyway? )?

I mean, seriously. I find this to be a justification that makes so little sense in the 20th, let alone the 21st century...

Best,
John

I'm only trying to help make clear the original intent, which most people are ignorant of. It's just a history lesson. In principle, I believe it was an enlightened decision.

[jkelman]

Originally Posted by Jeff Smith

I'm only trying to help make clear the original intent, which most people are ignorant of. It's just a history lesson. In principle, I believe it was an enlightened decision.

Cool. I agree that, at the time, it was indeed an enlightened decision. Sadly, now, it's a very bad thing....but thanks for the clarity.

[jkelman]

Originally Posted by Homer

The arab spring is largly a movement of people with rifles rising up against governments with much more firepower.

Is there a chance in hell? Yes. Wars are mostly political.

yes, but united in ways that I am afraid you'll never see in the US. It's a whole different thing over there.

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by jazz oud

However, you have to remember that the army is made up of American citizens. If there truly were a popular uprising, it is possible, even likely that many military members would refuse to fight against their fellow Americans. Some would even join in the resistance.

That, of course, is what happened in the Russian Revolution.

On the other hand, in so many countries the military has sided with their own rightwing generals against popular uprisings. And the U.S. National Guard was not particularly friendly to demonstrators in the 1960s.

For any rebellion to succeed in the U.S., it could not be without the overwhelming support of the military. Anything less would mean civil war.

[Homer]

With ABC News’ release of the George Zimmerman photo showing blood flowing freely from his head, the question becomes whether Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the case, had access to the photo before charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder.


The arrest affidavit did not mention the photograph, or the bleeding, gashes, and bruises on Zimmermans’ head. Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School stated upon release of the arrest affidavit that it was “so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge … everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense.”



After the release of the photo, however, Dershowitz went much further, telling Breitbart News that if the prosecutors did have the photo and didn’t mention it in the affidavit, that would constitute a “grave ethical violation,” since affidavits are supposed to contain “all relevant information.”



Dershowitz continued, “An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie."



When asked if it made a difference whether the prosecution had the bloody photograph at the time they charged Zimmerman, Dershowitz responded, “We do know that there were earlier photographs before the affidavit was done that strongly suggested blood on the back of the head, and we know the police had first access to him, so if there was blood they [the prosecution] would know about it …



"I've had cases in Florida against prosecutors,” Dershowitz said, “and this is not the first time they have willfully omitted exculpatory evidence. It's a continuing problem. Here, it’s not only immoral, but stupid. The whole country is watching. What do they benefit from having half-truths in an affidavit?"



Dershowitz added, "I'm not taking sides, but I'm insisting that both sides play by the rules, and so far the prosecution is not playing by the rules."

[tpt1]

The bloodied head of Zimmerman does not really prove anything in itself, other than the fact that he was hurt pretty bad during the scuffle. Zimmerman may have revealed his gun and Martin responded with force fearing for his life. We just don't know at this point. Zimmerman had a deadly weapon. Martin had skittles and his bare hands.

Why did it take so long for this picture to come out? All the 911 and cell phone calls have been out there for a long time.

[Vaughan]

What about Martin's right of self-defense? He was being stalked by a guy with a gun........

[engelbach]

The photo is not evidence in and of itself. It requires testimony from whoever patched up his head.

Even then, the fact that a fight took place does not automatically free Zimmerman from liability if he is the one who started it.

Unfortunately, Dershowitz tarnished his own record as a liberal when he came out in favor of torture.

[jazzbluescat]

Sounds like there was a fight and, since he's the only witness and if he keeps his perspective, he can use the story that he was getting his ass beat and shot Trayvon in self defense. That, or his damaged ego.

[Dazedcat]

Murder 2 will be very difficult to make stick as a charge. Manslaughter would have a much better and safer thing to bring. Proving willful pre-meditated intent isn't easy to do and considering that nobody knows what the hell happened in this case, probably impossible to prove.

I'm not a big fan of Alan Dershowitz but I do believe in this instance he's right.

[good rhythms]

i am looking forward to what the outcome will be

having an arrest certainly is a step in the right direction

america needs this diolougue, about how we want people to deal with neighborhood watch...what are the parameters we realy want?

[Dazedcat]

I agree. Dialogue is badly needed, like why does a law like Stand Your Ground exist in the first place? What happened consistently to allow a law like this to pass state legislation and become law.

Badly needed.