Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: A very serious question on a very serious issue

Posted 6 years ago on April 15, 2012, 8:16 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I am very concerned about Zimmerman.
Based on everything I've heard, he's GUILTY.

But we all know that our legal system can do some crazy things -
just ask Dred Scott or Al Gore.
The stand your ground law -
written by the NRA & ALEC -
may let him off the hook before he goes to trial.

Knowing how demonically skilled the NRA & ALEC are in getting their way, I am very concerned that Zimmerman will escape justice.

Occupy is primarily here to deal with how money is corrupting democracy.
Well, here, the NRA & ALEC money is corrupting hundreds of our legislators.

We, along with many civil rights leaders, demanded justice for Trayvon.
Finally - that process is starting. I fear it may not end well.


what do you think we, as Occupy, should do?



Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 6 years ago

"Based on everything I've heard, he's GUILTY."

It really does not matter what you think .

In the United States you are innocent until proven guilty before jury of your peers. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted.

This right is so important in modern democracies and republics that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes and constitutions:

That said, I am wondering how you feel you can say you know he is guilty. Without hearing all the evidence from the suspect, witnesses, and experts under oath in court you really should not make such a claim.

The man may be determined to be guilty but I feel that too many people are quick to judge. It does not matter what you "heard on the radio", "read on the internet", "saw on TV", or "heard from a friend". It does not matter how many people protest. Even If 10 million people protest, we should not violate this fundamental right.

[-] 1 points by TheMisfit (48) 6 years ago

Excellent post.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

Very good joe, I agree with everything you said. One of my daughters graduated from Fordham and Vermont Law School. Despite having graduated in the top 10% of her class at both schhools, and having the chance to go into corporate law, she refuses to do so. She also politely turned down an offer of help from her cousin's husband who is a partner in a well known Washington law/lobbying firm. She fully realizes that prosecutors are often not so interested in pursuing justice, but rather in notches on their belt, and conviction rates...and then the chance for a political career. Anyway she works very hard to see that her clients get a fair shake, and I am very proud of her for doing so.

[-] 2 points by darrenlobo (204) 6 years ago

Zimmerman's defense is an abuse of the stand your ground laws. They are needed so overzealous prosecutors can't convict people for defending themselves. This is happening in countries like the UK & Canada. People go to jail there for defending their homes. We don't want that here.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 6 years ago

I'm not sure where you live but our state laws give us the right to bear arms, and defend our homes and our person. Unfortunately, ignorance prevails regarding most laws where individuals feel they have the right to murder anyone because of their own inability to understand the laws. That's why Attorneys get away with murder in our pockets!!! Whereas, in this instance this man had a donkey's ass perception of what his position as a mere part of a community "block watch" entailed. Now that was dumb on his part!! It seems to me that the citizens of this country really need to have in-depth classes on the Constitution, civil rights, civil liberties and the average persons responsibility regarding laws as alleged Citizens of this country! This is a country where people actually believe they can get away with murder and that backwards azz idea has no monopoly on race, creed, color or religion. This country is whack in its ability to groom good citizenship!!

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

It has NOTHING to do with defending your home.
The Florida Stand Your Ground Law: 776.012—
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another
against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.
a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to
prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to
prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;
or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s.776.013.


[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 6 years ago

Are you saying the law doesn't apply at home?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

what I'm saying is the stand your ground law is an
EXPANSION of the far more "standard" law
about the home that exists ( I believe ) everywhere
and was not pushed by ALEC & NRA

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

Let the courts play it out. I believe the main reason this case has been thrown into the public spotlight (out of 14,000 murders per year) is to keep the masses occupied and not paying much attention to the stuff going on around them that is directly affecting them.

Let the courts do their job. If occupations want to do something, its their right. But I would also try to maintain focus on corrupted banking and political payoffs.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 6 years ago

Nothing. One must remember that Zimmerman is Hispanic and therefor a minority just like Martin. I know Hispanic people that think he is absolutely innocent and are worried that racism AGAINST ZIMMERMAN is becoming part of this now.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

Honestly, I don't care about anyone's race I care about getting rid of the NRA/ALEC stand your ground laws

This may seem cruel, but if I had to choose one:
Zimmerman goes to jail
Ending all stand your ground laws

I choose the later

Not that this is a symbol of racisim
Not that this is a symbol of the gun crazies
THIS IS A SYMBOL of the power of money on politics via ALEC & NRA

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 6 years ago

Cool then.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

I think we have other more important things on our plate that affect 310,000,000 people very directly and 7 billion indirectly.

I would like to watch this like the O.J. Trial, but in the end, we still have the BIG problem.

[-] 1 points by amanofnoimportance (82) from Orlando, FL 6 years ago

This is just a pebble in a landslide. Don't get lost in it. Don't allow it to co-opt you.

[-] 1 points by JadedGem (895) 6 years ago

Well, the actual case and the facts of the case are currently not as important to anyone as the cause that has sprung up around the case. Lower class black gangster rappers, and drug dealers sported a style of dress that became popular. Lower class blacks encouraged upper class blacks to dress like thugs and see how lower class blacks were still being treated. They did it. It became sort of a right of passage for prosperous blacks to prove their higher status hadn't rendered them white. After having seen how lower class blacks dressed for a drive by are treated, they think even thugs shouldn't be subjected to this and are willing to speak out against it. Classicism has been imposed on Preps and Rednecks and whites too. Whites just aren't standing up for their lower classes, the rich whites have not engaged in a social program to raise awareness. The question is not whether blacks should or should not stand up for this cause. It isn't about whether the cause is real or just, it is real and just. The question is whether the Zimmerman case fits the bill in reality or has just been made into the example they needed to bring their point home.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 6 years ago

If simply going after the NRA is your goal, then the fact that a boy is dead is enough for action, but pronouncements about Zimmerman's guilt or innocence of murder would be best placed on hold. The best move for any organization outside the justice system is to do nothing and wait for all the facts to come out. There will be ample time to protest injustice once one comes to light.

There are legal experts commenting that the prosecutor has overcharged and a judge may throw out the inditement. The case for second degree murder is on the surface weak. Unless there is some secret evidence Zimmerman may be found not guilty of second degree murder if it does go to trial.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

Obviously, I was not clear
Zimmerman is not the problem
Stand your ground & NRA & ALEC is the problem
Zimmerman will not kill again
Stand your ground will continue:

Incident date: June 14, 2009 Location: At the front gate of the defendant's yard in Homosassa, Citrus County What happened: Oscar Delbono shot Shane Huse, 34, in the neck and shoulder after an argument between the neighbors, the result of a long-running dispute over Huse's two pit bull terriers. Huse's two children were in his truck nearby when Huse approached the shooter's yard. A witness to the shooting said Huse was turning to leave when he was shot and bullet entry wounds supported that account. Delbono said he thought Huse was "going for something. I feared for my life." The outcome: No charges were filed. "It is a tragic, unfortunate set of circumstances that occurred, but given the state of the law – stand your ground - there's no criminal prosecution," wrote assistant state attorney Pete Magrino.

[-] 2 points by Yin7 (44) 6 years ago

One problem is the cronyism in the justice system. Zim's father is part of the elite because he is a retired judge. That is why he did not get arrested immediately. That is a FACT!

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 6 years ago

So you want people to live in fear and be forced to run away...and thus advocate the power of thugs to intimidate people?

Is that your position?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

If a 6' 10" 300 pound man walks up to me on a dark street at midnite, and I am scared, stand your ground says I have the right to kill him - IF I tell the police I was scared.
From your friends at NRA & ALEC

Florida’s how to commit legal murder manual:
1> Find you victim in public with no witnesses
2> Kill him
3> Say “I was afraid for my life”

The Florida Stand Your Ground Law: 776.012
a person is justified in the use of deadly force and
does not have a duty to retreat if:
He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to
prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another
or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

Incident date: March 27, 2006
What happened: Michael D. Frazzini, 35, went to his mother's house to investigate claims that neighbors were harassing her, specifically 22-year-old Corey Rasmussen, who, she said, had taken her car keys. Frazzini, dressed in sweat clothes and a camouflage mask, hid in the back yard. When the Rasmussens spotted someone behind the house, Corey Rasmussen jumped the fence into a utility easement where they encountered Michael Frazzini carrying something in his hand. It was a small souvenir baseball bat. Corey could have left but did not leave. Corey's father, Todd, instructed his daughter to retrieve his .357 revolver. He saw his son and the masked man (Michael) facing off, claimed that he yelled a warning and then fired one shot into Frazzini's chest, killing him.
The outcome: Not charged – stand your ground.

Incident date: June 14, 2009
What happened: Oscar Delbono shot Shane Huse, 34, in the neck and shoulder after an argument between the neighbors, the result of a long-running dispute over Huse's two pit bull terriers. Huse's two children were in his truck nearby when Huse approached the shooter's yard. A witness to the shooting said Huse was turning to leave when he was shot and bullet entry wounds supported that account. Delbono said he thought Huse was "going for something. I feared for my life."
The outcome: No charges were filed. "It is a tragic, unfortunate set of circumstances that occurred, but given the state of the law – stand your ground - there's no criminal prosecution," wrote assistant state attorney Pete Magrino.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 6 years ago

two examples, over 3 years apart....epidemic..

and who's side of the story are these?

I'll find you some examples of those who were killed while fleeing or for no reason because they couldn't defend themselves.....

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

If it weren't for stand your ground, people would flee - and others would be alive..
This is not
if they bring a knife, you bring an AK47 it is the centuries old concept of proportional response
outside of your house, your FIRST obligation is to try to retreat

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 6 years ago

Right...so no one was ever killed in a dispute before "stand your ground"

and everyone should just run away from criminals and violent threats...like good yellow little cowards......that is the philosophy of a weak little pussy......your first obligation is to respond to threats appropriately and defend yourself, your family, and other innocent people from criminals and other lowlifes......

You say those incidents wouldn't have occurred you cannot be sure of that, all you can surmise is that perhaps the punishments may have been different....

I reject the argument of retreat, retreat laws embolden criminals.....as do other self-defense and gun laws.....Look at Chicago, DC, LA, NYC, Baltimore, etc......cities with the most restrictive gun/self-defense laws and the highest levels of crime......perhaps you should consider the handful of toddlers shot, and killed in Chicago this year, a city that doesn't support ANY right to self-defense......

you are simply a fucking whiny little pussy, who is apparently afraid of life and other people....sorry for your life dude......it must be tough to be so weak.....and to feel the need to piss yourself and run like a fucking coward as your main philosophy....

Thank goodness many Americans see it differently, and "Stand your Ground and Castle Law allow americans to say "enough" when threatened by others......


[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 6 years ago

This man has been tried by media hype and sensationalism and thats what i dont trust. Have you ever been in a bad area where there are thugs around who are gonna take what you got and could care less how bad they hurt or kill you. And there is also teens like that as well and it's not only black people, its depends where this is at mainly. The police are always arresting them. Well, i have and this isnt an easy call as some would think. When something happens you think call the police but do you know about response times and how they can take up to 30 minutes or more. People can be seriously hurt or killed before they get there and the trouble long gone when they do. This has happened. I also dont believe this was racial just people making it so. Look for the facts not the hype, this is not so easy to call.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22851) 6 years ago

Our first specific goal should be getting money out of politics by overturning Citizens United. Occupy the Supreme Court!

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 6 years ago

how do you suppose to do that....the only way to overturn a SCOTUS decision is via another, similar, case...or with a Constitutional Amendment.....do you think representatives are going to vote against their own campaign funds?...seriously? They don't even vote against pay raises....

You cannot take money out of politics, it is not possible, everything about political campaigns cost money, unless you can change that, you cannot take away money.....

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22851) 6 years ago

Public pressure can overturn Citizens United and campaigns can and should be publicly funded.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 6 years ago

we don't live in a mob-rule nation......public pressure doesn't effect the SCOTUS...that is why they are appointed for life.....to remove the fear of reprisal for their decisions....

publicly funded as in government funded? Who chooses candidates in that situation..we certainly couldn't fund anyone and everyone who chose to run for office?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22851) 6 years ago

Perhaps SCOTUS should not be appointed for life since those appointments are really an extension of the executive branch. Perhaps we need an amendment to the Constitution to end the monarchy-like judicial branch. And, if public funds are distributed equally to all candidates then that would be the people who choose the candidates, no?!

[-] -1 points by takim (23) 6 years ago


[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 6 years ago

i don't think you're getting the point......what if 1000 people want to run for president, do we give them all public funds?

it's funny about your idea's......they are anti-constitutional, and our basic laws begin with the constitution, they are not meant to be easily changed....they are the foundations of the republic

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22851) 6 years ago

Well, I think there would be a signature requirement in order to get public funds. And, I don't really care if what I say seeks a change to the Constitution. If the Constitution is going to allow money to equal speech and corporations to be people then it needs a fixin'.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 6 years ago

money doesn't equal speech, but you cannot limit speech because some mediums of transmission (radio, TV) require money......and given a leaning by those in media money is required to offset the free press given to some and withheld from others due to the particular opinion of the new outlets.....

and Corporate "personhood" was established by the SCOTUS in relation to "equal protection" in the mid/late 1800's, it's not a new idea.....

Corporations are people.......people create and run them, and they employ people and provide commerce which funds the government.....to take away their right to advocate for their own interests will only lead to less commerce and more scarcity of products.....commerce is an important part of the country......the country doesn't exist to protect and promote leisure over commerce, if you think that, YOU need fixin'

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22851) 6 years ago

Corporations are not people. That is one of the most heinous decisions ever made by the Supreme Court. And, who said anything about promoting leisure over commerce, but maybe it's not a bad idea. Have any time to smell the roses, Slammers?

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 6 years ago

are you aware of the decision, and the nature of the case that determined it?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22851) 6 years ago

Am aware, I think. Are you talking about the 19th century case or Citizens United?

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 6 years ago

citizens united did not establish corporate personhood......


[-] 0 points by occupyhipocrasy (1) 5 years ago

innocent until proven guilty. you would expect the same

and what's wrong with stand your ground laws if you are defending yourself?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

I said I think he's guilty - I have an opinion - which is not relavant
If a 100 pound woman is walking down the street at 3AM and the only person on the street is a 200 pound man on the other side of the street making rude remarks, with no witnesses - she can pull out a gun and kill him - claiming she was standing her ground.


[-] 0 points by hotdoghenry (268) 6 years ago

This is the real reason our country is such trouble. STUPID PEOPLE who think like this. "Well that's what I heard"........ you dumb ass!

Go to the mall.... look around...... STUPID PEOPLE all over that think Jerry Springer is real!

"Where my check be at?"

Dumb ass!

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 6 years ago

I think they will have a very hard proving that Zimmerman was not defending himself; he is therefore NOT guilty.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 6 years ago

how do you want to get money out of politics? What is your solution?

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 6 years ago

A Constitutional Amendment that eliminates corporate donations; foreign corporations or foreign govt donations period, ends lobbying, and sets term limits on Congressional members.

[-] 1 points by Dell (-168) 6 years ago

Dont forget Union donations & lobbying

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

We anti-corporate personhood people are NOT forgetting unions & lobbying

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 6 years ago

ok - I just dont hear the unions mentioned in the same light on this forum when bashing corporations.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

Dear Mr. Dell, Regardless of what you hear here, and that some people want unions excluded from the anti CU - anti + Buckley + anti - personhood movement, the bulk of those of US who are actually DOING something about this, and the overwhelming majority of actual amendments proposed, treat ALL the same - corps & unions.
I hope that makes you feel less scared about our efforts

If a corporation or a union feels that their goals are best served by a candidate, they should be allowed to communicate that to their shareholders or members. And the honesty of their sales pitch must be based on truth since organizations will not have the free speech right to lie. For example:

Massey energy letter to stockholders: Candidate T stands for relaxed environmental standards and will vote for legislation that could increase dividends by 7%. We suggest that you contribute to candidate T.

The XYZ union letter to members: Candidate Y supports mine safety equipm,ent requirements better than any other candidate. We suggest that you contribute to Y.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 6 years ago

That's covered under 'ends lobbying', but I should add 'donations from organizations including corporations, unions, pacs, ... any organization' for the sake of clarity... thank you.


[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 6 years ago

What are the two LARGEST campaign contributors in the USA?


  1. National Education Association (NEA)
  2. American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

It only appears that way, because of how they have to report it.

You should know that.

[-] -2 points by veepveep (-7) 6 years ago

The Stand Your Ground Law has NOTHING to do with this case. You know that.

He can't use that as a defense. Move on folks. Nothing factual to see in this OP.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

There WILL be a stand your ground hearing
bet on it . If Zimmerman wins that round there is no trial. IF Zimmerman was attacked by Treyvon ( which I don't believe but cannot prove )
the ONLY testimony on the attack will be from Zimmerman.
There will be no eye witness for Trayvon.
From what I understand, Zimmerman's long term credibility will
push this one way or the other. AGAIN
Either way -
how do we get rid of the stand your ground laws
from the NRA and ALEC?

Incident date: Jan. 25, 2012
Location: On the street in Little Havana, more than a block from Greyston Garcia's residence. in Miami, Miami-Dade County
What happened: When Greyston Garcia discovered Pedro Roteta was stealing his car radio, he grabbed a knife, ran downstairs and chased Roteta down the street. After confronting Roteta, who reportedly had a closed pocket knife in his back pocket, Garcia fatally stabbed him. The incident was caught on camera. The officer who supervised the case asked,"How can it be stand your ground"?

The outcome: On March 20, a Miami-Dade judge cited the "stand your ground" law in dismissing the case against Garcia. The judge said when Roteta swung a 4- to 6-pound bag of stolen car radios at Garcia just before the stabbing, it amounted to a lethal threat. The state attorney said she would appeal the judge's ruling. Prosecutor is seeking a jury trial.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 6 years ago

obviously that was a case of self defense. garcia was defending his property. nothing even remotely similar to this case. yes.. if a guy steals your stuff.. then fights you when you try to take it back.. that is self defense. if roteta had killed garcia that would be murder committed during the commission of a felony. how hard is this??

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

You are equating a person's car radio with their selfhood? Damn, talk about shallow. Property is not self. Self defense is not defense of a mass produced electronic component. Self defense is defense of one's life. Inanimate objects (including the conscience of right wingers) do not qualify.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 6 years ago

yes i am. if you are holding my property in your hand and i want it back and you try to kill me to keep it then yes.. thats my self hood

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Of course it doesn't occur to a meathead like you that your car radio is not as important as human life, and your willingness to risk either your life or taking someone else's is pure stupidity and complete immoral lack of human values.

Par for the right wing shit-for-brains crowd.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 6 years ago

then why would someone try to kill me to get my property? you are looking at this from the wrong side. i should let you kill me over my property. but i shouldnt kill you? course.. you like enabling thieves , criminals , whatever you just go on ahead and let them assault and rob you while you beg for your life. after all.. you dont have to defend yourself theres no law forcing you

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

NObody said you should be killed over your property: where do you get something stupid like that? But if you see someone with your little car radio and you chase after him to risk your life and his, you are an idiot.

That's very different than if you are assaulted. Self defense if defense of your own body. And it is very different if your home is broken into while you and your family is there and you don't know the level of danger and can't escape from it. In those cases, deadly force is perfectly appropriate.

BUt you advocate going far beyond those scenarios. You advocate intentionally enjoining danger and justifying the results in terms of self defense, when no defense of self would have been necessary had you not acted to put yourself and everyone else in harms way to begin with..

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 6 years ago

he thinks you should just surrender your property......then there is no dispute.....so that tomorrow the lowlife can come and take something else of yours, and perhaps your neighbors things too, reducing the value of your property and lowering the esteem of your neighborhood.....

what you have should just be surrendered to the ghouls of the world without a fight, and you should then just go to work to earn more for them to take.....

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 6 years ago

And obviously is hasn't occurred to you that legitimizing such behavior merely exasperates victimization. And that never ends well.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Legitimizing what behavior? Hunting down and murdering a human being over a car radio?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 5 years ago

In our jails they murder each other over slices of bread. Legitimizing bad behavior is not a societal good; it only exasperates. .

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 5 years ago

WHO is legitimizing murder of any sort? I condemn murder consistently, whether it is done in jail by an inmate or done in the street to get a car radio back. You seem to think one of those is OK. I think both murders are wrong.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 5 years ago

Tolerance in the form of leniency essentially and substantially legitimizes bad behavior; it only serves to exasperate the problem.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 5 years ago

Who is suggesting tolerance? It is YOU who are legitimizing MURDER over a swiped toaster or car radio.

[-] -2 points by betuadollar (-313) 5 years ago

I would rather see someone take a life in defense of life, limb, or property than see wanton petty theft and victimization legitimized.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 5 years ago

Of course you miss the point entirely. (What a surprise!) No one is legitimizing petty theft or victimization. Show me one syllable of what I wrote that does so. You can't, because I didn't write any such thing.

You have swallowed the right wing propaganda Cool Aid.

What's more, petty theft in this country, as far as I know, is not a capital crime, the death penalty does not apply, and murdering a petty thief violates the prohibition of cruel and unusual of the Constitution.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

Crime Statistics > Prisoners > Per capita (most recent) by country

United States: 715 per 100,000 people

2 Russia: 584 per 100,000 people

3 Belarus: 554 per 100,000 people

4 Palau: 523 per 100,000 people

5 Belize: 459 per 100,000 people

6 Suriname: 437 per 100,000 people

7 Dominica: 420 per 100,000 people

8 Ukraine: 416 per 100,000 people

9 Bahamas, The: 410 per 100,000 people

10 South Africa: 402 per 100,000 people

11 Kyrgyzstan: 390 per 100,000 people


[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 5 years ago

You miss the point - at one time we could walk from one side of this country to the other with no fear of being assailed, assaulted, molested, robbed or raped. Today we don't dare hitchhike from one side of town to the other for fear of being murdered. In legitimizing low level crime we have introduced more serious and heinous crime; we are inadvertently growing our prison population not because of stringency but because of leniency - no one does time in a state prison for petty theft; they are ALL criminals. And we are creating them.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 5 years ago

I've lived in Chicago, Denver And Phoenix, and let me tell you, those who are afraid to walk out their doors and frolic through the city streets are people who watch way too much television.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 5 years ago

I never said anything about frolicking out of doors or walking city streets; I was referring to hitchhikers and the long distance travel of the pedestrian.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 5 years ago

If you did not get the point I was attempting to make, by saying I'm not afraid to walk through major cities, where crime is statistically greater than rural areas, then you are ether dense or purposefully missing my point. Crime has been going down for the last two to three decades but the average person is more fearful than ever. Probably because they watch too much TV and spend too little time going out camping. lol

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 5 years ago

You don't think it has anything at all to do with the 200 plus murders already this year in NY? There were ten shootings in Brooklyn alone last weekend. My point is that 50 years ago this did not occur in America; it is the result of our tolerance and leniency.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33471) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

What happens when life is taken away from your reach?


You can thank the greedy.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (1584) 0 minutes ago

It ain't the greedy that's shooting us in the streets, bro... the lower class is lower than low, they're animals, and every bit as filled with greed. The atrophy of morality, as dystopia, is everywhere the result of tolerance but you can't hang this blood on the rich. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 5 years ago

When life is taken away from my reach? Greed... I'm hearing greed. And it's yours.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 5 years ago

OK, joe arpaio, so you are saying crime is going up because of less severe penalties. I think crime is going up because less opportunities are present for the average individual to support him/her self. But we could go back and forth on this one, it, after all, is one of the oldest right, left diatribes this nation has had. We are one of the most oppressive western nations in the world, and people like you still believe we are not decisive and unrelenting enough.

Sheesh, with a culture like yours no wonder America hasn't met a conflict she didn't intervene in. You know the more I talk with Conservatives the more I believe our nation is just one modern day Sparta.

Just remember, the more you exploit others the less empathy they have for you in the long run.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 5 years ago

We're not concerned about some future empathy. We know that as our form of constitutional democracy continues to deteriorate that eventually some will rise to power with the ability to pass any arbitrary law and squash all in his path. We have totalitarian government in our future - without a doubt - and when that happens with all the over emphasis on race, the creation of divisions where none need to exist, coupled with increased population density and the struggle for resources, that we/ they/ will kill all as if they were Bolshevik Jews. We want our Constitution preserved so that arbitrary law in not a possibility. It's too late - it's gone - and we no longer have a need of a Supreme Court to decide the constitutional issues of our nonexistent Constitution and anybody who does not realize this is an absolute fool. Look around - this is a country FULL of uninformed fools.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33471) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

It is a result of the decline of the lower and middle class.

Don't be fooled society has been under attack by the greedy for decades.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 5 years ago

It ain't the greedy that's shooting us in the streets, bro... the lower class is lower than low, they're animals, and every bit as filled with greed. The atrophy of morality, as dystopia, is everywhere the result of tolerance but you can't hang this blood on the rich.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 6 years ago

you fools don't understand that whether it is a car radio, your home, your money, or any other thing "owned" by a person...time (which is irretrievable) and effort were given for those items, and sometimes, when one has very little those "things" are VERY important......

crimes against others are the Immoral lack of human values...NOT the response to those crimes.....unfortunately, fuckwit idiots like you do not care for those who live good lives and do the right thing, you only care if the "rights" of criminals, thugs, and lowlifes are "violated" by those who are victims of those vile and worthless fucker's.....

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

You equate thieves with murderers. Go fuck yourself.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 6 years ago

and you seek to defend criminals...you can bleed out and die, painfully, choking on your own bile.....fucktard

commit a crime against me and you deserve the medicine I dispense.....know that and consider it before you commit the crime

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

When have I defended any criminal? I have neither defended the thief, nor defended the vigilante murderer. Only you have done that. In law there is something called fitting the punishment to the crime. Only dickheads like you believe that the punishment for swiping a car radio is the death penalty. Only dickheads like you have such contempt for human life. Barbarism is not justice: it undermines justice.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

That idiotic law has everything to do with case.

Where were you? Watching FLAKESnews?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 6 years ago

it is being cast as a possible defense. the facts will show it was not a self defense killing. there fore.. it has nothing to do with the stand your ground law. this man that clearly stalked and confronted another man , it was the ignorant police and prosecutors that let it get this far. from now on out they will know better. there may very well be more trayvons.. but it will be murder. there wont be these questions.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

I basically agree, however, if it wasn't for this this idiotic law, it never would have gone this far without an arrest.

You can also bet that ALEC and the NRA will be spending millions to hide that fact.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Hmmm, comments by a paranoid delusionist.

He likely helped ALEC write this idiotic law. All the while ALEC was pushing localities to lay off officers.

But don't worry, there's law against conflict of interest...........or is there?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

I thought you might have fun with that one.

I think he aided and abetted with this.

What conflict of interest? He's armed. As long as your armed, there's no conflict....

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Paranoia may, or may not destroy ya', but it sure does wonders for gun sales............................:)

There's never a conflict of interest, when there's profits to be made on instruments of death.

To the next guy who tells me, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

I say, good. Makes it easier to find them and isn't that what law and order is all about?.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

I saw what you did there.

I used to like the NRA many, many years ago. I hate them.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

I used to be staunchly pro gun, until I actually read some stuff put out by the NRA...........Now I know they are nutterz. Plain and simple.....nutterz.

I'm still not exactly anti-gun, but I am 100% anti-NRA.

Nutterz, should have nothing at all to do with writing laws.

Hey, that's my problem with those nut bag (R)epelican'ts too..........:)

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

Yep. They are unwilling to even recognize that the guns that are leaving through the back doors of the manufacturers are a problem. Then they got involved in a bunch of other crap.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 6 years ago

it isnt the law.. its the people operating the law. thats the same as blaming a car for running someone over.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Then it's poorly written, poorly implemented law.

If the car was so badly designed that it did run someone over, it sure would be the cars fault, or at least it's manufacturer. That puts the NRA and ALEC in the spotlight.

Plus like I said, ALEC and the NRA will be spending millions defending it as implemented. after all, they wrote it and paid to have it enacted.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 6 years ago

im just glad knowing that the normal human response to a threat is backed by law now. most people will never see a moment when its down to i kill you or you kill me. but its comforting to know that if it did happen, the victim is in the right when the perpetrator is killed.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

To me? the way it's written, makes it an open invitation for good old boy "justice". No witness for the dead guy? The shooter walks, scot free.

That's just wrong, on so many levels.

There's no one to thank for that, besides the paranoid nutterz at the NRA and that Koch bros anti-American puppet ALEC.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 6 years ago

it isnt really. they have all types of evidence gathering tactics and devices it would be hard to say something happened a certain way with out some kind of evidence that would back that story up. there are very few people that actually want to kill. most would not even if it were legal to do so if they had another choice. we have to have laws that protect regular people faced with unusual circumstances. the old laws made it to where some one like you that had to kill someone in defense would spend the rest of your life in prison because you were a victim that didnt want to die. thats more fair than this law?

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 6 years ago

you know....I keep hearing the "stalked" assertion, but...If you listen to the unabridged 911 tape...at one point Zimmerman says "he's running", then "he ran"...then you can here wind noise where Zimmerman is moving....once the noise stops the dispatcher asks Zimmerman if he is following the person, he say's "yes" and is told it is not necessary for him to do so......then there is more questions from the dispatcher, including who Zimmerman is, ansd where he lives...and 1:32 after saying "he's running" Zimmerman gives his address to the dispatcher and then says something to the effect of "I don't want to give you my address, I don't know where the guy is".....

IF he was "stalking" Martin....he WOULD have know where he was......and in that 1:32, Martin could have EASILY run the entire 850+ ft to the home of his fathers fiance and been safe and sound inside....

So why was there EVER a confrontation? Interesting question......

Please feel free to comment...

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 6 years ago

i feel that for there to have been a confrontation sparked by the victim.. he would have had to some how forcibly removed zimmerman from his car.. other wise there is no way to assert ,that while following the guy, whether he knew the exact address or not.. that he was defending himself. as for the address part. it sounds like he gave the address of where he was at the moment , not his personal address. theres no evidence that suggest that trayvon approached the vehicle in any manner. there fore.. zimmerman had to have gotten out of his car and approached trayvon. that puts him as the aggressor . whatever happened after that, it was zimmerman as the aggressor and therefore cannot be self defense.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 6 years ago

you are ignoring the point......Zimmerman did not know where Martin was a full minute and a half after he told the dispatcher that he was running....IF he was "following" or "stalking" him...he would KNOW where he was......he did not, so he couldn't, at that point, have been "following" someone who he didn't know the whereabouts of...in order to "follow" someone, you have to know where they are.....

Prior to telling Zimmerman that he didn't have to follow Martin (and I again make reference to the 911 tape where the wind noise of Zimmerman's movement stopped PRIOR to being told this, by the dispatcher) The dispatcher told Zimmerman "let me know if he does anything else" after Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin was "staring" at him....... He (Zimmerman) gave his personal address when asked by the dispatcher......The dispatcher first inquired as to who he was, then if he lived in the complex, and then what his address was......

Zimmerman clearly states in the 911 call that Martin was approaching with his hand in his waistband and that he had "something in his hand".....the shooting occurred a few hundred feet from where the truck was parked, and that location was between the truck and the address Zimmerman gave to tell the dispatcher his location.....

So he may have been walking back to his truck as he claimed....

and, AGAIN....in the time from when Martin began running till Zimmerman says to the dispatcher "I don't know where this guy is", Martin COULD have made it to the house where he was staying......why didn't he do that.....was HE looking for a confrontation.....

Zimmerman was on record (911 call) as trying to locate Martin (a person unknown to him) so he could direct police (who he KNEW were on the way) to this unknown person.....

Why did Martin and Zimmerman meet after the 911 call? the home where Martin was staying was in the opposite direction of where the shooting occurred and the direction he was traveling the last time seen by Zimmerman......for the confrontation to occur, Martin had to turn around and travel AWAY from the safe location of the home he was staying in and move back towards Martin.....taking away your argument that Zimmerman approached Martin with any intent......

and, finally...why wouldn't Martin, IF confronted walk away, or explain WHY he was there? seems like a simple explanation...."I am staying with my Dad and I went to the store".....not really cause for a need to defend oneself, or a means to injure Zimmerman if a simple explanation was offered

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 6 years ago

well you cant second guess a persons thinking when they are in a threat situation. and being followed by a stranger is a threat situation. he may have thought it better not to lead this person to his home as i would do, i would purposely lead this person away from my home especialy if there was someone else at home i wanted to protect. i didnt know he said trayvon was 'approaching' but then again.. why didnt martin drive away? there maybe more to this than i have heard. i still think the bottom line will be that martin was stalking .. theres no way around that. what about the part of the call where trayvon is yelling 'help help' what explanation does zimmerman give for that? there maybe more to this than i previously thought and he may get off scott free. I still think he will be found as the aggressor because of the 911 tape . its not like this situation just happened and he had to make a split second decision. he engineered the situation, with the knowledge that he had gun incase anything happened and then he used it when the situation turned on him. not a case of self defense in my book anyway

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 6 years ago

you keep saying "follow" and "Lead"....if Zimmerman did not know where Martin was ther is no "lead" or "follow"

Zimmerman didn't drive away because he was reporting suspicious activity in his neighborhood, like Americans used to do, and adults routinely asked what, why, where and how I and my friends were doing in places where we seemed out of place as teenagers.....especially when there were "issues" in the neighborhood, such as vandalism, or burglary.......Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer, he was "watching" Martin, who was out of place and acting odd, walking around in the rain between the buildings.....

I will again say, for the third or forth time.....stalking or following requires that you know, or approximately know, where the thing you are following/stalking, is.......

YOU say he "engineered" the situation.....and how did he do that, the 911 call establishes that he did not know where Zimmerman was for over a minute during the 911 call....that can certainly not be called following, or stalking...

and if Martin assaulted Zimmerman from a hidden or surprise location, or approached HIM and then assaulted HIM, as Zimmerman, and the Eye witness "John" contend.....and broke his nose and was hitting his head on the sidewalk, that IS self defense.......

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 6 years ago

you said that zimmerman said.. after he said he didnt know where martin was.. that martin was staring at him.. he knew then where he was.and he knew it was the same man he had been stalking previously.. when a person is following someone and loses sight of them for a minute does not mean that they were not following, besides the fact that zimmerman is on the phone saying that he is following, he technically was saying ive lost site of him for the moment. and then obvously he catches site of him agian when martin is 'staring' there is no way around the fact that he WAS stalking martin. You may know he was watching.. but to a person being followed by some stranger for some unknown, but most probaly a threatning reason.it is stalking zimmerman is only 28, hardly what a teenager would consider an adult. .he is mexican could be a thug, your putting a lot of adult reasoning on martin when he was just a highschooler and zimmerman IS an adult that should have been able to see easily that martin was a kid. zimmerman did not know nor think that it was some teenager out of place. zimmerman doesnt look like he has a broken nose.. walking around in the rain is odd? since when?

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 6 years ago

no, the staring was before he exited the truck, and before Martin ran....

YEAH...vote down the facts....maybe they'll go away...and you can pretend your fantasy is the truth.

Whoever does this is a FUCKTARD!