scribblet

I posted this earlier try to dismiss this one.. http://derryckgreen.net/2013/07/13/george-zimmerman-verdict/The jury has ruled- considering the evidence presented, and rightly in my opinion- that George Zimmerman is innocent. Despite the considerable emotion surrounding this case, justice has been served. Not “justice for Trayvon” and not “justice for George”; but simply justice.

Sounds like he has, do you have a link to the text on that , I'd like to read it ... thanks

I watched both House of Cards on Netflix (first one from BBC in the 90s) and the U.S. one with Kevin Spacey, both were absolutely great. I highly recommend them. We have HBO right now because they had a half price offer for 6 months so we could watch True Blood and Dexter. I do take it on and off just to watch those shows then cancel when they are over.

Probably not. The prosecutor is the same zealot who over charges and withheld evidence in the Zimmerman trial.

What gets me is the mob mentality, maybe they should’ve not bothered with a trial ‘cos everyone assumes he’s guilty? Maybe they should’ve just lynched him when he was first caught and saved time and effort going through a justice system This is from Derryck Green, a black American. http://derryckgreen.net/2013/07/13/george-zimmerman-verdict/ The jury has ruled- considering the evidence presented, and rightly in my opinion- that George Zimmerman is innocent. Despite the considerable emotion surrounding this case, justice has been served. Not “justice for Trayvon” and not “justice for George”; but simply justice. To celebrate justice rendered in this case is not an admission or an articulation that Trayvon Martin deserved what happened to him that fateful night in February of 2012. As most will acknowledge, it’s a sad and unfortunate thing that Trayvon Martin lost his life resulting in his parents having to bury their son. At the same time, George Zimmerman also did not deserve what has happened to him either. The death threats, the editing of the 9-1-1 tapes to make him appear as a zealous racial profiler; the releasing of his Social Security number, the tweeting of an address thought to be his by Spike Lee, the violent bounty offered by the New Black Panther Party, the dishonest projection onto him that he hunted Trayvon “down like a dog” simply because Trayvon was black, was simply unwarranted and unjustified. cont..

Logic and reason doesn't apply to much of this discussion but it's interesting to note that the Dept. of Justice can't find anything so are going to the public for tips. The FBI found nothing, but that doesn’t stop them, maybe the public can fabricate a story for them.

Thanks.. another one here http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/13/Media-Zimmerman-Coverage-Rap-Sheet?NewsWatchCanada.ca I suppose nothing is true unless it comes from the 'loony left' though. I think forgotten in all of this is that Neighbourhood watch volunteers were on the watch for young men who had the same general appearance of Martin. There had been a number of burglaries in that neighbourhood, all committed by young black men, and was stated as such at the trial. It is more than likely that Zimmerman would have ignored Martin has he not fitted that description.

Not sure about that as we can all say woulda coulda shoulda and I don't think it was evidence. Experts along with the eye witness all said Zimmerman was on the bottom and was beaten, in which case the jury had to consider the possibility that had Zimmerman not reacted, Zimmerman himself may have been killed. There was reasonable doubt and no option for a lesser charge. In fact, Z. should not have been charged at all - from last year http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-george-zimmerman-murder-charge-article-1.1080161 A medical report by George Zimmerman’s doctor has disclosed that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head and a back injury on the day after the fatal shooting. If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally. There is, of course, no assurance that the special prosecutor handling the case, State Attorney Angela Corey, will do the right thing. Because until now, her actions have been anything but ethical, lawful and professional. She was aware when she submitted an affidavit that it did not contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. She deliberately withheld evidence that supported Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. The New York Times has reported that the police had “a full face picture” of Zimmerman, before paramedics treated him, that showed “a bloodied nose.” The prosecutor also had photographic evidence of bruises to the back of his head.

None of which meant anything as far as evidence and reasonable doubt. All it boils down to is was Zimmerman afraid for his life, the jury believed he was, and that Martin threw the first punch. Mjuch of what is written and discussed has nothing to do with the evidence and Florida law. Speaking about the young girl, did anyone see her interview with Piers Morgan? She came across much better than she did on the witness stand, IMO had she been dressed in a similar manner and spoke as she did with Piers, the jury might have found her more credible. Does the name Pat Mahaney mean anything here, maybe not. Will Sharpton et al have a days of justice march for this guy, not likely. http://thewaytheballbounces.blogspot.ca/2013/07/media-watch-white-guy-zimmerman-vs-six.html http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/region_central_cincinnati/college_hill/pat-mahaney-dies-victim-of-north-college-hill-bored-beating-has-died

The media has a lot to answer for including NBC who ran that edited tape intended to show Zimmerman as racist. He is suing them over that one. Don't forget they also ran pictures of Martin when he was 12, not as he looked then. The prosecution shouldn't have put the teenage girl on the stand without coaching her first as the juror said they didn't find her credible. If anyone saw her interview with Piers Morgan you wouldn't have thought it was the same person. The juror in the interview said they believed that Martin threw the first punch and that it was Zimmerman's voice on the tape so under Florida's self defense laws (not the Stand Your Ground) there was enough reasonable doubt to acquit. The jury understood and got it right. Now maybe there will be changes in the law, who knows. Now that race baiter Al Sharpton is muckraking and stirring the pot.

I was right. Not only that, the prosecution withheld evidence again as per the testimony of the IT guy they fired. (for testifying).

I'm not clear on why this is being stated. How did the RCMP involve themselves with this, other than monitoring their activities ? Are they saying simply because they didn't step in sooner it's entrapment ?

There have been links posted on it allready, in one of them it said they checked closets and under beds but I'm not going back to look for it.

Would he have to step down as a Councillor if he did that, or just take a leave of absence. I just heard some commentary this morning about the timing of the by elections. Voter turnout is pretty low anyway, imagine how low it will in August.

This is a discussion, do you have anything intelligent to ad or are you just trolling.

Canadians have no reason to take to the streets. No gov't is perfect and no matter which party was in power there wouldn't be a whole lot of difference IMO. Well, I think the middle income earners would be hardest hit if and NDP gov't.

Pretty sneaking calling the by elections in August at the beginning of a long weekend. Wynne should just call a general election in October.

My thoughts too. Even though I still think the Muslim Brotherhood in control is a bad scenario for Egypt, as you say, he was democratically elected. What happens if they don't like the next elected leader, more riots and chaos.

It doesn’t matter how many birds, bats or whatever are killed because the turbines are ‘green’ doncha know. Wind farms also threaten species by displacing habitats not to mention harming people. But none of that matters when it comes to Big Wind. Oh the irony. http://www.news.com.au/national-news/wind-power-8216terrorising8217-rural-communities-rally-hear/story-fncynjr2-1226665907053 More unwilling hosts .. http://www.wellandtribune.ca/2013/06/20/live-wind-turbines-at-regional-council 50 Shades of Green http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1275521/wind_farms_threaten_endangered_whooping_crane/ Wind Farms Threaten Endangered Whooping Crane Yet US Fish & Wildlife Service continue to approve more wind farms in that migration corridor http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/releases/windfarms-bird-mortality-cover-up-in-the-uk.html Meanwhile in the U.K., a move forward for the people. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2336594/Residents-given-power-kill-new-wind-turbines-Tories-claim-end-controversial-onshore-developments.html No longer will councils and communities be bullied into accepting developments because national energy policy trumps local opinion. Meeting our energy goals is no excuse for building wind turbines in the wrong places. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10146135/Birdwatchers-see-rare-swift-killed-by-wind-turbine.html Dozens of birdwatchers who travelled to a Scottish island to see an extremely rare swift have been left distraught after it was killed by a wind turbine. Shades of Ontario http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html A new analysis of government and industry figures shows that wind turbine owners received £1.2billion in the form of a consumer subsidy, paid by a supplement on electricity bills last year. They employed 12,000 people, to produce an effective £100,000 subsidy on each job. and in Spain http://www.seo.org/2012/04/24/el-grupo-local-seo-burgos-localiza-12-avutardas-muertas-bajo-un-tendido-electrico-en-la-zona-de-castrojeriz/ PAIN: 40 to 60 great bustards killed by the power lines of the Villasilos windfarm.

I just heard that the Alberta premier has banned the media from entering and reporting on High River !!

I object to being referred to as a 'gun nut', and all of this info is coming from media reports, which is substantiated. The other thing of note is that these homes were already secure, as in being locked, which why the RCMP have had to use locksmiths. I just saw a report on the news that locksmiths have been billed for some 400 entries per day for a two day period. If true, that is some 800 entries into securely locked homes that were protected by deep water, and armed patrols 24/7 since the flood. What are the chances that roving gangs of looters were working in High River – not likely. No. The RCMP in High River walked all over Section 8 of the Charter of Rights. They entered private homes without a warrant, in circumstances that did not warrant urgent need. And again, define 'insecurely stored', did they have gun locks on etc. etc. Firearms Lawyer Ed Burlew has stated that there is no judge in Canada that would have issued a warrant under these circumstances. http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2013/06/28/flood-evacuees-furious-as-rcmp-enter-locked-homes-to-confiscate-firearms/ “This is without precedent, this is unreasonable search and seizure,” said Ed Burlew, lawyer and firearms specialist in Ontario. “The entry was illegal, it’s against the charter, it was unreasonable search and seizure. There’s no judge that would uphold the evidence obtained through an illegal entry into a person’s home.”

More than arrogant. I'm not gun nut, I don't own one one nor do I wish to. The police need explain exactly how many they took, under what circumstances. They must clarify that they only took firearms that were indeed stored unsafely or they were illegally taking private property. They need to clarify that they actually found them in ‘plain sight’ with no locking devices etc., and did not go through closets etc. looking for anything. Did they break into locked gun cabinet? Did they adhere to the firearms act or ignore it. What constituted unsafely stored if they followed the act as it’s laid out? A non-restricted firearm must either be equipped with a locking device (i.e. trigger lock), or be stored with critical components removed kept apart from the gun. Did the police do what they thought as opposed to what the law actually says, did it differ? They also need to clarify what will constitute “proof of ownership,” now the long-gun registry is scrapped, what will police consider proof of ownership? Many questions to be answered.

You mean Bill C-68, I've allready mentioned that one. Did they do this in Calgary, don't think so, why only High River? Also, producing a PAL or a FAC doesn't prove ownership as it does not list the guns and so on. Owners would have to provide some other proof of ownership. I have a feeling that a lot of people won't be getting them back. The RCMP have been changing their story line http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/29/matt-gurney-high-river-citizens-right-to-be-suspicious-as-rcmp-changes-story-over-removal-of-guns/ Corporal Darrin Turnbull told the National Post as officers swept houses for survivors or abandoned pets, necessarily checking closets and under beds in that process, they would find firearms, and decide in the heat of the moment whether it was safe to leave them there. There’s a certain logic to that, and given the broad authority granted by emergency declarations, such actions would almost certainly be legal. But you can’t blame gun owners for being suspicious. Cpl. Turnbill reported many firearms were left scattered about where their owners dropped them as they fled the sudden rise in water levels. You can understand a police officer who finds a stack of guns next to an open front door might feel they’re better off in a police lockup. Fair enough. But what about a trigger-locked gun on the top shelf of a bedroom closet in a locked house? There’s no threat to public safety there. If guns were taken in those kinds of situations, too, it won’t feel like the RCMP did you a favour by securing your gun. It will feel like it seized your lawful, and lawfully stored, property when it saw the chance to do so. We won’t know the details until residents are able to return home and discover exactly how thorough the RCMP’s gun-removal efforts were. But if individual officers were waging their own little gun-clearing campaign under the cover offered by an unfolding disaster, High River residents — and lawful Canadian gun owners everywhere — will be entirely justified in raising hell.

Taking advantage of a natural disaster to seize guns is shameless, and note this is the only riding we know of, where this was done. Police are supposed to protect us, and our property from looters among other things, so the very idea that a police force would become looters, breaking into homes then removing property from people evacuated from their homes is repugnant. There was an emergency declaration which gave sweeping powers to the authorities. However, this is done in order to expedite the response to the immediate situation and to save lives. It would be a huge stretch to interpret that as being able to break/enter then confiscate personal property. It is obvious that as long as the warrantless search provisions in the Firearms Act remain, some police officers will abuse their authority. The big question is: Was every house broken into or did they target those with registered guns (under the now defunct registry). What was the ‘urgent need’ to break and enter as the residents had already been evacuated and homes secured. Obviously the firearms were safe if these criminals had to physically break into homes to steal them! Also, if those firearms were made inoperable with a secure locking device as in a trigger lock, and or had the bolt removed, they were safely contained in the person’s home as it was locked. http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/storage-entreposage-eng.htm