South Carolina church shooting: Nine killed in Charleston

Nine people have died in a shooting at a historic African-American church in Charleston in the US state of South Carolina, officials say.
City police chief Gregory Mullen said eight of the victims were killed inside the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church on Thursday evening, while another person died shortly afterwards.
Police are now searching for a white male suspect in his 20s.
"I do believe it was a hate crime," Mr Mullen said.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33179019

Clementa Pinckney named among the dead

Multiple reports have said that Rev Clementa Pinckney, Emanuel church’s pastor and a Democratic member of the South Carolina Senate, was among the nine people killed.

This has yet to be officially confirmed by Charleston police or the coroner, but South Carolina state house minority leader Todd Rutherford has told the Associated Press that Pinckney was among those killed:

He never had anything bad to say about anybody, even when I thought he should.

He was always out doing work either for his parishioners or his constituents. He touched everybody.

Pinckney, 41, was a married father of two who was elected to the state house at age 23, making him the youngest member of the House at the time.



I wonder if we will see a march with the linking of arms of world leaders? How about Je Suis Emanuel (the name of the church).

In April, Rev Pinckney, the pastor who was killed in the shooting, led a “Requiem on Racism” in the church.

He said he hoped the service would help “root out any forms of violence and bigotry”.

(video of it on the link)

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2015/jun/18/charleston-church-shooting-reports-fatalities-suspect-large-latest-updates#block-55826b29e4b06ca1215f28d0

They haven't caught the gunman yet.
Makes me wonder if he'll do it again

He's been caught in Shelby, about a 3-4 hour drive from Charleston.

Here is a picture of him:




http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/18/charleston-shooting-dylann-roof-arrested_n_7613052.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Racism in America is a figment of your imagination?

So, let's review:

1.  It is the murderous act of a white;
2.  Done against blacks;
3.  In a southern state;
4.  Using a .45 handgun...

Wait, I'll get back in a few...

About an hour into the Bible study, he told the worshipers, "You have to go," witnesses told Sylvia Johnson, the cousin of slain pastor Clementa C. Pinckney.

"He just said 'I have to do it.' He said, 'You rape our women, and you're taking over our country,'" she said on MSNBC, recounting what survivors told her.

He fatally shot nine people — but purposefully spared at least one woman, said Dot Scott, the president of Charleston's NAACP.

"Her life was spared because the shooter said, 'I'm not going to shoot you because I want you to tell everyone what happened'" Scott said on CNN. His presence at the church meeting did not set off any red flags because the congregation is used to hosting tourists, who visit the church for its history.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/suspected-charleston-church-shooter-gun-birthday-article-1.2262393

White people won't be asked to apologise, FBI spies won't visit Whole Foods, & no one will ask how he was radicalised.

- Ben White (Ben White is a British journalist and activist. He is the author of two books about the Israel-Palestine conflict: Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide and Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination and Democracy.)

He's right.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

About an hour into the Bible study, he told the worshipers, "You have to go," witnesses told Sylvia Johnson, the cousin of slain pastor Clementa C. Pinckney.

"He just said 'I have to do it.' He said, 'You rape our women, and you're taking over our country,'" she said on MSNBC, recounting what survivors told her.

He fatally shot nine people — but purposefully spared at least one woman, said Dot Scott, the president of Charleston's NAACP.

"Her life was spared because the shooter said, 'I'm not going to shoot you because I want you to tell everyone what happened'" Scott said on CNN. His presence at the church meeting did not set off any red flags because the congregation is used to hosting tourists, who visit the church for its history.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/suspected-charleston-church-shooter-gun-birthday-article-1.2262393

I know.  

Dylann Roof wrote:You rape our women, and you're taking over our country

When I read that I thought back to my post two days ago (see, 'Re: Hate' in Politics: US and Canada, six posts in, pg 1).  Didn't I say that racism has to do with pseudo-sexual-psychotic behavior?  I believe I mentioned how the whites fear the black man taking their women.  Well, of course I wouldn't be caught dead saying I told you so. but.......

Racism is not just any bigoted opinion.  It is intricately wrapped with the sexual self-doubt of white males.  Racists are deeply disturbed, and they typically perceive the remedy to be murder.  That is the origin of lynching.

It goes much deeper than political thought.

I believe I mentioned that So. Carolina is where racism started in America.  It certainly is where the Civil War started.

An interesting aside is that the state flag of South Carolina is the old Confederate flag, which has come to connote racism.  

In the wake of this mass murder, every flag including that of the United States was lowered to half mast...except South Carolina refused to lower the stars and bars of the Confederacy.  Lowering a flag is a sign of respect for the dead.  After a tragedy like this, to fail to lower the colors is considered tantamount to saying, I do not respect this [or these] person(s).

In such ways do southern states proclaim their racism.

Original Quill wrote:Racism in America is a figment of your imagination?

So, let's review:

1.  It is the murderous act of a white;
2.  Done against blacks;
3.  In a southern state;
4.  Using a .45 handgun...

Wait, I'll get back in a few...

Was definately a racist attack... just like the huge numbers of robberies, rapes, violent assaults and murders that are carried out on whites every year by blacks but never seem to get a mention...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Racism in America is a figment of your imagination?

So, let's review:

1.  It is the murderous act of a white;
2.  Done against blacks;
3.  In a southern state;
4.  Using a .45 handgun...

Wait, I'll get back in a few...

Was definately a racist attack... just like the huge numbers of robberies, rapes, violent assaults and murders that are carried out on whites every year by blacks but never seem to get a mention...

You're mixing apples and oranges, tommy.  The few crimes committed by blacks are opportunistic, due to poverty, not racism.  This guy has huge issues having to do with his limited penis size.

Who wants to bet me you'll see a George Zimmerman defense: I had to do it out of self-defense...  South Carolina...Florida?  A white, killing blacks? I'll bet it would fly in the South.

The Governor of South Carolina is calling for the death penalty:

NYTimes wrote:South Carolina’s governor, Nikki R. Haley, on Friday called for Mr. Roof to face the death penalty.

“This is a state that is hurt by the fact that nine people innocently were killed,” Ms. Haley said, adding that the state “absolutely will want him to have the death penalty.”

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Was definately a racist attack... just like the huge numbers of robberies, rapes, violent assaults and murders that are carried out on whites every year by blacks but never seem to get a mention...

You're mixing apples and oranges, tommy.  The few crimes committed by blacks are opportunistic, due to poverty, not racism.  This guy has huge issues having to do with his limited penis size.

Who wants to bet me you'll see a George Zimmerman defense: I had to do it out of self-defense...  South Carolina...Florida?  A white, killing blacks?  I'll bet it would fly in the South.

The Governor of South Carolina is calling for the death penalty:

NYTimes wrote:South Carolina’s governor, Nikki R. Haley, on Friday called for Mr. Roof to face the death penalty.

“This is a state that is hurt by the fact that nine people innocently were killed,” Ms. Haley said, adding that the state “absolutely will want him to have the death penalty.”

George Zimmerman was right to claim self defence.

This chap won't do that, and I reckon he'll get the death penalty if he's found guilty.

The number of violent crimes against whites by blacks every year are huge and everything to do with racism.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You're mixing apples and oranges, tommy.  The few crimes committed by blacks are opportunistic, due to poverty, not racism.  This guy has huge issues having to do with his limited penis size.

Who wants to bet me you'll see a George Zimmerman defense: I had to do it out of self-defense...  South Carolina...Florida?  A white, killing blacks?  I'll bet it would fly in the South.

The Governor of South Carolina is calling for the death penalty:

George Zimmerman was right to claim self defence.

This chap won't do that, and I reckon he'll get the death penalty if he's found guilty.

What is the difference? This story points up the utter mendacity of the George Zimmerman defense. Both Zimmerman and Roof actively sought out their victims. Both Zimmerman and Roof went to the place where they could be found. Both Zimmerman and Roof engaged their victims and challenged them. Both Zimmerman and Roof pulled a gun and murdered their victims.

Now we haven't heard the full story yet. Perhaps Roof will say the bible study gang turned ugly while he was questioning their presence, and threatened him. Perhaps they banged his head on the tile floor. Perhaps his only alternative was to pull his handgun and start shooting.

We'll have to wait for the full trial to learn the details of his defense.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

George Zimmerman was right to claim self defence.

This chap won't do that, and I reckon he'll get the death penalty if he's found guilty.

What is the difference?  This story points up the utter mendacity of the George Zimmerman defense.  Both Zimmerman and Roof actively sought out their victims.  Both Zimmerman and Roof went to the place where they could be found.  Both Zimmerman and Roof engaged their victims and challenged them.  Both Zimmerman and Roof pulled a gun and murdered their victims.

Now we haven't heard the full story yet.  Perhaps Roof will say the bible study gang turned ugly while he was questioning their presence, and threatened him.  Perhaps they banged his head on the tile floor.  Perhaps his only alternative was to pull his handgun and start shooting.

We'll have to wait for the full trial to learn the details of his defense.

Well I doubt the people at the church were beating his head on the floor. That would be a strange kind of Bible meeting.

Zimmerman merely followed Trayvon so he could tell the police where he was - because he thought Trayvon was behaving suspiciously. He didn't follow him in order to attack him and shoot him. In fact, the only person in the whole thing who used a racial slur was Trayvon - according to his friend, Rachel. I believe that Trayvon confronted Zimmerman.

Tommy Monk wrote:The number of violent crimes against whites by blacks every year are huge and everything to do with racism.

Well, that's your opinion. You haven't any facts to back it up.

My opinion, on the other hand, is that blacks commit far less crimes than whites, and their crimes are opportunistic and based upon poverty. http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/badcomm.htm These were the findings of researchers at the Ohio State University:

Lauren Krivo wrote: COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Violent crime rates have more to do with poverty levels in a neighborhood than with the race of local residents, new research has found.

A study of Columbus neighborhoods found that violent crime rates in extremely disadvantaged white neighborhoods were very similar to rates in comparable Black neighborhoods.

The violent crime rate in highly disadvantaged Black areas was 22 per 1,000 residents, not much different from the 20 per 1,000 rate in similar white communities.

Ah, the old "poverty" excuse is rolled out ...

Raggamuffin wrote:Well I doubt the people at the church were beating his head on the floor. That would be a strange kind of Bible meeting.

Your doubts are not facts.  They are assumptions.  The value of a trial at law is that you must summarize on the basis of the facts.

Neither is ‘strange’ a substitute for the truth.  Probability may enter into the equation, but how probable is it that a child walking home from the store would choose to bang the head of a passer-by on the pavement?

Raggamuffin wrote:Zimmerman merely followed Trayvon so he could tell the police where he was - because he thought Trayvon was behaving suspiciously. He didn't follow him in order to attack him and shoot him. In fact, the only person in the whole thing who used a racial slur was Trayvon - according to his friend, Rachel. I believe that Trayvon confronted Zimmerman.

Zimmerman had been told by the police not to follow Trayvon.  So that casts strong doubt on his motive and what he was doing there…doubt that the Florida jury chose to ignore.  And of course, Zimmerman has every motive to lie.  The Florida jury cherry-picked the story, as you often do, for details by which they could find Zimmerman not guilty.

It is most probable that Zimmerman was following Trayvon to murder him.  He meets Trayvon in the dead of night, and confronts him, by his own admission. He knowingly carries a handgun, Trayvon does not, he admits shooting Trayvon and Trayvon ends up dead.  Those are the salient facts.

In the present case, Roof also pursues his victims, going to a place where they may be found.  Like Zimmerman, he is pre-informed about the criminal propensities of blacks: They are out to get our women, FGS!!  All he has to do is provide enough details for a Southern jury to cherry-pick among the facts to construct the story that makes him innocent.  Easy-peasy.

Raggamuffin wrote:Ah, the old "poverty" excuse is rolled out ...

Hard facts, unlike opinion, don't lie. It is most effective.

You ought to try it...most refreshing. Lol.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Well I doubt the people at the church were beating his head on the floor. That would be a strange kind of Bible meeting.

Your doubts are not facts.  They are assumptions.  The value of a trial at law is that you must summarize on the basis of the facts.

Neither is ‘strange’ a substitute for the truth.  Probability may enter into the equation, but how probable is it that a child walking home from the store would choose to bang the head of a passer-by on the pavement?

Raggamuffin wrote:Zimmerman merely followed Trayvon so he could tell the police where he was - because he thought Trayvon was behaving suspiciously. He didn't follow him in order to attack him and shoot him. In fact, the only person in the whole thing who used a racial slur was Trayvon - according to his friend, Rachel. I believe that Trayvon confronted Zimmerman.

Zimmerman had been told by the police not to follow Trayvon.  So that casts strong doubt on his motive and what he was doing there…doubt that the Florida jury chose to ignore.  And of course, Zimmerman has every motive to lie.  The Florida jury cherry-picked the story, as you often do, for details by which they could find Zimmerman not guilty.

It is most probable that Zimmerman was following Trayvon to murder him.  He meets Trayvon in the dead of night, and confronts him, by his own admission, and Trayvon ends up dead.  Those are the salient facts.

In the present case, Roof also pursues his victims, going to a place where they may be found.  Like Zimmerman, he is pre-informed about the criminal propensities of blacks: They are out to get out women, FGS!!  All he has to do is provide enough details for a Southern jury to cherry-pick among the facts to construct the story that makes him innocent.  Easy-peasy.

Zimmerman was told that he didn't need to follow Trayvon, and he stopped doing so. In fact, at that point he had no idea where Trayvon. I've told you several times that Trayvon could have got home way before Zimmerman had even ended that phone call, but you consistently ignore that point. I guess it doesn't fit with your claim that Zimmerman managed to confront a bloke he couldn't even see. It's you who's cherry picking - you completely disregard the evidence every time.

The facts are out there in a phone call to the police, in a map of the area, in the testimony of someone who saw the incident before the shooting, but you never ever even acknowledge any of that. You also have no common sense in the matter. Nobody would go out to murder a black person and tell the police beforehand that they were following them.

Oh, and it was hardly the "dead of night". Zimmerman never said he confronted Trayvon either.

Quill you tit, zimmerman was a security guard doing his job when he was attacked by the thug he then shot in self defence.


That is completely different from this case.


Whites get targeted by blacks for violent assaults, robbery, rape and murder all the time in America and nothing is ever said about it.

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill you tit, zimmerman was a security guard doing his job when he was attacked by the thug he then shot in self defence.


That is completely different from this case.


Whites get targeted by blacks for violent assaults, robbery, rape and murder all the time in America and nothing is ever said about it.

Well he wasn't a security guard Tommy - he merely saw himself as a protector of the neighbourhood. It's very easy for the likes of Quill to condemn him for that, but to extend that to Zimmerman stalking and shooting a black teenager deliberately is a different matter.

How anyone can say that the shooting of Trayvon Martin and the shooting of these people in the church are at all similar is really mad. Talk about clutching at straws.

This news is still very new, so I don't know even know if the chap has admitted it or not. It seems unlikely that it was self defence though.

I thought he was some sort of local security/neighbourhood security ?


But whatever, he wasn't doing anything wrong by walking about in a free place...


ANd if the thug hadn't attacked him he wouldn't have been shot in self defense.

Tommy Monk wrote:I thought he was some sort of local security/neighbourhood security ?


But whatever, he wasn't doing anything wrong by walking about in a free place...


ANd if the thug hadn't attacked him he wouldn't have been shot in self defense.

It was a neighbourhood watch type of thing I think - voluntary of course.

He wasn't very sensible really, but that doesn't mean that Trayvon had the right to get him on the floor in that manner. He should have gone home and called the police himself if he felt that he was being watched.

Anyone who had looked at a map of the area would see that there's no way Zimmerman could have caught Trayvon up before he reached his father's house.

Raggamuffin wrote:Zimmerman was told that he didn't need to follow Trayvon, and he stopped doing so. In fact, at that point he had no idea where Trayvon.

Unfortunately, those are not known facts.  They are pieces of a story…by a person with a motive to lie.  We don’t know that he stopped, we have only his word.  And we have no idea what was in his head at the time.  His story is self-serving, as would be expected.

Raggamuffin wrote:I've told you several times that Trayvon could have got home way before Zimmerman had even ended that phone call, but you consistently ignore that point.

Of course…of what use are your suppositions and fantasies to me?  There is no evidence there.

Raggamuffin wrote:I guess it doesn't fit with your claim that Zimmerman managed to confront a bloke he couldn't even see. It's you who's cherry picking - you completely disregard the evidence every time.

Zimmerman could see just fine.  There was no evidence submitted to the jury that his eyesight was impaired.

The cherry-picking was done by the jury, as you often do.  Here are the salient facts:

OQ wrote:It is most probable that Zimmerman was following Trayvon to murder him.  He meets Trayvon in the dead of night, and confronts him, by his own admission. He knowingly carries a handgun, Trayvon does not, he admits shooting Trayvon and Trayvon ends up dead.  Those are the salient facts.

These are not guesstimations and speculations, as you have offered.  With these facts it would be impossible to find a man not guilty…unless little lies were offered to change the import.

I’m simply saying that all Roof has to do with a Southern jury is offer those little lies.  Zimmerman has already proved that it works with a Southern jury.

Raggamuffin wrote:The facts are out there in a phone call to the police, in a map of the area, in the testimony of someone who saw the incident before the shooting, but you never ever even acknowledge any of that.

A phone call to the police, wherein Zimmerman was told not to do precisely what he, in fact, did do??  A map, made before the event???  A witness who saw the incident before the shooting and didn’t witness anything at the time?  Why acknowledge irrelevant minutiae?

Raggamuffin wrote:You also have no common sense in the matter. Nobody would go out to murder a black person and tell the police beforehand that they were following them.

Of course they would.  What better alibi than to call the police and make up your story before the crime?  That only goes to prove it was pre-meditated murder.

Quill, use your head. Look at a map, listen to the phone call, look at the evidence. Think about the length of the phone call, and put that together with the map of where Zimmerman got out of his car, and where Trayvon was. Think about it and stop this silly business of automatically assuming that Zimmerman had murder in mind that evening, and then making things up to suit your agenda. There's no way that Zimmerman caught Trayvon up from where he was. Trayvon lurked around or came back to confront Zimmerman.

What do you mean - a map made before the event? The map is the map - the layout of the area is a fact - the streets didn't shift at all afterwards.

The jury saw the evidence. They saw credible evidence from a credible witness who saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman. That is not irrelevant because it's evidence that Zimmerman was on the ground being attacked. The jury saw no evidence to refute Zimmerman's claim that it was self defence, and so they came to the most sensible verdict.

Saying that something is probable is not a fact - it's just your opinion, and you're massively biased. It's also not a fact that it was dead of night - it was early evening. Zimmerman did not say he confronted Trayvon - you made that up.

Zimmerman's eyesight was not impaired, and I never suggested it was. I'm saying that Trayvon was out of sight at that point.

It's absurd to say that someone would hang around talking to the police if they were planning to murder someone - pull yourself together.

If all a jury had to go on was your "evidence" Quill, they would laugh at the prosecution.

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, use your head. Look at a map, listen to the phone call, look at the evidence. Think about the length of the phone call, and put that together with the map of where Zimmerman got out of his car, and where Trayvon was. Think about it and stop this silly business of automatically assuming that Zimmerman had murder in mind that evening, and then making things up to suit your agenda. There's no way that Zimmerman caught Trayvon up from where he was. Trayvon lurked around or came back to confront Zimmerman.

What do you mean - a map made before the event? The map is the map - the layout of the area is a fact - the streets didn't shift at all afterwards.  

The jury saw the evidence. They saw credible evidence from a credible witness who saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman. That is not irrelevant because it's evidence that Zimmerman was on the ground being attacked. The jury saw no evidence to refute Zimmerman's claim that it was self defence, and so they came to the most sensible verdict.

Saying that something is probable is not a fact - it's just your opinion, and you're massively biased. It's also not a fact that it was dead of night - it was early evening. Zimmerman did not say he confronted Trayvon - you made that up.

Zimmerman's eyesight was not impaired, and I never suggested it was. I'm saying that Trayvon was out of sight at that point.

It's absurd to say that someone would hang around talking to the police if they were planning to murder someone - pull yourself together.

Raggs, it's not the detail you are digging up.  It's what you make of it.  In law there are rules of evidence, and then rules of relevance.  You have all the evidence, but then you make a mess of interpreting it.

That is what lawyers mostly have to sort out.  Look around you.  People hear facts and fit them into their scripts without regard to logic.  You are doing that very thing, too.  

The rule of relevance insists that you make sense of the facts.  You must 'relate' facts to the allegations.  For example, when you talk about a witness who witnessed before the event, but didn't see the event, his only relevance is to the lay-out of things.  Same with a map.  When you give the story of the very person with the motive to lie, you are offering very suspect evidence.

You are very good at recalling facts, but then lousy at making sense of them...and least of all, at putting the whole picture together.  I mean, a guy is ordered by the police not to stalk the victim, and then ends up shooting him???  And you are bringing up maps and witnesses before the fact?  You make a mess of the whole picture, when it's right in front of your nose.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, use your head. Look at a map, listen to the phone call, look at the evidence. Think about the length of the phone call, and put that together with the map of where Zimmerman got out of his car, and where Trayvon was. Think about it and stop this silly business of automatically assuming that Zimmerman had murder in mind that evening, and then making things up to suit your agenda. There's no way that Zimmerman caught Trayvon up from where he was. Trayvon lurked around or came back to confront Zimmerman.

What do you mean - a map made before the event? The map is the map - the layout of the area is a fact - the streets didn't shift at all afterwards.  

The jury saw the evidence. They saw credible evidence from a credible witness who saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman. That is not irrelevant because it's evidence that Zimmerman was on the ground being attacked. The jury saw no evidence to refute Zimmerman's claim that it was self defence, and so they came to the most sensible verdict.

Saying that something is probable is not a fact - it's just your opinion, and you're massively biased. It's also not a fact that it was dead of night - it was early evening. Zimmerman did not say he confronted Trayvon - you made that up.

Zimmerman's eyesight was not impaired, and I never suggested it was. I'm saying that Trayvon was out of sight at that point.

It's absurd to say that someone would hang around talking to the police if they were planning to murder someone - pull yourself together.

Raggs, it's not the detail you are digging up.  It's what you make of it.  In law there are rules of evidence, and then rules of relevance.  You have all the evidence, but then you make a mess of interpreting it.

That is what lawyers mostly have to sort out.  Look around you.  People hear facts and fit them into their scripts without regard to logic.  You are doing that very thing, too.  

The rule of relevance insists that you make sense of the facts.  You must 'relate' facts to the allegations.  For example, when you talk about a witness who witnessed before the event, but didn't see the event, his only relevance is to the lay-out of things.  Same with a map.  When you give the story of the very person with the motive to lie, you are offering very suspect evidence.

You are very good at recalling facts, but then lousy at making sense of them...and least of all, at putting the whole picture together.  I mean, a guy is ordered by the police not to stalk the victim, and then ends up shooting him???  And you are bring up maps and witnesses before the fact?  You make a mess of the facts.

I would say that the defence did not make a mess of anything. Mark O'Mara made mincemeat of the prosecution - all in a very calm way.

You're the one trying to fit things into your own script - you haven't even got the facts right, and you're certainly not being logical. I have the facts, and I've looked at them to see if they make sense. Have you even bothered to look at a map? We know where Zimmerman parked his vehicle - fact. We know where Trayvon went when he ran - fact. We know how far it was to his father's house - fact.

You are the one deducing an outcome based on faulty thinking. It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that Trayvon could have come back and confronted Zimmerman. I guess that's because you think he wasn't capable of doing that - that's not a fact though is it? It hasn't occurred to you to listen to the phone call and put it together with where we know Zimmerman was at the time. It hasn't occurred to you because all you see is that a black teenager got shot, and that's all you need to know to deduce that it was murder. Well luckily, courts of law require a bit more evidence than your biased opinion.

But this thread is about the evil murder of 9 innocent people and in a church of all places... pure evil!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:But this thread is about the evil murder of 9 innocent people and in a church of all places... pure evil!!!

Yes. Quill dragged Zimmerman into it though, and his ignorance cannot go unchallenged.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:But this thread is about the evil murder of 9 innocent people and in a church of all places... pure evil!!!

Yes. Quill dragged Zimmerman it into though, and his ignorance cannot go unchallenged.

Zimmerman is a symptom of the whole thing same as the police shooting of black people

is a disease that has many symptoms all cumulating in a full blown epidemic

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes. Quill dragged Zimmerman it into though, and his ignorance cannot go unchallenged.

Zimmerman is a symptom of the whole thing same as the police shooting of black people

is a disease that has many symptoms all cumulating in a full blown epidemic  

Well no, he's not - he was defending himself.

Do you people never research stuff for yourselves?

It wouldn't surprise me if Dylann Roof was found to have some kind of psychosis. That won't save him of course because he knew what he was doing.

Tommy Monk wrote:But this thread is about the evil murder of 9 innocent people and in a church of all places... pure evil!!!

I know. I used the Zimmerman case as an example, and as often happens someone wants to argue the example and not the issue.

Tommy, even as I agree with you that this was an evil murder, I think there is a reasonable possibility that Mr. Roof will get off on these charges. It is a southern jury, in a southern state, and the crime is a white man who has murdered black folks. History shows that white people who commit crimes on black people do not suffer very grave consequences in North Carolina or South Carolina. There are some very famous cases involving the KKK in which whites walk away cleanly.

All Mr. Roof has to do is come up with a plausible set of facts that leads to a proper legal defense, and he could walk. A southern jury will favor a white over blacks. At the very least, he could walk on a temporary insanity defense. Watch and see if events don't bear me out: he will be lawyered up, the lawyer will look into recent events, he will find some sort of erratic behavior, and he will plead insanity...first, in a pleading to the court, and second, in argument to the jury.

Other defenses may arise as the facts come up. The point is that any plausible defense will be accepted by a southern jury, where the accused is white and the victim is black. History shows this.

There's no way he'll get off IMO.

There are reports that he was given a gun for his 21st birthday. I hope the person who gave it to him feels very guilty.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Zimmerman is a symptom of the whole thing same as the police shooting of black people

is a disease that has many symptoms all cumulating in a full blown epidemic  

Well no, he's not - he was defending himself.

Do you people never research stuff for yourselves?

KD, Raggs prides herself on storing as many facts as she can about a case...Zimmerman is a favorite of hers. But she is not very good at interpreting her facts. She will contort details in absurd ways, and contrary to the rules of evidence established over the centuries.

She's like a crooked ball. You can try to correct it, but the next time you throw it up against the wall it still goes flinging off in an odd direction...lol, usually off to the right.

There are also reports that he was taking suboxone, which is used to treat opiate addiction.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well no, he's not - he was defending himself.

Do you people never research stuff for yourselves?

KD, Raggs prides herself on storing as many facts as she can about a case...Zimmerman is a favorite of hers.  But she is not very good at interpreting her facts.  She will contort details in absurd ways, and contrary to the rules of evidence established over the centuries.

She's like a crooked ball.  You can try to correct it, but the next time you throw it up against the wall it still goes flinging off in an odd direction...lol, usually off to the right.

Oh I think I've done much better than you, and you call yourself a lawyer.

Shouldn't a lawyer look at the facts rather than invent stories?

Raggamuffin wrote:There's no way he'll get off IMO.

Watch. And be surprised. Be very, very surprised. Lol.

It's going to be a southern jury, fgs.

Don't know if anybody had mentioned this yet, but did you hear that they lowered the American flag and the state flag to half-mast at the state capitol, but left the Confederate flag flying high?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

KD, Raggs prides herself on storing as many facts as she can about a case...Zimmerman is a favorite of hers.  But she is not very good at interpreting her facts.  She will contort details in absurd ways, and contrary to the rules of evidence established over the centuries.

She's like a crooked ball.  You can try to correct it, but the next time you throw it up against the wall it still goes flinging off in an odd direction...lol, usually off to the right.

Oh I think I've done much better than you, and you call yourself a lawyer.

Shouldn't a lawyer look at the facts rather than invent stories?

You don't even know the difference, and it shows. As I say, you are good at storing facts, but lousy at interpreting them. I'll bet you've never looked at a set of jury instructions.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Don't know if anybody had mentioned this yet, but did you hear that they lowered the American flag and the state flag to half-mast at the state capitol, but left the Confederate flag flying high?

I posted it on another thread last night.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh I think I've done much better than you, and you call yourself a lawyer.

Shouldn't a lawyer look at the facts rather than invent stories?

You don't even know the difference, and it shows.  As I say, you are good at storing facts, but lousy at interpreting them.  I'll bet you've never looked at a set of jury instructions.

Well the jury agreed with me Quill. I did think he might get manslaughter actually - on the grounds that he did stick his nose in, but the verdict was reasonable.

I did a fab job at interpreting the facts - you haven't even looked at the facts, let alone analysed them.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:There's no way he'll get off IMO.

Watch.  And be surprised.  Be very, very surprised.  Lol.    

It's going to be a southern jury, fgs.

The only thing the defence can go for is unsound mind and all that. It's very risky though - even psychotic people are responsible for their own actions.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Don't know if anybody had mentioned this yet, but did you hear that they lowered the American flag and the state flag to half-mast at the state capitol, but left the Confederate flag flying high?

Here it is. It was on this thread, actually.

Original Quill wrote:I believe I mentioned that So. Carolina is where racism started in America.  It certainly is where the Civil War started.

An interesting aside is that the state flag of South Carolina is the old Confederate flag, which has come to connote racism.  

In the wake of this mass murder, every flag including that of the United States was lowered to half mast...except South Carolina refused to lower the stars and bars of the Confederacy.  Lowering a flag is a sign of respect for the dead.  After a tragedy like this, to fail to lower the colors is considered tantamount to saying, I do not respect this [or these] person(s).

In such ways do southern states proclaim their racism.

It goes to show what I have been saying this AM...that South Carolinians are racists, and there is a sizable chance that Mr. Roof will get off with such a jury.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Zimmerman is a symptom of the whole thing same as the police shooting of black people

is a disease that has many symptoms all cumulating in a full blown epidemic  

Well no, he's not - he was defending himself.

Do you people never research stuff for yourselves?

Zimmerman was defending himself ? yea that`s bullshit and i know quite a lot about the case actually as i do watch a lot of American news and did do research and discussed it extensively at the time