Trayvon Martin Death Investigation

Once again:
Does jack find it acceptable for a 9 year old or a 12 year old girl playing doctor with a boy that is a few years older?

It's an easy question jack, yes or no.

happy jack wrote:

First of all, I'm not defending anyone; I'm merely pointing out facts. Nowhere in the article is it claimed that she was molested while he was an adult and she was a minor, which is the criteria for classifying someone as a child molester.

Fortunately, you're wrong. Here in Indiana, anyway.

Quote :

IC 35-42-4-3
Child molesting
Sec. 3. (a) A person who, with a child under fourteen (14) years of age, performs or submits to sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct commits child molesting, a Class B felony. However, the offense is a Class A felony if:
(1) it is committed by a person at least twenty-one (21) years of age;
(2) it is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force or while armed with a deadly weapon;
(3) it results in serious bodily injury; or
(4) the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
(b) A person who, with a child under fourteen (14) years of age, performs or submits to any fondling or touching, of either the child or the older person, with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the older person, commits child molesting, a Class C felony. However, the offense is a Class A felony if:
(1) it is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force;
(2) it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon; or
(3) the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
(c) It is a defense that the accused person reasonably believed that the child was sixteen (16) years of age or older at the time of the conduct, unless:
(1) the offense is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force or while armed with a deadly weapon;
(2) the offense results in serious bodily injury; or
(3) the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.

There's nothing in the statute preventing children from being charged with child molesting. The age of the perpetrator merely determines what level of a felony it is.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

Once again:
Does jack find it acceptable for a 9 year old or a 12 year old girl playing doctor with a boy that is a few years older?

It's an easy question jack, yes or no.

Acceptable?
No.

Why not?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Nice to see you still defending this monster. Real classy. And you wonder why in the past I've referred to Zimmerman as "your hero"?

[b]First of all, I'm not defending anyone; I'm merely pointing out facts.

Almost every single time something comes out negative about your hero Zimmerman you crawl out of the woodwork to defend and or attempt the monster's behavior. This latest episode is no different.

It's interesting that jack dismisses sexual abuse as "playing doctor."

Quote :

"Absent that, they were either playing doctor, or they were both adults."

Artie60438 wrote:

Almost every single time something comes out negative about your hero Zimmerman you crawl out of the woodwork to defend and or attempt the monster's behavior. This latest episode is no different.

This is your idea of me defending him?

happy jack wrote:

If it is shown that any laws were broken in this case, then Zimmerman should be charged and tried accordingly.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/10/04/george-zimmerman-sues-nbc-over-edited-911-tape#ixzz28KfFgAr1

George Zimmerman Sues NBC Over Edited 911 Tape

By Noel Sheppard | October 04, 2012 | 08:20
In March, NewsBusters broke the story about NBC's Today show airing an edited audiotape of George Zimmerman's 911 call the day he shot Trayvon Martin in Florida.
On Thursday, the New York Post reported Zimmerman is suing the Peacock Network.
According to the Post, the complaint will be filed against NBC News President Steve Capus and correspondent Ron Allen who was the Today reporter involved in the March 27 broadcast.
A source told the Post, “The suit will be filed imminently against NBC and its news executives. The network’s legal department has put everybody in the news department involved with this incident on notice, telling them not to comment.”
As NewsBusters noted at the time, Today played an audiotape with Zimmerman saying on a 911 call, "This guy looks like he’s up to no good...he looks black."
________________________________________
But this was the fuller text of the call:
ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining, and he's just walking around, looking about.
911 DISPATCHER: Okay, is this guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic?
ZIMMERMAN: He looks black.
NBC deceptively removed the question from the 911 dispatcher to make it appear Zimmerman was racist, a mistake the network ended up apologizing for.

happy jack wrote:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/10/04/george-zimmerman-sues-nbc-over-edited-911-tape#ixzz28KfFgAr1
George Zimmerman Sues NBC Over Edited 911 Tape

Typical stunt. He must have run out of suckers willing to send money to him.The accused murderer tries to portray himself as a victim. Good luck on proving damages.

Hope he wins. 'Cause then Fox News, Breitbart, Hannity... the whole lot of 'em... are toast.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/10/04/george-zimmerman-sues-nbc-over-edited-911-tape#ixzz28KfFgAr1
George Zimmerman Sues NBC Over Edited 911 Tape

Typical stunt. He must have run out of suckers willing to send money to him.The accused murderer tries to portray himself as a victim. Good luck on proving damages.

In this case, he was clearly a victim.

A victim of what?

Quote :

Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”

911 operator: “Okay. And this guy, is he white, black or Hispanic?”

Zimmerman: “He looks black.”

NBC omitted the line in Bold. Big deal. The only way that's going to result in any damages is if they can find a jury that's stupid enough to only get their news from Fox & Breitbart.

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

Hope he wins. 'Cause then Fox News, Breitbart, Hannity... the whole lot of 'em... are toast.

Could you clarify?

Fox News, Breitbart, Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Billo, Coulter, Savage, Red State etc., edit, distort and lie all the time. Not sure if anybody has ever successfully sued them.
Anyway, it's nothing new. Of course since you claim that you never, ever pay attention to right wing noise, it's not surprising that you are ignorant of this fact.

Quote :

I have no way of knowing whether he will collect damages, but he most certainly has a case.

You have this expert opinion because obviously you are an expert in civil law?....

happy jack wrote:

I have no way of knowing whether he will collect damages, but he most certainly has a case.

He does? What kind of damages does this little grifter think he is entitled to? Loss of earnings? Nope,he was unemployed at the time. Physically injured as a result? Nope! Forced to go into hiding as a result? Nope,he already was in hiding long before the NBC mistake.

Any idiot can file a lawsuit no matter how frivolous,just ask the Mayor of Hammond. All they need is the filing fee. Maybe he can get Orly Taitz to represent him. She should have a pretty clear schedule after the election.

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

Hope he wins. 'Cause then Fox News, Breitbart, Hannity... the whole lot of 'em... are toast.

Could you clarify?

Fox News, Breitbart, Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Billo, Coulter, Savage, Red State etc., edit, distort and lie all the time. Not sure if anybody has ever successfully sued them.
Anyway, it's nothing new. Of course since you claim that you never, ever pay attention to right wing noise, it's not surprising that you are ignorant of this fact.

There was certainly no outrage from him when Breitbart smeared Shirley Sherrod
Shirley Sherrod's suit against Andrew Breitbart likely to continue

Quote :

USDA rural development staffer Shirley Sherrod filed the lawsuit against Breitbart and Breitbart aide Larry O'Connor last February over the pair's role in publicizing a video of a Sherrod speech which appeared to suggest the African-American Agriculture Department official was biased against white people. The publicity led to Sherrod's forced resignation, apparently with the White House's approval.

[quote="edge540"]

happy jack wrote:

Quote :

I have no way of knowing whether he will collect damages, but he most certainly has a case.

You have this expert opinion because obviously you are an expert in civil law?....

No, not claiming any expertise.
But if the woman who burned her crotch with McDonald's coffee had a case, then so does Zimmerman.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

There was certainly no outrage from him when Breitbart smeared Shirley Sherrod

[b]There was not a chance in hell that accusations of racism against Shirley Sherrod would result in her being prematurely, and possibly falsely, convicted of murder.

So it's ok to overlook it when it doesn't involve murder?

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

There was certainly no outrage from him when Breitbart smeared Shirley Sherrod

[b]There was not a chance in hell that accusations of racism against Shirley Sherrod would result in her being prematurely, and possibly falsely, convicted of murder.

So it's ok to overlook it when it doesn't involve murder?

The stakes are a bit lower, wouldn't you say?
Anyway, she has every right to sue, also. I don't believe I ever said otherwise.

[quote="happy jack"]

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Quote :

I have no way of knowing whether he will collect damages, but he most certainly has a case.

You have this expert opinion because obviously you are an expert in civil law?....

[b]No, not claiming any expertise.
But if the woman who burned her crotch with McDonald's coffee had a case, then so does Zimmerman.

She had actual physical injuries,Zimmerman has none. As I said before...

Quote :

Loss of earnings? Nope,he was unemployed at the time. Physically injured as a result? Nope! Forced to go into hiding as a result? Nope,he already was in hiding long before the NBC mistake.

Has it dawned on you yet that all this is probably just a an attempt to garner sympathy for this parasite and perhaps encourage some more suckers to send him more money?

In fact,I've just caught his attorney lying...."Due in large part to NBC's actions, George has had to live in hiding, in fear for his life," the Florida man's lawyer stated.
GZ went into hiding immediately after the alleged murder,long before NBC made their mistake.