Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

In my foreign land, murder is OKFollow

#452 Apr 05 2012 at 7:49 AM Rating: Good
******
43,094 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
ANYTHING else is speculation.
Everything in this thread is speculation.
The whole four minute Zimmerman-police station call is NOT speculation.
Your interpretation (and automatic assumption that I somehow haven't listened to it) is speculation. It's clear what the dispatcher says isn't an order, because legally Zimmerman has the right to pursue and detain a suspicious individual until the authorities arrive. I mentioned the Citizen's Arrest on like the first page of this thread. Likewise, after the authorities do arrive and find Zimmerman wrong, he could have been arrested for assault, or find Martin was up to something and arrest him instead. Also, Martin had all the legal rights to run from Zimmerman, since it's doubtful he knew why he was being followed in the first place. He also had the right to fend off Zimmerman in his attempt to detain him, since again it's doubtful Zimmerman was saying why he was doing what he did.

This was the end result of two stupid people, doing stupid things. Martin shouldn't have run, but he did and had the legal right to do so. Zimmerman shouldn't have chased, but he did and again had the legal right to do so. There shouldn't have been a confrontation, but both had legal precedence to do so. There should have been a more immediate investigation on what happened after the chase, but again that was the legal procedures in Florida. It's just escalation of stupidity. Those are facts.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#453 Apr 05 2012 at 8:17 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
That's what I think is the most interesting thing that this case brings up.

What rights does a person have when they're being chased by someone who has a gun? Take this case: what if Martin caught a glimpse of Zimmerman's gun/holster when he came after him? Or if Zimmerman was brandishing the weapon somehow? I could see something like that inciting panic...can we fault the person for having their fight/flight response triggered? Who takes the blame for what results?

If a guy who clearly wasn't an officer ran at me, and I could see that he was armed, I might run, too. Doubly so if I had been aware of him skulking around behind me for a while. And if I found myself cornered, I don't know that I wouldn't try to brain him or something.

Not that any of this is to suggest that this was the case w/ the Martin shooting, 'cause who the hell knows.

Edited, Apr 5th 2012 10:17am by Eske

Edited, Apr 5th 2012 10:19am by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#454 Apr 05 2012 at 8:24 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,477 posts
gbaji wrote:

Except that it does. Unless you're arguing that the law should work in such a way that we arrest and charge people for crimes for which we have no evidence? I hope you're not arguing that. So if you aren't, then what evidence is there that Zimmerman's choice to pull the trigger and shoot Martin was *not* self defense?
It's illegal to kill people.

Yes, I've watched them there detective shows. I understand you can't arrest someone until or unless you have sufficient evidence to implicate them in a crime.

Clearly a dead kid, a smoking gun and a confession is sufficient evidence to implicate Zimmerman in a crime - probably second degree murder, possibly first, but most assuredly manslaughter.

It's the polices job to arrest people for crimes. It's not their job to decide why they committed the crime.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#455 Apr 05 2012 at 8:27 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,498 posts
I imagine most manslaughter cases are just an escalation of stupidity. (source for next two quotes)

Quote:
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s.775.083, or s. 775.084.


Quote:
Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care. Reasonable care is that degree of care which a reasonably careful person would use 2 under like circumstances. Negligence may consist either of doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do under like circumstances or in failing to do something that a reasonably careful person would do under like circumstances. Culpable negligence is a conscious doing of an act or following a course of conduct which any reasonable person would know would likely result in death or great bodily injury to some other person when done without the intent to injure any person but with utter disregard for the safety of others.


I'm still maintaining that any reasonable person would have expected that following someone you suspect to be in the process of a criminal act, carrying an unknown metal object, has pretty clearly left behind reasonable care.

You're right, he had the right to follow Martin. Doesn't mean he can't be culpable for doing so, in the event that an altercation occurs. The entire case is balanced on the whether or not following Martin was negligent (which, as I understand it, would invalidate Stand Your Ground. But that seems to me something that courts, not cops, should be deciding.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#456 Apr 05 2012 at 8:34 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,156 posts
Quote:
Martin shouldn't have run


Why not? Zimmerman may well be a paranoid vigilante rather than a murderous psychopath, but there's no way Martin could have known that. If I were being stalked by some fat American, it's what I'd go with.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#457 Apr 05 2012 at 9:36 AM Rating: Decent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,894 posts
I'd want Zimmerman to have a fair trial. I'd be surprised if he wasn't convicted of manslaughter, and jailed for a few years, but still, a fair trial. Which means rounding up 12 people who don't own internet or a TV. Yech, hard job.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#458 Apr 05 2012 at 9:49 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
I'd want Zimmerman to have a fair trial. I'd be surprised if he wasn't convicted of manslaughter, and jailed for a few years, but still, a fair trial. Which means rounding up 12 people who don't own internet or a TV. Yech, hard job.


Can always import tribal peoples from South America.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#459 Apr 05 2012 at 10:10 AM Rating: Excellent
One thing I find interesting about this, is that if Martin had actually been dangerous I very much doubt it would have ended the way it did.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#460 Apr 05 2012 at 10:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,668 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Which means rounding up 12 people who don't own internet or a TV. Yech, hard job.
Varus might be available.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#461 Apr 05 2012 at 10:39 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,894 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Which means rounding up 12 people who don't own internet or a TV. Yech, hard job.
Varus might be available.
Obvious joke, but I said fair trial. Fair Trial.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#462 Apr 05 2012 at 10:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sir Xsarus wrote:
One thing I find interesting about this, is that if Martin had actually been dangerous I very much doubt it would have ended the way it did.

But Zimmerman's nose was BROKEN (bloody?)
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#463 Apr 05 2012 at 1:36 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,583 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Which means rounding up 12 people who don't own internet or a TV. Yech, hard job.
Varus might be available.
Obvious joke, but I said fair trial. Fair Trial.

How about a Circus Trial
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#464 Apr 05 2012 at 2:04 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,894 posts
You mean like a TV circus?
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#465 Apr 05 2012 at 3:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And in both cases, if after encountering the other person that person assaults you, you absolutely can defend yourself.
You're right in that after encountering the other person while they're committing a crime and that person assaults you as a result in their attempt to escape, you absolutely can defend yourself.


Um... You can defend yourself if someone assaults you whether or not they were committing any crime prior to assaulting you. What Martin was actually doing in the complex at that time is also irrelevant with regard to determining if Zimmerman acted in self defense.

Quote:
You can't so much use self defense (And, you know, lethal force) if the forensic evidence shows that the person wasn't in your house but just walking around, and you chased them down and they were the one who were defending themselves and ended up losing.


Correct. Now prove that Zimmerman was the one who attacked Martin. Not chased. But actually threw the first punch.

Can you do that? Do you have any evidence of this? Then you have no case.

Quote:
I read it again, including your new explanation, and it's still wrong. See, if someone is in your house without your knowledge, that's a crime. It's called trespassing, though it could be upgraded to breaking and entering depending on the circumstances of their entry. Larceny if they'd picked up something prior to being shot. Even if you know who they are, and they're not legally living there, then they are trespassing. There's really no question or debate about that, though I'm sure you both'll each find ones on opposite sides that make no legal sense. At that point, seeing as a crime has already been committed, you'd have your self defense argument.


If you walked down the stairs, saw someone robbing your home and just shot the guy right there. But there is no need for this to happen on your private property and for the other person to be committing a crime *if* the other person assaults you.


You are walking down the street. You have a concealed weapon. Out of the blue, someone walks up to you, punches you in the face, knocks you down, and starts beating you. Can you fire your weapon in self defense? Absolutely.


That is the scenario. It does not matter who chased whom. Chasing someone does not give that person the right to assault you. Legally, if Martin initiated the physical attack, then Zimmerman has every right to defend himself. It does not matter what happened prior to that point.

Quote:
The difference here is that in the Martin/Zimmerman case "being suspicious" isn't an automatic commission of a crime in, well, pretty much any state I can think of, so the argument you made isn't analogous to the situation at all.


Only if I were arguing that Zimmerman could just walk up to Martin and shoot him. But I'm not arguing that (and neither is Zimmerman, and that's not what the witnesses saw either).

Quote:
You can't say the Martin/Zimmerman case was self defense unless you know what lead to the need of lethal force.


Quick clarification: It's wrong because we have overwhelming evidence supporting the claim of self defense at the time Zimmerman fired his weapon. Obviously, this is not true in all cases, but it is in this one.

Wrong. Burden of the law is the other way. Given the witness statements and forensic information at the scene, the point at which he fired was a pretty textbook case of self defense (flat on his back, attacker on top of him beating him). You have to prove that this wasn't self defense. To do that, you must prove that Zimmerman not only initiated the fight itself, but under stand your ground, you may also have to prove that Martin himself never had an opportunity or ability to escape (which appears to clearly be the case). Under stand your ground as it's commonly been implemented, if two people both choose to fight, then *both* can claim self defense and neither is criminally responsible for injury to the other.

Again though, that only matters *if* you can prove that Zimmerman started the physical fight. But you can't prove that. The burden is on the state to prove that Zimmerman committed a crime. The fact is that they don't have sufficient evidence to even bring charges.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
So if you aren't, then what evidence is there that Zimmerman's choice to pull the trigger and shoot Martin was *not* self defense?
What evidence is there that Zimmerman's choice to pull the trigger and shoot Martin *was* self defense? And by evidence, I don't mean circumstantial or anecdotal evidence. I mean forensic evidence.


Did you read the police report? Any of the witness statements? Zimmerman had a bloody nose, a bleeding wound in the back of his head, and grass stains on his back. Three different witnesses all reported seeing someone matching Martin's description on top of someone else beating that person. All three reported that the person on the ground was screaming for help. One of the three also provided a description of the person who was on the ground which matched Zimmerman. That witness also described the same person standing over the guy who had been on top after the shot was fired.


There is overwhelming evidence of a textbook self defense case. How the hell can you even ask the question? There's a mountain of evidence here and all of it supports Zimmerman's story.


Quote:
If "A bloody nose" and "kid who admitted to only seeing parts of the scene" was your case, it would also be thrown out by the second judge. Any lawyer would easily say the bloody nose came afterwards and could be self inflicted and that the witness with the dog didn't see anything that would make lethal force necessary and that he was just filling in the blanks.


Well good thing there's a lot more evidence than a bloody nose and one witness.


Quote:
Quote:
This is something the prosecutor knows, but apparently a whole lot of people on the interwebs don't.
Apparently "a whole lot of people on the interwebs" don't know the difference between a prosecutor and a defense attorney either. But hey, if ya want to sound smarmy you sure gave it the ol' college try.


Huh? It was the prosecutor for the DA's office who made the decision not to arrest Zimmerman. Who the hell did you think I was talking about?

Edited, Apr 5th 2012 2:16pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#466 Apr 05 2012 at 3:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Except that it does. Unless you're arguing that the law should work in such a way that we arrest and charge people for crimes for which we have no evidence? I hope you're not arguing that. So if you aren't, then what evidence is there that Zimmerman's choice to pull the trigger and shoot Martin was *not* self defense?
It's illegal to kill people.


Not if it was self defense. I know it's easier to just fling overly simplistic statements around, but there are exceptions to every rule.

Quote:
Yes, I've watched them there detective shows. I understand you can't arrest someone until or unless you have sufficient evidence to implicate them in a crime.


Yup. Which means you need to prove that Zimmerman did not act in self defense.

Quote:
Clearly a dead kid, a smoking gun and a confession is sufficient evidence to implicate Zimmerman in a crime - probably second degree murder, possibly first, but most assuredly manslaughter.


He "confessed" to using his gun in self defense. A claim which is supported by the physical evidence at the scene, and at least three eye witnesses (that I've been able to piece together from media reports, the police presumably have a complete list and complete statements).

You're basing your position on an absence of information. But the police were not. They had (and still have) all the witness statements, not just snippets reported in the news. They have all of the forensic evidence. They have the clothes of both parties. They have the gun. They've got all the test results they took. And they, having all this information which you do not, decided that they did not have sufficient evidence to show that Zimmerman acted in anything other than self defense.


Why assume they were wrong?

Quote:
It's the polices job to arrest people for crimes. It's not their job to decide why they committed the crime.


I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just wrote that wrong.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#467 Apr 05 2012 at 3:36 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,094 posts
gbaji wrote:
Now prove that Zimmerman was the one who attacked Martin. Not chased. But actually threw the first punch.

Can you do that? Do you have any evidence of this? Then you have no case.
Now prove that Martin was the one who attacked Zimmerman. Not just ran away from, but actually threw the first punch.

Can you do that? Do you have any evidence of this? Then you have no case as well.

There is no mountain of evidence for either case. There's barely pebbles.
gbaji wrote:
I know it's easier to just fling overly simplistic statements around,
Since it's exactly what you're doing.

Edited, Apr 5th 2012 5:43pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#468 Apr 05 2012 at 3:40 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
there is one thing Martin is dead and Zimmerman was holding the smoking gun.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#469 Apr 05 2012 at 4:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Now prove that Zimmerman was the one who attacked Martin. Not chased. But actually threw the first punch.

Can you do that? Do you have any evidence of this? Then you have no case.
Now prove that Martin was the one who attacked Zimmerman. Not just ran away from, but actually threw the first punch.


I don't have to. The burden is on the state to prove that Martin's death was manslaughter and not self defense.

Quote:
Can you do that? Do you have any evidence of this? Then you have no case as well.


Except that in this case, the starting point is a clear cut case of self defense. In the absence of proof about how the fight started, we can only look at how it ended. And that is straight up self defense.

Quote:
There is no mountain of evidence for either case. There's barely pebbles.


You're kidding, right? Three witnesses describe Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him shortly before the shot was fired. That right there is sufficient proof of self defense. Zimmerman has a bloody nose, a bleeding wound on the back of his head, and grass stains on his back which perfectly supports his claim of self defense. What more do you need?


Remember that this is just what is publicly available. The initial scene report from the police and some quotes from witnesses in the media. We have to assume that the police have a much more detailed forensics report from the scene (pictures of the body, positions of everything, examinations of the sidewalk, etc). They have a forensic report from the evidence (clothes, body, gun, etc). They have complete official statements from all the witnesses. And they have a complete official statement from Zimmerman.

There have now been three additional investigative organizations looking over all of this evidence for over a week now, with an absolute circus in the media fueling them. Don't you think that if there was anything in there which could sufficiently call Zimmerman's claim of self defense into question to justify any sort of charges that someone would have arrested him by now? It's not like there's new evidence to collect, right? All the stuff that keeps coming out in the media is stuff the police knew on day one. And they choose not to prosecute Zimmerman.


Ever consider that maybe they know more than we do and they made the correct choice?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#470 Apr 05 2012 at 4:56 PM Rating: Good
******
43,094 posts
gbaji wrote:
I don't have to. [...] You're kidding, right?
It's so cute that you're as delusional as all the people you scream at for having "liberal bias." Keep being contradictory. Maybe you'll confuse someone into believing you know what you're talking about. There isn't an argument here. There is no mountain of evidence, and seeing as how you're insisting that Zimmerman is innocent you do have to. A lawyer might not, but you do.

Just to point out why the "I don't have to" part is hilarious: A lawyer might not have to in this case, but you're not a lawyer and you're not on the case. You're insisting that your opinion on what you've heard is correct, which actually does require you to prove it. But like I said, maybe if you argue the same things with people who don't clearly know more than you about it maybe you'll confuse them into thinking you're smarter than you actually are. Smiley: smile
gbaji wrote:
with an absolute circus in the media fueling them.
Yeah, ill informed about the judicial system people like you and Elinda are really making it bad.

Edited, Apr 5th 2012 7:02pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#471 Apr 05 2012 at 5:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I don't have to. [...] You're kidding, right?
It's so cute that you're as delusional as all the people you scream at for having "liberal bias." Keep being contradictory. Maybe you'll confuse someone into believing you know what you're talking about. There isn't an argument here. There is no mountain of evidence, and seeing as how you're insisting that Zimmerman is innocent you do have to. A lawyer might not, but you do.


And yet, a prosecutor for the DAs office looked at the evidence and decided that it was not sufficient to charge Zimmerman with anything. I'm not the one insisting that the police and the DA got it all wrong, when they have all the evidence, and I have wild rumors and speculation. I'm the one standing around laughing at all the people doing that.


So yeah. I don't have to prove anything. Deal with it.

Quote:
Just to point out why the "I don't have to" part is hilarious: A lawyer might not have to in this case, but you're not a lawyer and you're not on the case.


You get how that supports my claim that I don't have to prove anything? You're not actually this stupid, are you?

Quote:
You're insisting that your opinion on what you've heard is correct, which actually does require you to prove it. But like I said, maybe if you argue the same things with people who don't clearly know more than you about it maybe you'll confuse them into thinking you're smarter than you actually are. Smiley: smile


I'm not insisting anything. I've admitted all along that I don't know all the facts of the case. My point from day one has been that in the absence of evidence that the cops and the DA got it wrong, perhaps we should not assume that they did (get it wrong). Along the way, I've picked up bits and pieces of information, which all seems to support Zimmerman's claim of self defense. That obviously doesn't mean that there isn't information I don't know which might call that claim into question, but so far none of the people calling for Zimmerman's arrest have produced any.

You get that I'm not calling for any legal action at all. So I don't have to prove anything. It's those who are insisting that Zimmerman should be arrested who need to provide some reason for that position. And "he shot Trayvon!" is not good enough. We know he did. That's not in question. You want him to be arrested, show me that there's evidence that he didn't shoot him in self defense. Because everything I've seen about the actual moments prior to the shot being fired says that this was self defense. The police clearly thought it was self defense. The DA clearly thought it was self defense.

If you want to disagree with all of those people, you kinda need to have more than strong feelings.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#472 Apr 05 2012 at 5:47 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:

Except that in this case, the starting point is a clear cut case of self defense. In the absence of proof about how the fight started, we can only look at how it ended. And that is straight up self defense.



This is the most rock stupid thing I have read all day.

What makes it a clear cut case? Because Zimmerman said so? The absence of proof automatically makes shooting someone self defense?

Rock Stupid.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#473 Apr 05 2012 at 6:08 PM Rating: Good
******
43,094 posts
gbaji wrote:
You're not actually this stupid, are you?
Whatever helps you sleep at night, Alma.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#474 Apr 05 2012 at 7:17 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,162 posts
Quote:
I don't have to. The burden is on the state to prove that Martin's death was manslaughter and not self defense.


In most jurisdictions, self-defense is an affirmative defense to criminal charges. The burden of going forward with the evidence of an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is upon the accused. In some jurisdiction, the defense can only be asserted and the burden of proof rest on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not applicable. In all jurisdictions this happens in a criminal court ... well except in Florida where the cops are also judge and jury it seems.



#475 Apr 05 2012 at 8:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Technogeek wrote:
What makes it a clear cut case? Because Zimmerman said so?


Sigh. I'm quite sure I've already listed off all of the factors beyond what Zimmerman said (several times), so why ignore that and pretend that I'm only basing this on what Zimmerman said?

The physical evidence shows that Zimmerman was in a physical fight. The police observed him having a bloody nose, a bleeding wound on the back of his head, and grass stains on his back. All consistent with him having been on his back with an assailant on top of him.

Three different eye witnesses all reported seeing someone matching Martin's description on top of someone else beating that person while on the ground. One of the three described someone matching Zimmerman's description as the person on the ground, and then as the same person standing after the shot. Again, this matches the claim that Zimmerman acted in self defense.

Martin's body was found in a position consistent with someone who was shot while on top of someone else. This doesn't prove anything by itself, but is also consistent with the claim that Zimmerman was acting in self defense when he shot Martin.

None of the witness accounts at the time in any way contradicted Zimmerman's claim of self defense.


Quote:
The absence of proof automatically makes shooting someone self defense?


No. But overwhelming evidence supporting a claim of self defense combined with an absence of evidence that it was anything else should lead us to believe it was self defense. What's so bizarre about some people's perception of this case is that if this case hadn't already happened and people already formed strong opinions about it, and we were instead having a hypothetical discussion about legitimate uses of firearms in self defense, I doubt anyone would argue that a situation identical to this one would qualify. It's only because people formed opinions about this prior to learning all the facts that some continue to stubbornly insist that it could not have been self defense.


Seriously. Step back from this case itself and look at the facts objectively. It's self defense. It's obviously self defense. As I keep saying, this is nearly a textbook case that might be taught in a training class as exactly the point at which you're allowed to use a firearm in self defense. On your back, with an assailant on top of you, with no ability to escape and a fear that you might be pummeled into unconsciousness? As I've asked many times, if that's not when you're allowed to use your gun, then when?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#476 Apr 05 2012 at 8:19 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
A bunch of stuff that missed the point.


Zimmerman losing a fight does not prove that he did not start it. That does not prove nor corroborate a self defense claim.

That nothing contradicts Zimmerman's claim of self defense is not evidence of self defense.


This isn't rocket science. You ought to be able to wrap your brain around it. Your vehement defense and assertions that there's only one possible scenario at play just prove how desperate you are to protect Zimmerman. I wonder why?
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#477 Apr 05 2012 at 8:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
feelz wrote:
Quote:
I don't have to. The burden is on the state to prove that Martin's death was manslaughter and not self defense.


In most jurisdictions, self-defense is an affirmative defense to criminal charges. The burden of going forward with the evidence of an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is upon the accused. In some jurisdiction, the defense can only be asserted and the burden of proof rest on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not applicable. In all jurisdictions this happens in a criminal court ... well except in Florida where the cops are also judge and jury it seems.


It's not the cops who made the call. The DA did. And let me quote the relevant portion of the law:

Quote:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).


Bolded section clearly shows that the burden is on law enforcement to prove that the use of force was unlawful (assuming the use of force meets the requirements, which it absolutely does in this case.


And just in case some are still confused about whether Zimmerman following Martin matters, or even if Zimmerman initiated a physical confrontation (for which we still have no evidence):

Quote:
.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


The point being that if Martin started the fight as Zimmerman claims, then Zimmerman is absolutely covered and is immune to arrest, prosecution, or civil action *unless* the police can find sufficient evidence to prove that this conflict does not meet the requirements (which is pretty much impossible in this case btw). Here's the thing though: Even if Zimmerman started the fight, he's still covered by the law. Because the witness statements show that Martin was the aggressor at the end of the fight, Zimmerman was screaming and yelling for help and was clearly unable to escape the fight. What this means is what I've been saying all along. Under Florida law it simply does not matter what lead up to the conditions at the end of the fight. What matters is that as long as Martin is pursuing and continuing the fight (as was clearly the case when he's on top of him beating on him), Zimmerman has the right to use deadly force in self defense. Period. It doesn't matter how they got there. The moment Martin gets himself into a controlling position in the fight and does not let up, he gives Zimmerman the right to shoot him in self defense.


That's why the police did not arrest him. That's why the DA did not press charges. And right now, despite massive public outcry and pressure, there's probably like 100 people at various levels of law enforcement in Florida looking over the evidence, and the witness statements, and the law, and scratching their heads trying to figure out any way that they *could* justify arresting him. But the law is incredibly clear, and the evidence that this falls under the heading of self defense is incredibly clear. The only way they can arrest him is if they basically just ignore their own laws and make new ones up on the spot.


And as I've been saying all along, that would not be justice.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#478 Apr 05 2012 at 8:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
A bunch of stuff that missed the point.


Zimmerman losing a fight does not prove that he did not start it.


So?

Quote:
That does not prove nor corroborate a self defense claim.


You're right. It doesn't. What proves and corroborates the self defense claim is that just prior to Zimmerman firing his gun, he was flat on his back with an assailant on top of him who was beating him and showing no signs of stopping. When you've got three witnesses who saw this as well, it goes beyond just a claim.

Quote:
That nothing contradicts Zimmerman's claim of self defense is not evidence of self defense.


Correct. The evidence that he was being assaulted and could not escape is. WTF?

Nothing contradicting that means that the police cannot charge him with a crime. Why is this so hard a concept to grasp?


Quote:
This isn't rocket science. You ought to be able to wrap your brain around it.


I have. You obviously haven't.

Quote:
Your vehement defense and assertions that there's only one possible scenario at play just prove how desperate you are to protect Zimmerman. I wonder why?


I don't know Zimmerman from Adam. And frankly don't care about him at all. What I do care about is that we remain a nation of laws, not one in which mob justice rules the day. Why do you feel so strongly that Zimmerman must be arrested (assuming you do)? Are you acting rationally, or emotionally?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#479 Apr 05 2012 at 8:43 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,498 posts
Quote:
But overwhelming evidence


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#480 Apr 05 2012 at 8:48 PM Rating: Decent
******
43,094 posts
Alma wrote:
Sigh. I'm quite sure I've already listed off all of the factors beyond what Zimmerman said (several times), so why ignore that and pretend that I'm only basing this on what Zimmerman said?
Well, you did say it several times. What you said repeatedly was wrong and nowhere in the universe does repetition make something incorrect magically correct, but I won't take away your power to constantly try to spread misinformation.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#481 Apr 05 2012 at 9:05 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
A bunch of stuff that missed the point.


Zimmerman losing a fight does not prove that he did not start it.


So?

Quote:
That does not prove nor corroborate a self defense claim.


You're right. It doesn't. What proves and corroborates the self defense claim is that just prior to Zimmerman firing his gun, he was flat on his back with an assailant on top of him who was beating him and showing no signs of stopping. When you've got three witnesses who saw this as well, it goes beyond just a claim.

Quote:
That nothing contradicts Zimmerman's claim of self defense is not evidence of self defense.


Correct. The evidence that he was being assaulted and could not escape is. WTF?

Nothing contradicting that means that the police cannot charge him with a crime. Why is this so hard a concept to grasp?


Quote:
This isn't rocket science. You ought to be able to wrap your brain around it.


I have. You obviously haven't.

Quote:
Your vehement defense and assertions that there's only one possible scenario at play just prove how desperate you are to protect Zimmerman. I wonder why?


I don't know Zimmerman from Adam. And frankly don't care about him at all. What I do care about is that we remain a nation of laws, not one in which mob justice rules the day. Why do you feel so strongly that Zimmerman must be arrested (assuming you do)? Are you acting rationally, or emotionally?


Selective reading, eh? Zimmerman being on the ground does not prove that he was acting in self defense. For all we know, he could have started the fight, and been winning the fight moments before. Then that self defense claim goes right out the window.

It's an entirely possible scenario. So much for knowing that it was self defense. That was easy.

It's amusing that you think that I believe that Zimmerman should be arrested. I've said nothing of the sort in this thread. Why don't you take a moment to think before you put another stupid thought into text form? You've got all the time in the world here, you ought to use some of it to make yourself look like less of a fucking idiot.

I'm saying that you're being a hypocrite for lambasting others for making claims about knowing exactly what happened that night. You should read that a couple of times to make sure that it sinks in.


You're a racist, classist dick who's wholly incapable of doing any real self-reflection. Go fuck yourself.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#482 Apr 05 2012 at 9:11 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,162 posts
Quote:
Quote:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).


Bolded section clearly shows that the burden is on law enforcement to prove that the use of force was unlawful (assuming the use of force meets the requirements, which it absolutely does in this case.



Yeah, thanks for proving my point. This thread is about how stupid this law is or did you miss that part?
#483 Apr 06 2012 at 4:11 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,826 posts
If Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shoot, wouldn't it be likely that Zimmerman's clothing be bloody in the video of him walking into the police station?

Then all I know about gun shot wounds I learn watching crimes shows and Myth Busters.
____________________________
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.

"England needs, examples of people who, leaving Heaven to decide whether they are to rise in the world, decide for themselves that they will be happy in it, and have resolved to seek, not greater wealth, but simpler pleasures; not higher fortune, but deeper felicity; making the first of possessions self-possession, and honouring themselves in the harmless pride and calm pursuits of peace." - John Ruskin
#484 Apr 06 2012 at 6:07 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
eh I heard it was an executuion style, Zimmerman forced martin suck him off first too, then he shot him because he wasn't gay but that homo black kid was on his junk. Thats just what I heard, and since we are going on hear say that is definitely what happened.

Edited, Apr 6th 2012 8:07am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#485 Apr 06 2012 at 9:29 AM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
I don't know if whoever punched first even matters. I don't know how often gbaji has thought about the possibility of being followed by a hostile stranger. As a woman who occasionally has to walk in the city after dark, I've obviously spent some time thinking on the subject. If I were confronted by a hostile stranger that was following me, you'd better believe they'd get pepper sprayed before they laid a hand on me.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#486 Apr 06 2012 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,156 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
eh I heard it was an executuion style, Zimmerman forced martin suck him off first too, then he shot him because he wasn't gay but that homo black kid was on his junk. Thats just what I heard, and since we are going on hear say that is definitely what happened.


I heard you're an idiot.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#487 Apr 06 2012 at 6:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Selective reading, eh? Zimmerman being on the ground does not prove that he was acting in self defense.


It strongly supports his claim that he was though. Sadly, we live in an imperfect world where we do not always know all the details of every second of any sequence of events. The absence of such perfect information requires that we go with the best information we have. And that is that just seconds before he fired his gun, Zimmerman was seen on his back with Martin on top of him punching him.

Quote:
For all we know, he could have started the fight, and been winning the fight moments before. Then that self defense claim goes right out the window.


And for all we know, space aliens abducted them both, experimented on them, killed Martin and brainwashed Zimmerman into thinking he'd shot him, then beamed them back onto the lawn. We can speculate all sorts of things. But we can only act on what evidence we have. We have no evidence that Zimmerman started the fight. We only have evidence of what happened at the end of it.


And, as I stated in my earlier post, according to the law it doesn't matter if Zimmerman started the fight. The moment Martin chooses to be the aggressor (by pinning Zimmerman on the ground and punching him), Zimmerman regains any right to self defense he might have lost by starting a fight. At the time Zimmerman fired, he was on his back, pinned to the ground, with an assailant on top of him punching him in the face. According to the law, it does not matter how he came to be in that situation. At that moment he has the right to fire in self defense.

So even if your unproven and unsupported speculation is true, you're still wrong.

Quote:
It's an entirely possible scenario. So much for knowing that it was self defense. That was easy.


Assuming that the information we have about the relative positions of Zimmerman and Martin just prior to the shot being fired are correct, then we do know it was self defense. You keep bringing up things I've already proven are irrelevant in this case. And speculating as well.

Quote:
It's amusing that you think that I believe that Zimmerman should be arrested. I've said nothing of the sort in this thread. Why don't you take a moment to think before you put another stupid thought into text form? You've got all the time in the world here, you ought to use some of it to make yourself look like less of a fucking idiot.


Ok. Then what do you believe should happen? What are you arguing about?

Quote:
I'm saying that you're being a hypocrite for lambasting others for making claims about knowing exactly what happened that night. You should read that a couple of times to make sure that it sinks in.


I have never claimed I now exactly what happened that night. What I have said repeatedly is that we know enough about what happened to accept Zimmerman's claim of self defense, and that we don't know of anything that counters that legal claim. I think I've provided more than enough support for my position on this.


The law is incredibly clear. Did you read it?


Quote:
You're a racist, classist dick who's wholly incapable of doing any real self-reflection. Go fuck yourself.


Well, that was helpful.

Edited, Apr 6th 2012 5:53pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#488 Apr 06 2012 at 7:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Sweetums wrote:
I don't know if whoever punched first even matters. I don't know how often gbaji has thought about the possibility of being followed by a hostile stranger. As a woman who occasionally has to walk in the city after dark, I've obviously spent some time thinking on the subject. If I were confronted by a hostile stranger that was following me, you'd better believe they'd get pepper sprayed before they laid a hand on me.


Sure. But if you pepper sprayed someone following you, then kicked him several times while he's rolling on the ground screaming in pain, then stomped on his head with your stilettos, and then proceeded to hit him with your purse (with a brick in it) repeatedly, and after the 8th time you've hit him with no sign of stopping he pulls out his concealed gun and shoots you, wouldn't it be self defense on his part? Martin acting out of fear of a potential assailant can explain him running. It could even explain him punching Zimmerman and knocking him to the ground. But the second Martin chooses to go from defending himself from a potential attacker to jumping on top of the guy, pinning him to the ground, and pummeling him in the face over and over, he absolutely loses any high ground he might have had. He has become the violent aggressor and Zimmerman gains the right of self defense.


And, as I've pointed out before, this happens regardless of who threw the first punch (or pepper spray). The law is written in such a way that it is the act of pursuing an attack against either an opponent who is attempting to flee, or one who cannot flee that automatically gives that other guy the right of self defense even if he originally lost that right by being an aggressor at some point himself.

In this specific case, if Martin threw the first punch, then Zimmerman had the right of self defense from that moment and all the way through the fight. If Zimmerman threw the first punch, he lost that right *until* Martin had him pinned on the ground and continued to beat him. At that point he regains that right. Even if the fight went back and forth several times, the same basic rule applies. If you pursue the fight, you lose the right to self defense until you attempt to disengage (or can't disengage) and the other guy pursues you. This could theoretically go back and forth several times during a brawl.

But the point is that no matter what lead up to the moment when three witnesses saw Zimmerman on his back with Martin on top of him, Zimmerman at that moment had the right of self defense. And while some may argue that this is a flaw in the law, if you stop and think about it, it actually makes a lot of sense. It means that you are only at risk of someone using lethal force in self defense *if* you pursue the fight (either starting it and being the aggressor the whole time, or responding to it and pursing the other guy after he attempts to stop or you have him pinned and he can't). Anyone who only attempts to avoid the fight cannot *ever* be subject to lethal force justified as self defense.

Zimmerman's claim to self defense is valid because Martin chose to become the aggressor at some point. We can speculate when that happened and what occurred prior to that point, but we have very very strong evidence that Martin made that choice. Unfortunately, it ended up being a fatal one.

Edited, Apr 6th 2012 6:09pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#489 Apr 06 2012 at 7:09 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,498 posts
Quote:
Assuming that the information we have about the relative positions of Zimmerman and Martin just prior to the shot being fired are correct, then we do know it was self defense. You keep bringing up things I've already proven are irrelevant in this case. And speculating as well.


Assuming we do know that Zimmerman was beneath Martin, which we don't, it does NOT logically follow that it was self defense. Who the aggressor or defender in a confrontation does not change with who has the upper hand in the actual engagement, unless it is accompanied with a significant amount of escalation.

That is the question here. Who is directly responsible for the fight that led to Martin's death? If Martin jumped Zimmerman, does that mean he has sufficient responsibility? Does following Martin place sufficient negligence on him to void his ability to claim self defense?

Who was winning once the fight began literally only matters if Martin was losing, as the claim demands Zimmerman have reason to believe his life was in danger. But we aren't likely to have anything but hear-say on that front.

Self defense requires that you can either prove you were the defender from the start, or that the encounter escalated to life-threatening levels for reasons that were not your fault. (Fisticuffs vs. pistols at dawn).
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#490 Apr 06 2012 at 7:32 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,162 posts
Quote:
And, as I've pointed out before, this happens regardless of who threw the first punch (or pepper spray). The law is written in such a way that it is the act of pursuing an attack against either an opponent who is attempting to flee, or one who cannot flee that automatically gives that other guy the right of self defense even if he originally lost that right by being an aggressor at some point himself


So I can go around assaulting anyone I see and if I lose the upper hand at some point then I have the right to pull out a gun and shoot the other person?

Don't you see a problem with that?
#491 Apr 06 2012 at 8:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
Assuming that the information we have about the relative positions of Zimmerman and Martin just prior to the shot being fired are correct, then we do know it was self defense. You keep bringing up things I've already proven are irrelevant in this case. And speculating as well.


Assuming we do know that Zimmerman was beneath Martin, which we don't...


We don't? I provided quotes from witnesses (and a link to an audio interview on TV from one), which clearly established this way back on like page 2 or 3 of this thread. Did you forget this?

I originally linked to a site that had the video of the actual interview (though the guy's front door), but here's an article written about it more recently:

Quote:
"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

The witness only wanted to be identified as "John," and didn't not want to be shown on camera.

His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman's claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.

"When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said.



What part of a witness saying that "the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point" confuses you? This witness clearly places Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him, while Zimmerman yelled for help.

Quote:
...it does NOT logically follow that it was self defense.


Holy hell. Yes it does. Zimmerman shot someone who was according to the eyewitness I just quoted on top beating Zimmerman up. What about that makes you conclude that he didn't shoot in self defense. What's not logical is anyone insisting that it wasn't self defense. It very clearly was.

Quote:
Who the aggressor or defender in a confrontation does not change with who has the upper hand in the actual engagement, unless it is accompanied with a significant amount of escalation.


So what? The criterion for self defense is met when you are on your back with someone on top of you beating you. Always.

Quote:
That is the question here. Who is directly responsible for the fight that led to Martin's death? If Martin jumped Zimmerman, does that mean he has sufficient responsibility? Does following Martin place sufficient negligence on him to void his ability to claim self defense?


None of this matters. You may think it does. You may want it to. But it doesn't. Not with regards to criminal charges against Zimmerman. And I'll point out that the same law in this situation makes Zimmerman immune to arrest, to charges filed against him *and* to civil litigation. That's the price you pay when you choose to jump on top of someone, pin them to the ground and beat them. And that's exactly why that portion of the law was written.

Quote:
Who was winning once the fight began literally only matters if Martin was losing, as the claim demands Zimmerman have reason to believe his life was in danger. But we aren't likely to have anything but hear-say on that front.


Huh? You have it completely backwards. All that matters is the state of the fight immediately before Zimmerman fired his gun. Period. And all of the evidence we have supports Zimmerman's claim that he was on his back, with Martin on top of him, beating him. That is all we need to know to establish clear self defense for Zimmerman.

And no. He does not need to believe his life was in danger. The statute says:

Quote:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—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. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) 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
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.


Section 777.013 refers to home protection BTW, so it doesn't technically apply here (except for one section, but that only applies if we assume Zimmerman was acting under stand your ground rules, which we don't know for sure).

I think at the point where you're on the ground being beaten in the face, you have a reasonable belief that you may be in risk of imminent great bodily harm. He does not have to wait until he's been beaten into a coma to act. The mere fact that Martin was hitting him, while he was in a position unable to escape automatically gives him the right to self defense no matter what happened prior to that point.

I just don't know how much more clearly I can show this to you. The law is absolutely clear about this. Try reading it.

Quote:
Self defense requires that you can either prove you were the defender from the start, or that the encounter escalated to life-threatening levels for reasons that were not your fault. (Fisticuffs vs. pistols at dawn).


Not completely true. Obviously, if you were the defender from the start, it's self defense. But even if you were not, the requirement is not that stiff. I already quoted this, but you're slow, so I'll do it again:

Quote:
.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


So if Zimmerman did initiate the fight (or somehow provoked it on himself), he does not have a right to self defense unless, he believes the same risks as is normally required for self defense (note the language is identical) *and* he has exhausted every means to escape other than the use of lethal force.

He's on his back. He's being pummeled by Martin. He yells for help. Someone opens a door nearby, but instead of helping, just tells Martin to stop, and closes his door (and calls the police). It is only after this point that Zimmerman shoots Martin. Assuming he could not extricate himself (and if he could, why's he still laying on the ground getting beat?), he's clearly exhausted every method to escape, including yelling for help and watching someone just slam his door on him.


Let's we forget, words Zimmerman told police when they first showed up was "I was yelling for help, but no one would help me". Does this paint a clear enough picture for you? Every single piece of information we have overwhelmingly shows that this was a case of self defense. I'm really honestly unsure why anyone keep thinking it wasn't.


Can you actually address any of those points? You're acting on what you think the law might be, or maybe should be, but I'm actually reading the applicable legal code and basing my position on that. And you're acting on speculation, but I'm acting on the police report from the scene and the witness accounts. When you put all of that together, it's a clear cut case of self defense. Why do you suppose Zimmerman still hasn't been charged even with all the outrage going on? If it were even remotely questionable, they'd have arrested him just to shut up the angry mob and then worked out the details later.

The problem is that the law is absolutely clear on this:

Quote:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).


He's immune from criminal prosecution and civil action. Period. And section 2 clearly states that the burden is on police to show that the force was unlawful just to arrest him. Exactly as I've been saying all along.


You need much much more than just speculation that maybe under some contrived circumstances for which we have no evidence, Zimmerman's actions might not have been self defense. The starting condition given the physical evidence and the witness statements, is that this was self defense. From that starting condition, you need to come up with some evidence that it wasn't. Can you? Do you honestly have anything other than speculation to argue it wasn't self defense?


Because so far, I've heard nothing but speculation. You're free to try to do better, but I've been asking people for actual evidence for much of this thread, and have received nothing but more speculation and what-if's and maybes. You can't charge someone with a crime based on speculation. You need facts. You need evidence. Where is it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#492 Apr 06 2012 at 8:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
feelz wrote:
Quote:
And, as I've pointed out before, this happens regardless of who threw the first punch (or pepper spray). The law is written in such a way that it is the act of pursuing an attack against either an opponent who is attempting to flee, or one who cannot flee that automatically gives that other guy the right of self defense even if he originally lost that right by being an aggressor at some point himself


So I can go around assaulting anyone I see and if I lose the upper hand at some point then I have the right to pull out a gun and shoot the other person?


It's not just losing the upper hand. You have to lose the upper hand, and either attempt to flee and be pursued *or* be unable to flee and have the other guy continue to attack you such that you feel you are in imminent threat of losing your life or suffering great bodily harm. Read *all* the words, not just a select few.

Quote:
Don't you see a problem with that?


No, I don't. Because it never grants anyone the right to self defense (in this case, this is not a castle defense situation, where there are slightly different rules) unless the other guy violently pursues the conflict well past the point of merely defending himself. You can't just punch back and give the other guy the right to self defense. You have to do something like what Martin did: Knock him to the ground, jump on top of him, pin him, and continue beating him without stopping.


None of the excuses and explanations and speculations people are giving explain how Martin ended out on top of Zimmerman pummeling him in the face. No amount of defending yourself from an attack or even potential attack results in this. Only someone who violently continues a fight, not just to get away, or defend himself, but to hurt the other person severely does that. That's why Zimmerman was justified to fire in self defense.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#493 Apr 06 2012 at 8:57 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
19,498 posts
Use of force and use of deadly force are legally distinct.

[EDIT]

And no, we don't KNOW anything, despite your witness testimony. You can suspect, you can speculate, but you don't know. Not by a really, really, really long shot.

[EDIT]

Smiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: lol

I actually bothered to read some of what you posted. Which made me notice this hilarious little gem in one of your legal cites:

Quote:
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force,


I love when, on the rare occasion you actually look something up from a credible source, it works against you. Maybe next time you link something relevant.

Edited, Apr 6th 2012 11:01pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#494 Apr 06 2012 at 9:17 PM Rating: Excellent
****
7,802 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Use of force and use of deadly force are legally distinct.

[EDIT]

And no, we don't KNOW anything, despite your witness testimony. You can suspect, you can speculate, but you don't know. Not by a really, really, really long shot.

[EDIT]

Smiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: lol

I actually bothered to read some of what you posted. Which made me notice this hilarious little gem in one of your legal cites:

Quote:
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force,


I love when, on the rare occasion you actually look something up from a credible source, it works against you. Maybe next time you link something relevant.

Edited, Apr 6th 2012 11:01pm by idiggory

I love when people selectively quote, or fail to read further because it doesn't say what they want it to say. The entire section of that applicable law states,
Quote:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—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. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) 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
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Bolded the section most relevant to what you overlooked, or more likely ignored.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#495 Apr 06 2012 at 9:28 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
19,498 posts
That's what I get for alt-tabbing while playing a game. Smiley: frown

[EDIT]
Quote:
Only someone who violently continues a fight, not just to get away, or defend himself, but to hurt the other person severely does that. That's why Zimmerman was justified to fire in self defense.


Uh-huh, and where does "Holy sh*t this guy has a gun wtf do I do? He's been following me this whole time, he chased me? Do I have any reason to believe he's just going to let me leave?" fall on your list?

Edited, Apr 6th 2012 11:32pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#496 Apr 06 2012 at 9:43 PM Rating: Decent
SIgh...
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#497 Apr 06 2012 at 9:44 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
I have never claimed I now exactly what happened that night. What I have said repeatedly is that we know enough about what happened to accept Zimmerman's claim of self defense, and that we don't know of anything that counters that legal claim. I think I've provided more than enough support for my position on this.




Hmm, let's see...

gbaji wrote:
There is overwhelming evidence of a textbook self defense case. How the hell can you even ask the question? There's a mountain of evidence here and all of it supports Zimmerman's story.


gbaji wrote:
...the starting point is a clear cut case of self defense. In the absence of proof about how the fight started, we can only look at how it ended. And that is straight up self defense.


gbaji wrote:
That right there is sufficient proof of self defense


gbaji wrote:
Zimmerman has a bloody nose, a bleeding wound on the back of his head, and grass stains on his back which perfectly supports his claim of self defense. What more do you need?


gbaji wrote:
Quote:
What makes it a clear cut case? Because Zimmerman said so?



Sigh. I'm quite sure I've already listed off all of the factors


gbaji wrote:
Seriously. Step back from this case itself and look at the facts objectively. It's self defense. It's obviously self defense. As I keep saying, this is nearly a textbook case


Well shit, that was easy. And heck, It's not just all that. You've made plenty of assumptions in making your arguments, something which you're more than happy to chide others for here. Don't bother to deny it; I'm not in the mood to copy/paste another 8 million examples.

See, here's the thing: you've already lost. You just don't realize it yet. I'm sitting on a royal flush of bullsh*t that you already spouted, and you're trying to sell me on your 2-7 off suit. Ain't gonna happen, buddy.

gbaji wrote:
Quote:
You're a racist, classist dick who's wholly incapable of doing any real self-reflection. Go fuck yourself.


Well, that was helpful.


It would be, were you capable of self-reflection. Smiley: nod

Edited, Apr 6th 2012 11:50pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#498 Apr 07 2012 at 9:27 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
19,498 posts
Zimmerman's Lawyer claims his injuries were akin to Shaken Baby Syndrome.

...

What? SBS is legally contentious for infants, both in the fact that it's actually very hard to diagnose (vs. other possible explanations) and because mortality rates from it, for children, are under 30%. If he intends to make that part of his defense for Zimmerman, the guy would be better off finding a new lawyer.

"Slamming his head into the ground" was far more threatening and believable.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#499 Apr 07 2012 at 10:04 AM Rating: Decent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,130 posts
Well, I think his point is that it's entirely possible to have a concussion without visible external injuries.

Not likely to happen from an adolescent boy shaking a grown man, though, you're right about that.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#500 Apr 07 2012 at 5:45 PM Rating: Good
**
485 posts
Samira wrote:
Well, I think his point is that it's entirely possible to have a concussion without visible external injuries.

Not likely to happen from an adolescent boy shaking a grown man, though, you're right about that.


Not sure I'd refer to a 6'3'', 200 lbs 17 year old male as an "adolescent boy". Some folks ( maybe not you, but it's obvious that some ) NEED to perceive Trayvon as a tiny, weak, helpless little child. Odds are he was bigger, stronger and faster than 98% of the folks that post here.

Doesn't mean he deserved to die, or that Zimmerman is completely innocent, but the 'innocent, frail child " thing is bullsh*t.
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#501 Apr 07 2012 at 6:59 PM Rating: Decent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,130 posts
"Adolescent boy" refers to the fact that he is an adolescent. There's nothing in that phrase that says "twiggy little panty waist".

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 59 All times are in CDT