Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Reply To Thread

Zimmerman TrialFollow

#1 Jun 28 2013 at 4:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,739 posts
Well, since no one else has created a thread about this, I figured I would.

What do folks think of the trial? I think the prosecution is doing the best they can, but have a nearly impossible case to prove. They basically have to prove both that Zimmerman started the fight and that immediately prior to shooting Martin, he had the ability to retreat from that fight but chose instead to shoot and kill Martin. I honestly don't think the prosecution can prove either of these, let alone both.

At the risk of repeating assertions I made a year ago, this is a case that should never have come to trial, and would never have if not for massive public outcry resulting from what I can only describe as a campaign of wishful thinking based misinformation from the Martin family and their lawyer. As we're learning in the trial, the actual facts of the case bear little resemblance to the public claims that were made initially. Of course, you never know what will happen in a trial, but at this point I think the odds of a guilty verdict against Zimmerman is really close to zero. Assuming that ends out being the case, do we learn from this somehow? Perhaps be more skeptical of one side of a story and wait for more facts before getting the torches and pitchforks? Or do we just continue muddling along making mistakes as we humans historically tend to do?


Do people disagree? Think he'll be proven guilty? Maybe think even if he's innocent, the whole process was worth doing anyway in the name of ensuring justice? ****, anyone got any nutty conspiracy theories they want to throw out there?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2 Jun 28 2013 at 4:33 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/end+up

That's all I have to say about that.
____________________________
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.


#3 Jun 28 2013 at 4:43 PM Rating: Excellent
**
585 posts
Well once they play the first call telling him not to follow that will seal the deal as him being the aggressor. Sorry he had every chance not to be put in the position of having to defend him self, he went after martin out of his free will leaving the place of safety to follow on foot. If the dispatcher had said to follow, it would be different.
____________________________
.
#4 Jun 28 2013 at 4:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I haven't followed the case at all aside from the initial stories way back when.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Jun 28 2013 at 5:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
What do folks think of the trial? I think the prosecution is doing the best they can, but have a nearly impossible case to prove. They basically have to prove both that Zimmerman started the fight and that immediately prior to shooting Martin, he had the ability to retreat from that fight but chose instead to shoot and kill Martin.

No, they don't. They have to prove he shot and killed him with intent, which isn't really in dispute (well the intent part is). The burden of an affirmative defense isn't on the prosecution to disprove.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#6 Jun 28 2013 at 6:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,739 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
What do folks think of the trial? I think the prosecution is doing the best they can, but have a nearly impossible case to prove. They basically have to prove both that Zimmerman started the fight and that immediately prior to shooting Martin, he had the ability to retreat from that fight but chose instead to shoot and kill Martin.

No, they don't. They have to prove he shot and killed him with intent, which isn't really in dispute (well the intent part is).


Er. As you say. No one's disputing that Zimmerman intended to shoot Martin. The question is whether the shooting meets the standard for self defense, as claimed by Zimmerman. That standard, under Florida law requires only that Zimmerman believe he was in immediate risk of major bodily harm or death. Since his injuries (which no one has disputed resulted from the altercation with Martin) support a reasonable person believing that, the claim of self defense can only be discounted if Zimmerman both started the fight and immediately prior to shooting Martin had the ability to retreat but chose to shoot Martin instead.

Under Florida state law, if he did not start the fight he *always* has the right to use lethal force in self defense if he believes he's in risk of major bodily harm or death. Period. Thus, if the prosecution can't convince the jury that he started the fight, they lose the case.

Under Florida state law, even if he started the fight, he can regain the right to use lethal force in self defense if he meets one of the following conditions:

1. He makes a clear effort to retreat, and the other person pursues him (with the aforementioned threat of risk of major bodily harm or death)

or

2. He is unable to escape the conflict and is now subject to risk of major bodily harm or death.


Because of those two conditions, even if the prosecution manages to convince the jury that Zimmerman did start the fight (and that's a huge if at this point), they also have to convince the jury that Zimmerman was able to retreat (Fails test 2), but chose not to (Fails test 1), and chose instead to stay engaged in the fight and to shoot Martin. If Zimmerman could not escape (say cause Martin knocked him on his back, straddled him, and beat him in the face the whole time), then who started the fight is completely irrelevant.

Hence, why I say that they have to prove (convince the jury really) that he both started the fight *and* had the opportunity to end/escape it, but chose not to. Because those are the conditions required for this to be manslaughter and not legitimate self defense.

Quote:
The burden of an affirmative defense isn't on the prosecution to disprove.


Except they have to convince all 12 jurists that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter. That requires that they convince those same jurists that Zimmerman's claim of self defense is not true. We can play semantics with where the burden is, but given that the claim of Zimmerman's attorney's isn't that their client didn't shoot Martin at all, but that he did so in self defense, the jury is going to have the same Florida law I just talked about explained to them, so that they can make a determination as to whether the shooting meets the legal requirements for self defense. For the prosecution to win, they have to show that the shooting doesn't meet those requirements.

I don't think they can get remotely close to doing that. What they're doing instead is hoping they can make their Martin out to be sympathetic and Zimmerman to be a racist profiling madman with a gun, and hope the jury's emotions overrule the facts of the case. It's more or less their only shot, since the evidence in the case is that this was as close to a text book example of legitimate use of a firearm for self defense as you can get. I mean, if you can't use your gun in self defense when you are on your back with an assailant straddling you, pinning you to the ground, and beating you in the face, when can you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#7 Jun 28 2013 at 7:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,254 posts
Well, if nothing else maybe it'll inspire a review of laws so lax as to allow a person to commit murder and walk away scot-free.

Juries are unpredictable. I'd be more interested in the jury selection than anything said during the trial.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#8 Jun 28 2013 at 7:27 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,951 posts
gbaji wrote:
Except they have to convince all 12 jurists that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter.


I think this case is only 6 jurors.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#9 Jun 28 2013 at 7:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,250 posts
gbaji wrote:
do we learn from this somehow? ?
1. Be white.
2. Don't be black.
____________________________
Banh
#10 Jun 28 2013 at 7:37 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
I've learned some things.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#11 Jun 28 2013 at 7:42 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,951 posts
I wonder how it would be viewed if instead of Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin with a gun, he beat him to death with his fists, a bat, or steel pipe? Is it that much more acceptable to kill someone just because it's so quick and easy to kill someone with the squeeze of a trigger?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#12 Jun 28 2013 at 7:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,739 posts
Samira wrote:
Well, if nothing else maybe it'll inspire a review of laws so lax as to allow a person to commit murder and walk away scot-free.


Unless you're chucking out the entire concept of self defense, I'm not sure whether the laws are really "lax". They determine whether the person fired in self defense. If he did, he's not guilty of murder/manslaughter/whatever. Do you think that Florida's self defense laws are particularly unreasonable? Remember that we're not even talking about the more controversial "stand your ground" component. This is just pretty standard self defense law.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#13 Jun 28 2013 at 7:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Nothing makes me angrier about spending three years studying law than hearing you talk about it.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#14 Jun 28 2013 at 7:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,739 posts
TirithRR wrote:
I wonder how it would be viewed if instead of Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin with a gun, he beat him to death with his fists, a bat, or steel pipe? Is it that much more acceptable to kill someone just because it's so quick and easy to kill someone with the squeeze of a trigger?


That's kinda part of the self defense laws themselves. In order to beat someone to death with your fists (or bat/pipe/whatever) there's generally a point well before the other person dies in which you are no longer in danger yourself and must stop. This is relevant to the case at hand because no matter how threatened Martin may have felt by Zimmerman's presence, the point at which he's got Zimmerman pinned to the ground and continues beating him, he's himself lost any right to self defense.

You only get to act in self defense when you're defending yourself. Once you are in control of the situation, you have to stop attacking the other guy. The assumption behind the use of a firearm in self defense is that you *don't* have control of the situation and cannot prevent yourself from being seriously harmed or killed without shooting the other person.

Given the injuries Zimmerman suffered, and the eyewitness reports of the positioning of the two men just before the shot was fired, Martin clearly was the aggressor at that point in the fight, and Zimmerman has an incredibly strong case to claim self defense. As I asked before: If you're not allowed to use a firearm when you're on your back, pinned to the ground, unable to escape, with an assailant on top of you beating your face in, then when are you? I can't think of a more clear cut circumstance in which use of a firearm in self defense could be more justified. This isn't even a "guy broke into my house and I was in fear of my life" kind of situation. This is a "I'm in the process of being beaten into unconsciousness" situation.

Edited, Jun 28th 2013 7:01pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#15 Jun 28 2013 at 7:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,739 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Nothing makes me angrier about spending three years studying law than hearing you talk about it.


It's cause you know I'm right, isn't it? Smiley: tongue
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Jun 28 2013 at 8:02 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,951 posts
gbaji wrote:
Given the injuries Zimmerman suffered, and the eyewitness reports of the positioning of the two men just before the shot was fired, Martin clearly was the aggressor at that point in the first, and Zimmerman has an incredibly strong case to claim self defense. As I asked before: If you're not allowed to use a firearm when you're on your back, pinned to the ground, unable to escape, with an assailant on top of your beating your face in, then when are you? I can't think of a more clear cut circumstance in which use of a firearm in self defense could be more justified. This isn't even a "guy broke into my house and I was in fear of my life" kind of situation. This is a "I'm in the process of being beaten into unconsciousness" situation.


Given the witness testimony I've heard about the trial from the radio, it's not nearly as one sided as you are making it out to be...

Edited, Jun 28th 2013 10:03pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#17 Jun 28 2013 at 8:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,254 posts
I wasn't really talking about this case in particular, as I've forgotten the details of what I read about it last year, much of which was speculative anyway, and I have not been following the progress of the trial. In general, I think it does bring up some points about "stand your ground" defenses that bear a closer examination.

Whatever happened during the confrontation itself, Mr. Zimmerman had many opportunities to avoid engaging in ANY confrontation. He was told not to pursue and confront by the 911 operator, that help was on the way - actual law enforcement type help. He chose to pursue. He chose to escalate. He did not, could not, have seen Mr. Martin committing any crime; yet he pushed the situation into confrontation. Allegedly.

Whether he got his *** kicked or not, I believe he bears some responsibility for his actions. Whether that rises to manslaughter, I have no idea. I suspect it does not; but again, I haven't been paying attention.


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

#18 Jun 28 2013 at 9:43 PM Rating: Good
****
7,810 posts
Samira wrote:
He was told he didn't need to pursue and confront by the police dispatcher, that help was on the way - actual law enforcement type help.

Fixed for accuracy.
____________________________
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
#19 Jun 28 2013 at 10:43 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
You only get to act in self defense when you're defending yourself. Once you are in control of the situation, you have to stop attacking the other guy.
Defining "in control" is what, I suppose, makes for so much disparity state to state vis-a-vis self defence.

In my state if I am attacked I am allowed to do whatever it takes to defend myself and restrain that person for the police to come get. If that means smashing his teeth in or breaking his legs to convince him to stay put, so be it.

Just so we are clear; when Zimmerman exited his car with a gun to chase down Trayvon he became the aggressor. What happened after that, no matter what, is all on him because....wait for it...he was the aggressor.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#20 Jun 28 2013 at 10:45 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,578 posts

Based on very superficial knowledge of the case, I feel like he should be guilty of manslaughter of some degree, as well as some level of assault. (Remember, assault doesn't require actual physical contact, just a threatening act). There's a big range of punishment for both manslaughter and assault, depending on the circumstances, so I'm not narrowing it down too much. I guess I'd want to see him in jail for between 5 and 20 years. Also, there are mitigating circumstances regarding my opinion: I'm pretty drunk right now.

____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#21 Jun 29 2013 at 3:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
I hope that Zimmerman's defense cannot get the police dispatch call edited or excluded. That call makes it entirely clear that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor in the confrontation between him and Martin.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#22 Jun 29 2013 at 6:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,254 posts
Kastigir wrote:
Samira wrote:
He was told he didn't need to pursue and confront by the police dispatcher, that help was on the way - actual law enforcement type help.

Fixed for accuracy.



Thank you. As I said, I'm a little fuzzy on the details.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#23 Jun 29 2013 at 7:37 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
Except they have to convince all 12 jurists that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter. That requires that they convince those same jurists that Zimmerman's claim of self defense is not true. We can play semantics

I'm not sure you know what "semantics" means. Actually, I'm certain you don't. Anyway, it's not a minor distinction. Admitting material guilt and claiming an affirmative defense shifts the burden of proof from one party to the other. The vast majority of acquittals come from raising doubt about the circumstances, it's fairly unusual for a trial to end with an acquittal due to an affirmative defense, primarily because cases with a legitimate one are easy to determine in advance and they rarely make it to trial. Procedurally it's not that dissimilar from "Not guilty by reason of insanity" or the equivalent pleas.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#24 Jun 29 2013 at 9:46 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,434 posts
Based on the testimony of Trayvon Martin's girlfriend, it's clear that Trayvon thought that Zimmerman was following him with the intent to attack/mug/something him and was trying to get away from him. Apparently, the Sandusky case was all over the news at the time so she joked that maybe Zimmernman was a rapist. Trayvon told her to not even joke about that... but when Zimmerman continued to follow him and then approached him, it's entirely possible that Trayvon freaked out and attacked first because he thought this dude was seriously about to rape him.

Instead, he shot him. Smiley: frown
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#25 Jul 01 2013 at 7:55 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,916 posts
Doesn't really matter, because whichever way it goes there's going to be a large group of people saying it's the wrong call.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#26 Jul 01 2013 at 9:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,864 posts
Spoonless wrote:
gbaji wrote:
do we learn from this somehow? ?
1. Be white.
2. Don't be black.

He's "hispanic." Don't be racist bro.

I'm kinda half following the mostly out of curiosity about how it turns out in the end. I can't say I really know any more about what happened than I did a couple of months ago, other than one of the lawyers started the trial off with a bad joke. I'll be sitting with popcorn once they announce a verdict though. There's bound to be lots of drama on one side or the other.

Smiley: popcorn
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#27 Jul 01 2013 at 11:30 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
I'm kinda half following the mostly out of curiosity about how it turns out in the end.

They convict, his lawyer sucks, every person on the jury lied about not having followed the news coverage. He *obviously* can't get a fair trial. I don't know enough about the case to determine if think he should be found guilty, but he's clearly going to be. The outcome a fair and an unfair trial can obviously be the same, but again, no idea what that should be. Seems like a douchebag, but that's rarely reason to put someone in prison. Well, Dane Cook, probably, but not most people.

Spoiler.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#28 Jul 01 2013 at 4:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,739 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Just so we are clear; when Zimmerman exited his car with a gun to chase down Trayvon he became the aggressor. What happened after that, no matter what, is all on him because....wait for it...he was the aggressor.


There's a disconnect between perception and legal reality going on here though. "Aggressor" is meaningless. Getting out of your car and following someone is not assault. Therefore, the other person does not get to attack you on the off chance that you *might* be up to no good. The laws involving use of force in self defense clearly revolve around the other person attacking you, not just following you. I guess one of the things that amazes me about this case is how inconsistently people tend to apply these sorts of comments based on the person (and apparently the presence of a firearm). So Zimmerman is wrong to use his gun to defend himself against someone who's in the process of beating his face in, but it's perfectly ok and reasonable for Martin to attack Zimmerman because Zimmerman got out of his car and followed him?

That's a ridiculous double standard. We could also argue that Martin had even more opportunity to avoid the situation. He could simply have talked to Zimmerman and explained that he was walking to his fathers house, right? Everyone is making such a big deal about Zimmerman allegedly profiling Martin, but the evidence suggests that it really was the other way around. Martin's girlfriend's testimony was particularly harmful to the prosecution in this regard. She basically said that Martin made assumptions about Zimmerman based on Zimmerman appearing to be white and older than him. On the flip side, the police recording shows that Zimmerman reacted to Martin's actions and didn't know Martin's skin color until well into the call (meaning he absolutely did not profile on race).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Jul 01 2013 at 5:17 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts

There's a disconnect between perception and legal reality going on here though. "Aggressor" is meaningless. Getting out of your car and following someone is not assault. Therefore, the other person does not get to attack you on the off chance that you *might* be up to no good. The laws involving use of force in self defense clearly revolve around the other person attacking you, not just following you.


Nope. You know there is pbulic access to laws, right? You don't have to just wing it based on your Law and Order viewing education:


FL- 782.02 The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.

This will be important to you later, because the defense will be arguing it along with FL 776.041 because even this terrible lawyer won't make the technical mistake of leaving the opportunity for "maybe he wasn't attacked but could tell he was going to be".
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#30 Jul 01 2013 at 5:49 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Everyone is making such a big deal about Zimmerman allegedly profiling Martin, but the evidence suggests that it really was the other way around. Martin's girlfriend's testimony was particularly harmful to the prosecution in this regard. She basically said that Martin made assumptions about Zimmerman based on Zimmerman appearing to be white and older than him.
This part does tend to be the profile of murder/rapists. Just sayin'.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#31 Jul 02 2013 at 7:27 AM Rating: Good
******
43,916 posts
The defense would probably argue that because Martin profiled Zimmerman as such that it it became an unfortunate scenario of escalation between the both of them that it ended the way it did.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#32 Jul 02 2013 at 7:30 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,056 posts
Zimmerman made all sorts of bad decisions that ultimately ended up killing an innocent man. Perhaps his intentions were not to kill Martin, but he was certainly out to confront him.

If left unpunished and this 'stand your ground' law and others like it gain momentum, you can almost guarantee you'll see more and more of these dorky wannabe heroes, vigilantes, that don't have a clue what they're doing and freak out the first time they're confronted with an alleged situation.

Regardless of what happens in court, gbaji, your defense of his actions is pretty despicable.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#33 Jul 02 2013 at 9:00 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
If left unpunished and this 'stand your ground' law

Not related to this case in any way. Does exist in Florida, I guess, but tying it to Zimmerman was a news cycle contrivance. This case could have happened anywhere in the US.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#34 Jul 02 2013 at 9:14 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,056 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
If left unpunished and this 'stand your ground' law

Not related to this case in any way. Does exist in Florida, I guess, but tying it to Zimmerman was a news cycle contrivance. This case could have happened anywhere in the US.
Sure, the legalities are the same as they might have been a generation ago. However, the whole idea of stand your ground - that the law is behind you if you choose not to run from crimes being committed against you or other innocents but to instead stand and confront the violater, likely contributed to Zimmerman ever putting himself into the situation.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#35 Jul 02 2013 at 9:22 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
Sure, the legalities are the same as they might have been a generation ago. However, the whole idea of stand your ground - that the law is behind you if you choose not to run from crimes being committed against you or other innocents but to instead stand and confront the violater, likely contributed to Zimmerman ever putting himself into the situation.

Probably not. Hard to say based on media accounts, but all signs appear to indicate an insecure guy with an authority complex who wanted demonstrate his power. Not a new development as minor personality disorders go. The laws in question are bad policy and ill conceived, but that doesn't mean every unfortunate event is caused by or linked to them.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#36 Jul 02 2013 at 3:08 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,739 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

There's a disconnect between perception and legal reality going on here though. "Aggressor" is meaningless. Getting out of your car and following someone is not assault. Therefore, the other person does not get to attack you on the off chance that you *might* be up to no good. The laws involving use of force in self defense clearly revolve around the other person attacking you, not just following you.


Nope. You know there is pbulic access to laws, right? You don't have to just wing it based on your Law and Order viewing education:


FL- 782.02 The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.

This will be important to you later, because the defense will be arguing it along with FL 776.041 because even this terrible lawyer won't make the technical mistake of leaving the opportunity for "maybe he wasn't attacked but could tell he was going to be".


You're looking only at the wrong part of the law genius. Try looking At Fl 772

Specifically:

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.


776.13 applies to home defense, which doesn't apply. However, the first portion *does*. If Zimmerman believed he was at risk of great bodily harm or death and believed that using his firearm was the only way to prevent it, it's self defense. It does not matter where they are. All that matters is that Zimmerman (or a "reasonable person") believed he was at great risk.

Now. As I've repeatedly stated. Even if the prosecution can convince the jury that Zimmerman started the fight, then this part of the law applies:

Quote:
776.041 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.



See where there are two "unless" cases (It's almost like I actually read this law ahead of time). We don't know if Zimmerman initiated the physical fight, and if he did, we don't know if he made a good faith effort to retreat afterward. However, we absolutely do know that the last witness to see the two prior to the shot (just seconds before the shot) saw Zimmerman on his back with Martin on top of him, pinning him to the ground and "raining down blows" on him. Zimmerman yelled for help and the witness told them he was calling the cops instead of helping. Zimmerman meets unless condition "a" right there at that moment. And that was the last third party observation prior to the shot being fired.


Which is why I keep saying this is a problem for the prosecution. Even if they can convince the jury that Zimmerman started the fight (which is a huge if), they then have to also convince the jury that Zimmerman was able to escape from Martin but chose to shoot him instead. Which is precisely what I said earlier. The way the law is written, if Martin starts the fight Zimmerman is not obligated to retreat if possible to avoid use of lethal force. If Zimmerman starts the fight then he is obligated to attempt to retreat, but he may still use lethal force if he does retreat and is pursued or if he's unable to retreat at all.

Try reading the entire section of the law next time.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Jul 02 2013 at 4:26 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,852 posts
The problem with your argument is the same now as it was back when this happened: you don't get to create the situation in which you might have to defend yourself and then got off clean. It's a manslaughter charge.

What the jury needs twofold. One, should Zimmerman be held liable for creating the circumstance, by following Martin, that ultimately led to Martin's death. Two, was Zimmerman's use of lethal force justifiable specifically with regards to a murder charge.

These are two separate charges. Zimmerman can be guilty one one, both, or neither.

It may very well be that the jury agrees that, once in the situation, Zimmerman's use of force was acceptable. They may also agree that his part in creating the situation was inexcusable.

It's also fully possible that they could rule that following Martin was acceptable, but using lethal force was not (possible clearing him of the manslaughter charge, but not the second degree murder charge).

And then of course, they could rule him guilty on both counts, or innocent on both counts.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#38 Jul 02 2013 at 6:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,739 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
The problem with your argument is the same now as it was back when this happened: you don't get to create the situation in which you might have to defend yourself and then got off clean. It's a manslaughter charge.


And the problem on your side is also the same. What constitutes "creating a situation in which you might have to defend yourself"? Following someone in your own housing complex? I'm sorry but the assumption most reasonable people have when considering whether to walk up to someone and ask them if they live in the complex they're in isn't that this will automatically result in a life or death physical confrontation. Your argument only works if the likely result of Zimmerman's actions was such a serious physical fight and there's no reason at all to make that assumption.

Quote:
What the jury needs twofold. One, should Zimmerman be held liable for creating the circumstance, by following Martin, that ultimately led to Martin's death.


Wrong. That's what the audience at home cares about, largely because it's far more dramatic than the actual instructions the jury will be given about the legal claims being made by the prosecution and defense, and what relevant legal conditions need to be met in order to satisfy those claims. Zimmerman following Martin is utterly irrelevant to the charges being considered against him. Following someone doesn't equate to assault. Period.

Quote:
Two, was Zimmerman's use of lethal force justifiable specifically with regards to a murder charge.


Correct. And the law I linked to and the two portions I quoted from it are the means by which the jury will make that determination. They will look at the law which actually tells us when use of lethal force in self defense is justified and then they'll look at the version of events they believe happened based on the testimony and evidence in the trial, and they'll make a determination.

At the risk of repeating myself, no where in that law does it say that if you follow someone and that person attacks you that you may not use lethal force in self defense. Following isn't mentioned anywhere. The closest you can get is the part about "Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself", but no jury in the world is going to interpret merely following someone as equivalent of provoking the use of force against himself. Attacking someone meets that criteria. Threatening someone meets that criteria. Merely walking into proximity of another person does *not* meet that criteria.

Quote:
These are two separate charges. Zimmerman can be guilty one one, both, or neither.


Huh? He's being charged with manslaughter. It's possible for the jury to decide he's not guilty of manslaughter but is guilty of negligent homicide (or whatever the specific charge is in Florida). He can't be guilty of both.

Quote:
It may very well be that the jury agrees that, once in the situation, Zimmerman's use of force was acceptable. They may also agree that his part in creating the situation was inexcusable.


Which is where the potential for negligent homicide comes in. Again though, the criteria for that is taking an action which a reasonable person should know would result in risk of loss of life to someone else. I don't think any reasonable person thinks that following someone to talk to them meets that criteria. Unless, of course, they can convince the jury that Zimmerman followed Martin with the specific intent of assaulting him or otherwise forcing a physical confrontation, knowing that he was armed and that if Martin fought back sufficiently, he could kill him with his weapon.


But that's a huge stretch, and I don't think the prosecution has come remotely close to proving that.

Quote:
It's also fully possible that they could rule that following Martin was acceptable, but using lethal force was not (possible clearing him of the manslaughter charge, but not the second degree murder charge).


Er? I think you're confusing the charges. He's not up for premeditated murder. He's up for 2nd degree murder (also known as manslaughter). That's the intentional killing of someone else without prior intent. So you run into someone, get into a fight with that person, and then kill that person. That's manslaughter. That's the specific charge to which self defense applies.

The lesser charge would be something like negligent homicide, which is knowingly taking an action which you should know would put another persons life at risk. So building a concealed pit trap in your yard would result in negligent homicide. Leaving your infant child in your car on a hot day is negligent homicide. It's a stretch, but you could argue that if Zimmerman knew Martin would react a specific way if he followed him, and knew that this would result in a confrontation which could result in Zimmerman shooting Martin in self defense it could be considered negligent homicide to follow him. But that's a bizarre argument because it would require prior knowledge of Martin and would at that point possibly border into the premeditated homicide category, not the much lesser negligent homicide. I'll again assert that most reasonable people don't assume that following someone will inevitably lead to a physical confrontation with a risk of great bodily harm or loss of life. And anything more direct would fall into the manslaughter area.

Quote:
And then of course, they could rule him guilty on both counts, or innocent on both counts.


Um... No. They can't. They can rule him innocent, but he can't be guilty of two different degrees of homicide for the same death. It's either one degree or it's not any. It can't be two different degrees at the same time.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Jul 02 2013 at 10:05 PM Rating: Good
**
585 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
The problem with your argument is the same now as it was back when this happened: you don't get to create the situation in which you might have to defend yourself and then got off clean. It's a manslaughter charge.


And the problem on your side is also the same. What constitutes "creating a situation in which you might have to defend yourself"? Following someone in your own housing complex? I'm sorry but the assumption most reasonable people have when considering whether to walk up to someone and ask them if they live in the complex they're in isn't that this will automatically result in a life or death physical confrontation. Your argument only works if the likely result of Zimmerman's actions was such a serious physical fight and there's no reason at all to make that assumption.


Doing what the dispatcher told him not to do. You are forgetting that most important part, Zimmerman is not a cop and had no right to stop, approach, question Martian. His duty as a neighborhood watch member stop at calling 911 or the dispatcher as he did, anything else was beyond his authority. Just because it was his house development doesn't mean jack. Would you stop and or not be defensive about some guy walking up to you in the dark after following you or would you try to get away from him, I know I wouldn't. Sorry but in the world I live in if they don't show a badge and have a uniform on they do not have any right to question me, stop me or follow me.
____________________________
.
#40 Jul 02 2013 at 10:15 PM Rating: Good
******
43,916 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
Would you stop and or not be defensive about some guy walking up to you in the dark after following you or would you try to get away from him, I know I wouldn't. Sorry but in the world I live in if they don't show a badge and have a uniform on they do not have any right to question me, stop me or follow me.
How would you know they had a badge if you ran from the person in the dark? The world you live in has an awful lot of hindsight in it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#41 Jul 02 2013 at 10:47 PM Rating: Good
**
585 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
RavennofTitan wrote:
Would you stop and or not be defensive about some guy walking up to you in the dark after following you or would you try to get away from him, I know I wouldn't. Sorry but in the world I live in if they don't show a badge and have a uniform on they do not have any right to question me, stop me or follow me.
How would you know they had a badge if you ran from the person in the dark? The world you live in has an awful lot of hindsight in it.


Some one that identified them self's as a officer would make a effort to show it. I have been stop a few times walking home at night as well and those officers made a a big point to make sure I knew they were the police.
____________________________
.
#42 Jul 03 2013 at 4:59 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
And the problem on your side is also the same. What constitutes "creating a situation in which you might have to defend yourself"? Following someone in your own housing complex? I'm sorry but the assumption most reasonable people have when considering whether to walk up to someone and ask them if they live in the complex they're in isn't that this will automatically result in a life or death physical confrontation.


Right. They do assume they'll get shot if they visit their stepmother though, I mean that's a reasonable expectation.

The most amusing thing to do with Gbaji's current line of quasi plausible argument is just to imagine him making it for a case of the black kid shooting Zimmerman. You know, he legally has the gun instead and kills Zimmerman. Logically the argument should hang together just as well. Let's try it. Ahahahahahah hahaaha ahahahahah ahahahah. Good times, good times.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#43 Jul 03 2013 at 6:05 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,056 posts
gbaji wrote:

And the problem on your side is also the same. What constitutes "creating a situation in which you might have to defend yourself"? Following someone in your own housing complex? I'm sorry but the assumption most reasonable people have when considering whether to walk up to someone and ask them if they live in the complex they're in isn't that this will automatically result in a life or death physical confrontation.
Most people learn by kindergarten that talking to strangers carries some risk of an unwanted confrontation. Zimmerman knew this. He also knew he had his loaded pistol on him.



____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#45 Jul 03 2013 at 6:49 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Oh look it's either varus or someone pretending to be varus. Lets see how many posts you get before you get banned.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#46 Jul 03 2013 at 6:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Where my fiddy dollahs?!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Jul 03 2013 at 6:59 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,056 posts
bluffrat75 wrote:


You're an idiot if you don't think having your head banged repeatedly on the sidewalk is justification for defending yourself with deadly force. But hey your white guilt tends to block any semblance of rational thought.
Try it.

Stealthily follow some white woman around. When you finally approach her she'll attempt to defend herself and push you to the ground - then you shoot her. Let us know what the court decides about your justification.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#48 Jul 03 2013 at 7:00 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,056 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Where my fiddy dollahs?!
s - l - o - w - l - y and quietly. You'll scare it off again.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#50 Jul 03 2013 at 7:35 AM Rating: Good
******
43,916 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Oh look it's either varus or someone pretending to be varus.
Is it already that time of the month? Whose turn is it to fully engage this time?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#51 Jul 03 2013 at 3:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,739 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
The problem with your argument is the same now as it was back when this happened: you don't get to create the situation in which you might have to defend yourself and then got off clean. It's a manslaughter charge.


And the problem on your side is also the same. What constitutes "creating a situation in which you might have to defend yourself"? Following someone in your own housing complex? I'm sorry but the assumption most reasonable people have when considering whether to walk up to someone and ask them if they live in the complex they're in isn't that this will automatically result in a life or death physical confrontation. Your argument only works if the likely result of Zimmerman's actions was such a serious physical fight and there's no reason at all to make that assumption.


Doing what the dispatcher told him not to do.


The dispatcher has no authority to tell Zimmerman what he can or cannot do. The dispatcher did not say "You can't follow him", or "It's against the law to follow him", or even "If you follow him and he attacks you, it'll be your fault". I can't find a transcript at the moment, but IIRC the dispatcher told him something like "We don't need you to do that". It's a CYA for the police. Zimmerman has every right to follow Martin if he wants to.

Quote:
You are forgetting that most important part, Zimmerman is not a cop and had no right to stop, approach, question Martian.


One out of three isn't bad. Zimmerman cannot legally "stop" Martin, but he has every right to approach him and question him. Martin has every right to ignore or evade him as well, of course. But to argue that Zimmerman somehow committed some grave offense simply by following Martin and is therefor completely 100% responsible for everything that happened after that point is completely wrong.

Quote:
His duty as a neighborhood watch member stop at calling 911 or the dispatcher as he did, anything else was beyond his authority.


But not beyond his right to do as a normal concerned citizen. You don't need police powers to walk up to someone and talk to them.

Quote:
Just because it was his house development doesn't mean jack. Would you stop and or not be defensive about some guy walking up to you in the dark after following you or would you try to get away from him, I know I wouldn't.


I wouldn't run away though. I *have* been approached by the equivalent of the nosy neighbor in a complex before. It never once occurred to me to flee though. Let's also not lose sight of the fact that Martin ran *before* Zimmerman even got out of his car. Zimmerman was sitting in his parked car, watching Martin walking up the street towards him and reporting to police what he saw. At some point, Martin saw Zimmerman in the car talking on his phone, but instead of just walking on by like a normal person, he ran away. Then Zimmerman got out of his car and followed him. You can clearly hear this on the recording of Zimmerman's phone call.

The actions of Martin far more match that of someone who was up to no good, was perhaps scoping out the neighborhood or looking for something to vandalize/steal, and then when he realized that he was being watched, he didn't think "there's some creepy guy who might be a murderer", he almost certainly thought "There's a guy who might be part of the neighborhood watch, and he saw me poking around the houses along the road, so I'd better run before he gets a good look at me".

Speculation on my part? Absolutely. But who runs away just because they see someone sitting in a parked car on the side of the road? Not someone innocently walking home from the store.



Quote:
Sorry but in the world I live in if they don't show a badge and have a uniform on they do not have any right to question me, stop me or follow me.


Wrong. They have every right to follow and question you. They don't have the *authority* to require you to stop and answer their questions though. The bigger point is that someone else following you does *not* give you the right to attack that person.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 81 All times are in CDT