Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 151 to 179 of 179

Thread: Trayvon and Zimmerman

  1. #151
    Once again, WTF are you talking about? The legislation in question pertains to self-defense, and is pretty standard throughout the country. Is the fact that there was reasonable doubt over Zimmerman's actions such a complicated concept to grasp?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  2. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Martin couldn't give his account of events...because he's dead.

    Zimmerman wasn't required to avoid using his gun, but was legally justified in using his gun based on his "suspicions" and "fears". Instigators and provocateurs have a degree of "reasonable fear" that no victim is afforded, especially after their own death.

    It's bad legislation, with holes big enough to drive a truck through.
    There certainly are potential draw backs - just like there would be drawbacks without stand your ground. The drawbacks are assisting criminals by shifting the burden to victims to try to avoid the situation instead of defending their property. Once a criminal breaks into a home (for example) their right to exist ceases. The homeowner or property owner should have carte blanche because the alternative is idiotic court cases where criminals sue home owners for injuries they suffered while in the act of committing a crime!

  3. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Look, this has been written about extensively in FL news, and explains why the Zimmerman jury came up with a not-guilty verdict. Based on how the laws were written (after SYG) the only legal requirement for using a gun first is "reasonable fear". That means any confrontation, even verbally, with no physical contact or injury, can mean"reasonable fear". That is subjective, with no clear instructions from the court about what "reasonable" fear means, or what a "reasonable" person would do. The jury defined that using their own subjective common sense and life experience.

    Jeez, it was part of the defense team's opening and closing arguments! Zimmerman didn't need to have a scratch on his body to claim that "fear" of Trayvon Martin, or justify using his gun. Jurors asked for more guidance on Manslaughter (which contains SYG language) but the court threw it back in their lap. Do ya get it yet?!
    Again that's bog standard self-defence. The word reasonable is normal and its up to the jury to determine what is reasonable. No change there.

    The change was the removal of the requirement to retreat but that is irrelevant as the defence argued that he couldn't retreat.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  4. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    As far as I know, reasonable is commonly used in laws, and I don't see a problem with that. It's a decent legal yardstick that can be changed according to the circumstances. And of course you have to go with reasonable fear instead of actual threat - if someone points a fake gun at you, you're not in any danger, but you certainly have reason to feel threatened.

    SYG and duty to retreat are, in this case, not that relevant, because at some point Zimmerman was allegedly (IIRC also seen by a witness) on the ground with the kid on top of him, and at that point he feared his life. He couldn't retreat, so he was legally allowed to shoot, under 'normal' self defense. Though I suppose it might have made an impact on the mindset, i.e. without laws like that, encouraging this behaviour, it might not have happened, but that's impossible to prove.

    The point is, nobody knows what exactly happened, therefore legally he has been found innocent. I am curious that a lot of protest seems to come from posters who generally would be outraged by convictions based on flimsy evidence... Was this death preventable by Zimmerman's behaviour? Yes. But lacking any proof that he murdered Martin, it's logical to acquit. The only thing proven that Zimmerman did wrong was follow/confront him in the first place, which is not illegal.

    Second part is interesting, yes, to show some problems with these laws (and mindset): Martin would likely also have been in his right to use a gun from his end.
    +1

  5. #155

  6. #156
    She's right in that you're not supposed to convict of murder (1st or 2nd) if you don't feel the prosecution has proven intent to kill. Most of us on here were saying before the jury came back that charging him with 2nd degree murder was a mistake. But manslaughter is more relaxed.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  7. #157
    More evidence that juries have no idea what they're talking about.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  8. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    As far as I know, reasonable is commonly used in laws, and I don't see a problem with that. It's a decent legal yardstick that can be changed according to the circumstances. And of course you have to go with reasonable fear instead of actual threat - if someone points a fake gun at you, you're not in any danger, but you certainly have reason to feel threatened.
    Therein lies the rub -- Zimmerman's account claimed his "suspicion" (of a black fucking punk, up to no good, walking slowly) was "reasonable" cause for following the kid and confronting him (despite being told by the police to stay in his car). Once Trayvon asserted HIS "reasonable" fear (of a creepy ass cracka' following him from car and then on foot), and punches him in the nose in self-defense....the whole scenario changes.

    The big difference is Zimmerman had a gun, which undoubtedly made him feel safe in escalating the situation, and confronting Trayvon. He didn't expect a punch in the nose, or falling to the ground and bumping his head (even though he'd been training in mixed martial arts and criminal justice). He didn't try to fight back, punch, scratch, kick, bite, or do anything but yell before he pulled his gun and shot at point blank range in the chest. He didn't try to use the gun as a blunt instrument, fire a warning shot first, or aim for a limb. He claimed he had a "reasonable fear" that Trayvon was grabbing for his gun, which would have been impossible if still holstered behind his hip, and against the ground.

    Anyway, as FL law is written, he was not legally required to do anything but have a permit for his gun, with a concealed carry license . That's it.

    SYG and duty to retreat are, in this case, not that relevant, because at some point Zimmerman was allegedly (IIRC also seen by a witness) on the ground with the kid on top of him, and at that point he feared his life. He couldn't retreat, so he was legally allowed to shoot, under 'normal' self defense. Though I suppose it might have made an impact on the mindset, i.e. without laws like that, encouraging this behaviour, it might not have happened, but that's impossible to prove.
    More proof of the law's problems. The prosecution did a poor job of comparing the players' "reasonable fears", or why a grown adult male trained in mixed martial arts, criminal justice, and firearms....would be more afraid than the teenager. Zimmerman couldn't be asked directly about the role his gun played in giving him a sense of safety or power, and being the instigator/provocateur. But even then the law doesn't require gun carriers to retreat, or use non-lethal forms of self-defense first, even against unarmed teens.

    The point is, nobody knows what exactly happened, therefore legally he has been found innocent. I am curious that a lot of protest seems to come from posters who generally would be outraged by convictions based on flimsy evidence... Was this death preventable by Zimmerman's behaviour? Yes. But lacking any proof that he murdered Martin, it's logical to acquit. The only thing proven that Zimmerman did wrong was follow/confront him in the first place, which is not illegal.
    Nobody knows exactly what happened because Martin is dead, and couldn't testify his side of the story. FL's law provides an incentive, and then a legal defense, to shoot first, and shoot-to-kill. (1) Zimmerman shot and killed Martin, and (2) it was not accidental. Again, it's only because of changes (incorporating SYG gun language) that Zimmerman wasn't required to prevent or attempt avoid Martin's death. That's FL's old definition of Involuntary Manslaughter that would apply to death involving any lethal weapon (including a car), but their laws now give gun owners/carriers special status.

    Second part is interesting, yes, to show some problems with these laws (and mindset): Martin would likely also have been in his right to use a gun from his end.
    17 year olds can't get concealed carry permits for hand guns. But if he'd been an adult, you're probably right. That just makes FL's laws sound even crazier. "Florida man shoots and kills threatening neighborhood watchman, no charges filed."

  9. #159
    What exactly would be unreasonable about someone who was stalked and attacked by an armed gunman wrestling the gun away and shooting the gunman?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  10. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    What exactly would be unreasonable about someone who was stalked and attacked by an armed gunman wrestling the gun away and shooting the gunman?
    Do you think Florida's laws are written to consider that possible scenario? If so, then you can't fault Trayvon Martin for supposedly trying to reach Zimmerman's gun, and use it against his attacker before it was used against him. Can you?

  11. #161
    I think the laws of just about every state and of every Western country would allow for that scenario. Do you think a person being attacked by a gunman should simply allow himself to be shot?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  12. #162
    Exactly. Everything relevant getting mentioned about Florida's laws are bog standard globally.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  13. #163
    No, there are not "bog standard globally", let alone standard between US states. Are you claiming if this had happened in the UK, Zimmerman would have been acquitted of any/all charges?

  14. #164
    Based on the defence that his life was in imminent danger, he was being attacked at the time and was being pummelled on the ground? Yes he might have been.

    His defence would be as legally sound here as there. Would the jury have believed him? That I'm less sure of. If the jury believed his version he'd be not guilty here. In the UK though its a criminal offence to prejudice a trial with as much reporting as this got.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  15. #165
    Over here, voire dire (jury selection) considers the amount and impact of media exposure. During the trial, jurors were sequestered from all media.

    But you're missing some key points that throw your argument into the dustbin, Rand. The UK doesn't have the number of legal handguns circulating among the general population like the US does. And you certainly don't have concealed-carry permits like some of our states do.

    You can't really debate the Zimmerman case of Self-Defense, while simultaneously ignoring the role played by hand guns, gun ownership, concealed carry laws....and legislation written to protect the "rights" of gun owners, over the "rights" of law-abiding citizens and minor children.

  16. #166
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Based on the defence that his life was in imminent danger, he was being attacked at the time and was being pummelled on the ground? Yes he might have been.

    His defence would be as legally sound here as there. Would the jury have believed him? That I'm less sure of. If the jury believed his version he'd be not guilty here. In the UK though its a criminal offence to prejudice a trial with as much twisted reporting as this got.
    Had to add that piece.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  17. #167
    The ridiculous Trayvon Martin case

    It’s a failure of US judicial system. It failed to help the weakside people.

    When it says Zimmerman is not guilty to kill Trayvon Martin, thenwhat Trayvon was? He became an attacker – a threat to other’s life. That’s howa court to turn an innocent man to be a potential life threatener. An unarmedteen on his way to his relative’s house. He now was believed to be a threatento other’s life. The other one, though proved having original bad will againstTrayvon and finally killed him, became victim.

    It indicates that any law abiding citizens should be obedient tounreasonable search (followed, monitored, provoked…). Or he would be killed, ifthe provoker announced that his life has been threatened.
    This case also would encourage people to use guns in argumentbecause dead people losing their voicein the case.

  18. #168
    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...layer-oklahoma

    Interesting that no one's pointing out that the killers are all black and the murder victim is white.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  19. #169
    maybe cause the driver is, or least appears to be, quite white
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  20. #170
    You mean the only guy who isn't getting charged with murder?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  21. #171
    he is an accessory to murder and according to your link was with the other 2 the entire time, and I haven't seen an article yet that hasn't lumped the 3 together, or hasn't shown pictures of all 4 people.

    and sometimes teens being stupid transcends race

    we can take your question, and flip it over to ask why its only the black teens who got denied bail and are facing life in prison, while the driver (arguably a very high enabler for allowing this crime to happen) got both bail and escaped the harsher the punishment. There was only 1 gun, 1 shot, 1 bullet, so why 2 (but not 3) murder charges?
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-21-2013 at 01:00 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  22. #172
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    You mean the only guy who isn't getting charged with murder?
    Obvious racism right there

    More seriously, the way I read that story nothing says anything to do with race, while in the Zimmerman case I don't think it's a stretch that if Trayvon was white, ZImmerman likely would not have thought he looked suspicious and the whole thing wouldn't have happened.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  23. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Obvious racism right there

    More seriously, the way I read that story nothing says anything to do with race, while in the Zimmerman case I don't think it's a stretch that if Trayvon was white, ZImmerman likely would not have thought he looked suspicious and the whole thing wouldn't have happened.
    That's the whole point. No one is jumping to conclusions about race in this case; everyone did in the Zimmerman case.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  24. #174
    and you don't think that has anything to do with the murderers themselves? Zimmerman tracked his target and was on tape making several remarks that could have been taken as racially charged. these teens openly admitted to this being nothing more than boredom, and their next target was some one they knew and had threatened before.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  25. #175
    Most of those several remarks were taken grossly out of context by the media, with one of them being more or less fabricated.

    And we all know that murderers always tell the truth. Look, I'm not actually arguing that this crime was committed with racist intentions. I'm saying that it's an angle worth investigating, and something the media is clearly not doing.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  26. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Most of those several remarks were taken grossly out of context by the media,
    Most, but not all, which still gives the media more to work with than what has so far been discovered with these teens.

    And we all know that murderers always tell the truth. Look, I'm not actually arguing that this crime was committed with racist intentions. I'm saying that it's an angle worth investigating, and something the media is clearly not doing.
    So you want the news to start a conversation about race ignoring; 1) that a third of people tied to these actions is white, 2) that the teens already told police motive was boredom and 3) that they were caught while trying to target a person they had previous beef with.

    I'm sorry but there is no angle here to investigate. What you want is for the news to create a race problem.

    I understand that certain news channels went overboard with Zimmerman, but trying to use that to complain about how this event is being handle is simple . You should have saved your load for a story with an actual connection or bias.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  27. #177
    GeorgeZimmerman’s heroic car crash rescue appears to be a fraud – Updated
    By Dog Gone on 07/25/2013

    What did occur was that an accident occurred where a car slid onit’s side into a median. People at the scene called 911, which went to theSanford office of the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office. BEFORE responding tothe 911 call, News Ball.com reports that Seminole Sheriff’s Dept. OfficerPatrick Rehder, a self-styled friend and supporter of Zimmerman, contacted Zimmermanby cell phone directing him to go to the accident so as to appear to be ahero. News Ball.com also provides asocial media screen capture of a curious statement about Rehder taking pleasurewhen someone gets credit for something they did not do.

    Rehder’s name appears on the accident report as the respondingofficer; social media shows his connection to Zimmerman.

    http://ivn.us/penigma/2013/07/25/geo...to-be-a-fraud/

  28. #178
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    That's the whole point. No one is jumping to conclusions about race in this case; everyone did in the Zimmerman case.
    Now, if they had killed him because he was white in a black neighbourhood...
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  29. #179
    Um, he was white in a black neighborhood...
    Hope is the denial of reality

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •