Author Topic: The Trial of George Zimmerman  (Read 65674 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wrightway

  • Guest
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #75 on: June 30, 2013, 05:53:17 pm »
If bouncing your head off the curb was deadly force in the eyes of the law, any street fight could justifiably end with one of the guys shooting the other.

Isn't this the reason gangbangers hate this law?

Offline ironbite

  • Overlord of all that is good in Iacon City
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 10686
  • Gender: Male
  • Stuck in the middle with you.
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #76 on: June 30, 2013, 06:00:14 pm »
Nice to see that Martin had no right to defend himself with any type of force

Ironbite-i mean he's already guilty of being black so I guess its not legal for him to defend himself

QUOTING MYSELF FOR GREAT JUSTICE!

Ironbite-also to ask the same question did Martin have the right to defend himself from moron here?

Offline chitoryu12

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
  • Gender: Male
  • Tax-Payer Rhino
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #77 on: June 30, 2013, 06:18:16 pm »
Nice to see that Martin had no right to defend himself with any type of force

Ironbite-i mean he's already guilty of being black so I guess its not legal for him to defend himself

QUOTING MYSELF FOR GREAT JUSTICE!

Ironbite-also to ask the same question did Martin have the right to defend himself from moron here?

It depends on exactly what was going on, since actual knowledge is kinda sketchy. What IS fact is that Zimmerman was essentially stalking Martin while the latter was walking home alone in the middle of the night and eventually confronted him face to face. Technically that's not enough to let you legally start swinging without the other guy actually making a move at you, but a lot of cops and judges wouldn't look too poorly on someone in that case; it's pretty legitimate fear.

What IS true is that Zimmerman had no right to murder Martin because his life was not in immediate danger. Someone knocking your head on concrete is a lethal attack much in the same way that kicking someone in the head is lethal.
Still can't think of a signature a year later.

wrightway

  • Guest
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #78 on: June 30, 2013, 06:23:55 pm »
Nice to see that Martin had no right to defend himself with any type of force

Ironbite-i mean he's already guilty of being black so I guess its not legal for him to defend himself

QUOTING MYSELF FOR GREAT JUSTICE!

Ironbite-also to ask the same question did Martin have the right to defend himself from moron here?

It depends on exactly what was going on, since actual knowledge is kinda sketchy. What IS fact is that Zimmerman was essentially stalking Martin while the latter was walking home alone in the middle of the night and eventually confronted him face to face. Technically that's not enough to let you legally start swinging without the other guy actually making a move at you, but a lot of cops and judges wouldn't look too poorly on someone in that case; it's pretty legitimate fear.

What IS true is that Zimmerman had no right to murder Martin because his life was not in immediate danger. Someone knocking your head on concrete is a lethal attack much in the same way that kicking someone in the head is lethal.

That analogy doesn't quite work. If you kick certain people in the head you will kill them. And you generally can't tell if someone has an aneurysm in the works until after the fact.

Zimmerman being armed, and Martin having no weapons of any kind, should have made this all a moot point

Offline chitoryu12

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
  • Gender: Male
  • Tax-Payer Rhino
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #79 on: June 30, 2013, 06:27:06 pm »
Quote
That analogy doesn't quite work. If you kick certain people in the head you will kill them. And you generally can't tell if someone has an aneurysm in the works until after the fact.

Zimmerman being armed, and Martin having no weapons of any kind, should have made this all a moot point

That's actually the exact point of my analogy: if slamming someone's head into something was legally considered lethal force, then almost ANY kind of hand to hand combat could be considered the same. Being allowed to legally murder someone for that should mean that you should also be able to shoot them if they start kicking or punching.

Self-defense laws are more strict than "Well, this COULD kill you if they tried hard enough or you were unlucky."
Still can't think of a signature a year later.

Offline erictheblue

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 679
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #80 on: June 30, 2013, 06:51:20 pm »
Ironbite-also to ask the same question did Martin have the right to defend himself from moron here?

If Zimmerman started the altercation, yes.
[Anonymous is] like... an internet Cthulu... you don't want to rouse them, but at the same time... woah think of the beautiful chaos! - SpaceProg

Distind

  • Guest
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #81 on: June 30, 2013, 06:53:47 pm »
Ironbite-also to ask the same question did Martin have the right to defend himself from moron here?

If Zimmerman started the altercation, yes.
Does it count for anything legally that there wouldn't have been one if Zimmerman hadn't followed the kid?

Offline Canadian Mojo

  • Don't Steal Him. We Need Him. He Makes Us Cool!
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1770
  • Gender: Male
  • Υπό σκιή
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #82 on: June 30, 2013, 06:57:13 pm »
Ironbite-also to ask the same question did Martin have the right to defend himself from moron here?

If Zimmerman started the altercation, yes.
Does it count for anything legally that there wouldn't have been one if Zimmerman hadn't followed the kid?
It's a public area they were in, so I'm going to guess no.

Offline chitoryu12

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
  • Gender: Male
  • Tax-Payer Rhino
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #83 on: June 30, 2013, 07:17:59 pm »
Ironbite-also to ask the same question did Martin have the right to defend himself from moron here?

If Zimmerman started the altercation, yes.
Does it count for anything legally that there wouldn't have been one if Zimmerman hadn't followed the kid?
It's a public area they were in, so I'm going to guess no.

Public, yes, but Martin was alone at night. Even if you have good intentions, following someone who's alone in the middle of the night is EXTREMELY threatening behavior. The altercation occurred specifically because Zimmerman not only followed him, but aggressively approached and began questioning him. You could basically pick a crime off the list when deciding what Martin thought he was about to be subjected to.
Still can't think of a signature a year later.

Offline m52nickerson

  • Polish Viking
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1386
  • Gender: Male
  • Winning by flying omoplata!
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #84 on: June 30, 2013, 09:01:49 pm »
No, you can't. Self-defense claims require use of equal force. I am going to repeat what I said two pages ago...

Not in Florida.  As mellenORL has stated defendants have won over and over when using deadly force against unarmed opponents.  All that is required for you to be able to use deadly force is for you to reasonably fear for your life.  Your interpretation is simply wrong.
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. ~Macbeth

Offline m52nickerson

  • Polish Viking
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1386
  • Gender: Male
  • Winning by flying omoplata!
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #85 on: June 30, 2013, 09:02:53 pm »
Nice to see that Martin had no right to defend himself with any type of force

Ironbite-i mean he's already guilty of being black so I guess its not legal for him to defend himself

He did if Zimmerman started the physical altercation.  That is main issue in the case.
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. ~Macbeth

Offline erictheblue

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 679
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #86 on: July 01, 2013, 06:43:18 am »
Not in Florida.  As mellenORL has stated defendants have won over and over when using deadly force against unarmed opponents.  All that is required for you to be able to use deadly force is for you to reasonably fear for your life.  Your interpretation is simply wrong.

Please attend law school in Florida, specialize in criminal law, and work in a prosecutor's office for a year. Then we will discuss whether I know Florida criminal law.

Please also note that juries can and do interpret the law as they wish. The judge reads jury instructions to the jury before deliberations begin. Those instructions lay out in plain language what the statutes mean and how they have been interpreted by courts for decades. If a jury chooses not to follow the legal interpretation of the law and instead reads the law the way they want to, there is nothing the state can do about it after the fact.
[Anonymous is] like... an internet Cthulu... you don't want to rouse them, but at the same time... woah think of the beautiful chaos! - SpaceProg

Offline m52nickerson

  • Polish Viking
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1386
  • Gender: Male
  • Winning by flying omoplata!
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #87 on: July 01, 2013, 07:02:25 am »
Please attend law school in Florida, specialize in criminal law, and work in a prosecutor's office for a year. Then we will discuss whether I know Florida criminal law.

Please also note that juries can and do interpret the law as they wish. The judge reads jury instructions to the jury before deliberations begin. Those instructions lay out in plain language what the statutes mean and how they have been interpreted by courts for decades. If a jury chooses not to follow the legal interpretation of the law and instead reads the law the way they want to, there is nothing the state can do about it after the fact.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

"Durell Peaden, the former Republican senator from Crestview who sponsored the bill, said the law was never intended for people who put themselves in harm's way before they started firing. But the criminal justice system has been blind to that intent.

The new law only requires law enforcement and the justice system to ask three questions in self-defense cases: Did the defendant have the right to be there? Was he engaged in a lawful activity? Could he reasonably have been in fear of death or great bodily harm?

Without convincing evidence to the contrary, "stand your ground'' protection prevails."
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. ~Macbeth

Offline chitoryu12

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
  • Gender: Male
  • Tax-Payer Rhino
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #88 on: July 01, 2013, 07:08:07 am »
Quote
Was he engaged in a lawful activity?

Well, no. Neighborhood watch or not, stalking someone at night and aggressively approaching them and questioning them while they're alone and defenseless is hardly going to win you points with the cop who sees you doing it.
Still can't think of a signature a year later.

Offline mellenORL

  • Pedal Pushing Puppy Peon
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3876
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #89 on: July 01, 2013, 01:40:06 pm »
At the point when Zimmerman left his truck and walked fast, then ran, after Martin (to see where he was going), Martin had a reasonable case for turning and standing his ground.

Martin was attempting to evade harm by walking fast, then running. The perceived threat to his safety, Zimmerman, would not desist. In the immediate aftermath photos taken of Zimmerman, it is seen that Zimmerman's gun holster is visible when he tilts slightly to his left, his short jacket swinging out of the way (the holster on his right side leaves the weapon visible and identifiable just above his waist band). Although the defense keeps harping on how dark it was, there are streetlights through out that condominium complex. Zimmerman was walking quickly, then running, close behind Martin. His jacket would be opening and flowing backwards with air resistance if it was unzipped, or riding up his waist if it was zipped. When you are running with adrenaline pumping from a hostile stranger, it is instinctive to glance back now and then. It is possible Martin saw that gun holster fairly early on.

Upon confrontation, in context of Zimmerman following Martin the entire time, after disobeying the police dispatcher to not follow, it really should not matter as to who threw the first punch. At some point, Martin would have become aware of that pistol. He may have actually felt it brush against his body during the fight.  He is then in a serious fight very likely for his life, and he knows it. He probably was angry for the entire duration of Zimmerman following him. It's happened to me, and I'm a pretty mild mannered older female. You feel outraged and scared at the same time, when some unknown man follows you, clearly looking at you, casing you, even saying things to you. It is intimidating and nerve wrecking and infuriating, all at the same time. All Zimmerman needed to do was identify himself as being on neighborhood watch, and ask Martin what address he lived at or who he was going to see there. Even a pissed off, scared, or snotty teen would answer, "Going to my Dad's place!", probably followed by a few choice epithets. I know I would have, at age 17.

Zimmerman did not state who he was or what he was doing to Martin, though, because he had profiled Martin as a criminal immediately. That is established by the 911 recording. Zimmerman followed Martin convinced he would be stopping a criminal. Confronting a criminal. Not waiting for the police. Perhaps he even envisioned, in his established wanna be cop mind, that he would hold the suspect at gunpoint until back up arrived. Zimmerman had no fear of doing that, because he was armed. In Zimmerman's mind, Martin was guilty on sight, and not worth the least bit of benefit of the doubt, or even of proper police procedure in identifying himself, or of neighborhood watch procedures - which is to stay far from any suspicious person and wait for police to arrive on scene. A plain clothes officer would have ID'ed himself as law enforcement at that point; Zimmerman applied twice to police academies, and can be assumed to have some knowledge of what procedure would be. Most civilians are aware that cops have to ID themselves if in plain clothes while commanding a suspect to halt.

Rachel Jeantel's testimony, though she was by turns jaded, snide, and bored and sad and hostile - really, the unideal witness, on the face of it - was none the less consistent. Unfortunately, most people in a typical jury will find her off-putting enough to be skeptical of her testimony, to one degree or another, upon hearing and seeing it in person. However, in the written court testimony transcript, which clarifies her accent and meaning, regardless of sketchy grammar, her testimony is compelling. When you then review her audio testimony again, you can see she is jaded and snide because she is annoyed by the parsing and repetition and even insulted by the constant demands for clarification. Her ethnic Haitian American Ebonics accent is really not that hard to understand, and she clarifies exactly who she heard when she quoted Martin saying, "Get off! Get off!" by repeating, "Trayvon!", with great emphasis, at the end of her original recorded witness interview just after the killing, the transcript of which was clearly incorrect as to the word, "could've" versus what she said, "could hear'(heard) Trayvon sayin' 'Get off Get off!' Trayvon!" when read along while listening to that recording.

Martin is dead, and this young woman is the only voice left for telling his side of it. The chances of that side of the story being buried under attorney focused doubts, and clueless, naïve jury derp, is what the defense is concentrating on. You could see the defense attorney's irritation when Jeantel sincerely and forcefully said of the transcript error, "Believe me when I tell you it's wrong...sir."
Quote from: Ultimate Chatbot That Totally Passes The Turing Test
I sympathize completely. However, to use against us. Let me ask you a troll. On the one who pulled it. But here's the question: where do I think it might as well have stepped out of all people would cling to a layman.