Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Trayvon Martin]'s Violent Attack on George Zimmerman

19899101103104147

Posts

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    Are they really that great though? They let Zimmerman apologize during his bail hearing.
    http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/04/20/zimmerman-set-for-friday-court-appearance/
    I wanted to say that I am sorry for the loss of your son...I did not know how old he was, I thought he was a little bit younger than I am, and I did not know if he was armed or not.

    Zimmerman's interactions with his previous attorney leads me to believe that he has trouble doing what his lawyers tell him so maybe they advised against this. Regardless, if he wanted to apologize to the family and not come off as sounding guilty (since by claiming self defense hes saying he was a victim) he could have said something like "Im sorry I had to shoot your son" or "I regret the events of that night, but I had no choice" or something to that effect.

    No no, that would be worse. Because those statements would be making admissions (that he shot Martin), which right now is the State of Florida's burden to prove.

    The statement at the bail hearing was actually quite good, from a lawyer perspective. It makes Zimmerman look like a good guy (he feels sympathy for the parents and their loss, even if not his fault) and sneaks things that Zimmerman wants people to believe (that he might have feared Martin was armed, or thought Martin was older and thus more threatening). Remember that his lawyer is trying to poison the well, which sounds nastier than it is: he's trying to get Zimmerman's story out into the public, so that potential jurors will hear it and assume it's true. That way, even if there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman thought Martin was armed, if his lawyer suggests that might be true, jurors think "Oh yeah, I heard about that somewhere."

    BTW, Zimmerman's not going to testify at trial. There's no reason for him to do so.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    P.S.: It's not *that* easy to kill somebody with your bare hands, unless they're sitting there letting you do it.

    Actually, as long as you can get the upper hand in a fight it's not that hard, either. But the intent has to be there...to unintentionally kill somebody with your bare hands requires some (bad) luck.

    Not cause some guy was maybe following them, no. Maybe it's a class thing but I can't think of anyone I knew in high school who even got into a fight.

    Maybe it is a class thing. I got into a couple fights in high school. I had a friend who got fucked up pretty badly (like, reconstructive surgery badly) because some football player decided he "looked at him funny." I definitely knew kids whose response to some dick following them would be along the "you got a problem?" or "what the fuck do you want?" lines. And who may or may not take it as an opportunity to fight somebody.

    It's not hyperbole at all. You said that the truth, in essence, does not matter and that deductive reasoning can stay out of the courtroom. If the defendant's rights are all that matters, you may as well protect them with all of the pseudo-science and hearsay you can find.

    Actually, you should stick to actual science and deductive reasoning as much as is possible while also safeguarding the rights of the accused.

    Ever heard of a false dichotomy? I mean, I know you're using them I'm just wondering if you realize it.

    Zimmerman's legal team is demanding a negative be proven: he claims that he fired in self defense, and demands we prove him wrong. If we can't prove him wrong, well then obviously that's what happened, or so goes the terribly broken chain of logic.

    No, at no point does that become "obviously what happened." Normal, reasonable human beings just realize that sometimes the actual events that transpired cannot be proven in a court of law. This, however, seems to be beyond you.

    I do not 'hope he is guilty'. He killed Martin, admitted to doing it and pulled a story out of his ass to justify the action. I do not believe the story, because my default position is skepticism. He can't substantiate his story (or hasn't thus far, anyway) with physical evidence.

    I'm curious what physical evidence you would accept as substantiation.

    Also, it's fine that you don't believe his story. I understand your skepticism. I am skeptical as well. However, do you realize that when you say he "pulled a story out of his ass" you are now the one making a positive claim? You are making the claim that he is lying, and you don't really have any physical evidence to substantiate that, either.

    In some countries, I hear this is enough to support a claim of libel. Or is it slander? I get confused.

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    Are they really that great though? They let Zimmerman apologize during his bail hearing.
    http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/04/20/zimmerman-set-for-friday-court-appearance/
    I wanted to say that I am sorry for the loss of your son...I did not know how old he was, I thought he was a little bit younger than I am, and I did not know if he was armed or not.

    Zimmerman's interactions with his previous attorney leads me to believe that he has trouble doing what his lawyers tell him so maybe they advised against this. Regardless, if he wanted to apologize to the family and not come off as sounding guilty (since by claiming self defense hes saying he was a victim) he could have said something like "Im sorry I had to shoot your son" or "I regret the events of that night, but I had no choice" or something to that effect.

    No no, that would be worse. Because those statements would be making admissions (that he shot Martin), which right now is the State of Florida's burden to prove.

    The statement at the bail hearing was actually quite good, from a lawyer perspective. It makes Zimmerman look like a good guy (he feels sympathy for the parents and their loss, even if not his fault) and sneaks things that Zimmerman wants people to believe (that he might have feared Martin was armed, or thought Martin was older and thus more threatening). Remember that his lawyer is trying to poison the well, which sounds nastier than it is: he's trying to get Zimmerman's story out into the public, so that potential jurors will hear it and assume it's true. That way, even if there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman thought Martin was armed, if his lawyer suggests that might be true, jurors think "Oh yeah, I heard about that somewhere."

    BTW, Zimmerman's not going to testify at trial. There's no reason for him to do so.

    Im pretty sure hes not contesting that he shot Martin. He has been saying since the beginning that he shot Martin but did so in self defense.

    As for the apology, I dont think people who were almost killed, but lived because they killed their attacker, are sorry for killing their attacker. However, they may be sorry about the situation which led to them killing their attacker (I dont regret killing X, but I regret having to kill X).

    camo_sig2.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    I think that if you don't necessarily think your attacker intended to kill you (but was putting your life in danger regardless through their actions) it's entirely possible to be sorry for killing them.

    Mainly because they are acting under a fear of imminent death or great bodily injury, but will never actually know if they'd have died or been permanently injured. After the fact it wouldn't seem crazy to regret your actions, and be burdened for a very long time (or forever) with the question of whether it was truly necessary...or if you'd have been fine if you hadn't pulled the trigger. Easy to question yourself after the fact.

    It's the kind of thing that comes from having to act in the moment, and deal with the results later with more time to reflect.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Actually, you should stick to actual science and deductive reasoning as much as is possible while also safeguarding the rights of the accused.

    Ever heard of a false dichotomy? I mean, I know you're using them I'm just wondering if you realize it.

    This is what's known as 'bias', and it invalidates any conclusion(s) you've drawn because your goal was never to discover what happened, only to fit evidence into a particular outlook (in this case, that outlook is, "Zimmerman fired in self defense,").

    You're either doing real science or you're doing garbage science, and trying to pretty-up the latter doesn't make it all that distant from relying on supernatural causation.
    No, at no point does that become "obviously what happened." Normal, reasonable human beings just realize that sometimes the actual events that transpired cannot be proven in a court of law. This, however, seems to be beyond you.

    In which case 'normal, reasonable human beings' (<-- this is a No True Scotsman fallacy, by the way) should also see this as a problem for Zimmerman rather than a benefit to him.
    I'm curious what physical evidence you would accept as substantiation.

    Also, it's fine that you don't believe his story. I understand your skepticism. I am skeptical as well. However, do you realize that when you say he "pulled a story out of his ass" you are now the one making a positive claim? You are making the claim that he is lying, and you don't really have any physical evidence to substantiate that, either.

    He has presented nothing other than his story at this point in time. Maybe it's a lie, maybe it's not; I don't really care, because it's a story.

    Video evidence, medical records, audio recordings (not just the fragments we have), photos taken at the scene by accountable parties (like the police), etc. If he doesn't have it, well that's too bad as far as I'm concerned (obviously the law feels differently): he shouldn't have acted like a cowboy and shouldn't have been carrying a gun around with the intent of using it on other people.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    The Ender wrote: »
    Actually, you should stick to actual science and deductive reasoning as much as is possible while also safeguarding the rights of the accused.

    Ever heard of a false dichotomy? I mean, I know you're using them I'm just wondering if you realize it.

    This is what's known as 'bias', and it invalidates any conclusion(s) you've drawn because your goal was never to discover what happened, only to fit evidence into a particular outlook (in this case, that outlook is, "Zimmerman fired in self defense,").

    You're either doing real science or you're doing garbage science, and trying to pretty-up the latter doesn't make it all that distant from relying on supernatural causation.

    No, my outlook is "Zimmerman may have fired in self defense."

    But my feelings regarding protecting the rights of the accused in criminal proceedings are indeed pretty steadfast. It's a bias I'm absolutely comfortable with. We've already spent plenty of time talking about why a criminal trial can't be conducted in the same way as a scientific experiment.

    No, at no point does that become "obviously what happened." Normal, reasonable human beings just realize that sometimes the actual events that transpired cannot be proven in a court of law. This, however, seems to be beyond you.

    In which case 'normal, reasonable human beings' (<-- this is a No True Scotsman fallacy, by the way) should also see this as a problem for Zimmerman rather than a benefit to him.

    Not if you start from a presumption of innocence.

    And since a shooting is not, on its face, unlawful that means starting from a presumption that the shooting was lawful. Ideally, any uncertainty in a criminal trial should always benefit the defendant. Again, you want to call this a bias, great. It's a bias I'm comfortable with. Proud of, even.

    He has presented nothing other than his story at this point in time. Maybe it's a lie, maybe it's not; I don't really care, because it's a story.

    Video evidence, medical records, audio recordings (not just the fragments we have), photos taken at the scene by accountable parties (like the police), etc. If he doesn't have it, well that's too bad as far as I'm concerned (obviously the law feels differently): he shouldn't have acted like a cowboy and shouldn't have been carrying a gun around with the intent of using it on other people.

    Note: when you say he "pulled a story out of his ass" that is not the same as saying "maybe it's a lie, maybe it's not."

    That is saying that it is a lie. At least by the general definition of that particular idiom in that context.

    That last bit ("cowboy"), however, certainly betrays your bias here. Which doubtless you are also comfortable with.

    mcdermott on
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I think that if you don't necessarily think your attacker intended to kill you (but was putting your life in danger regardless through their actions) it's entirely possible to be sorry for killing them.

    If you dont think your attacker intended to kill you (or cause you GBH) then youre not entitled to a claim of self defense (well, youre entitled to make the claim regardless of the situation, but if it can be shown that you thought you werent going to die or suffer GBH then your claim isnt going to stand).
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Mainly because they are acting under a fear of imminent death or great bodily injury, but will never actually know if they'd have died or been permanently injured. After the fact it wouldn't seem crazy to regret your actions, and be burdened for a very long time (or forever) with the question of whether it was truly necessary...or if you'd have been fine if you hadn't pulled the trigger. Easy to question yourself after the fact.

    It's the kind of thing that comes from having to act in the moment, and deal with the results later with more time to reflect.

    This to me sounds like youre regretting what happened but not necessarily that you killed the person - "I regret shooting X because I thought X was going to kill me, but what if he wasnt?" This seems entirely normal.

    "Im sorry I shot your son" only seems normal to me if its prefaced by your fear of imminent death or GBH, especially if at the time youre making that statement youre at the bail hearing for the trial in which you are charged with murdering a teenager. Even if he feels sorry about killing Trayvon and doesnt put any blame on the situation he was in at the time he killed him, he shouldnt say that shit out loud until after he is acquitted because jesus fuck that shit can be used against you.

    camo_sig2.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    emp123 wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I think that if you don't necessarily think your attacker intended to kill you (but was putting your life in danger regardless through their actions) it's entirely possible to be sorry for killing them.

    If you dont think your attacker intended to kill you (or cause you GBH) then youre not entitled to a claim of self defense (well, youre entitled to make the claim regardless of the situation, but if it can be shown that you thought you werent going to die or suffer GBH then your claim isnt going to stand).

    The risk of death or GBH is independent of the attacker's intent to cause them. That's the point.

    Hypothetically, if somebody is on top of you in a fight bouncing your head off the pavement they may not realize the level of damage they are doing (and the further damage they are risking), but that makes it no less real to the victim, and no less a justification for self-defense. They may just not be thinking clearly, or not familiar enough with the harm that a physical altercation can cause, to know the danger they are putting their victim in.

    mcdermott on
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I think that if you don't necessarily think your attacker intended to kill you (but was putting your life in danger regardless through their actions) it's entirely possible to be sorry for killing them.

    If you dont think your attacker intended to kill you (or cause you GBH) then youre not entitled to a claim of self defense (well, youre entitled to make the claim regardless of the situation, but if it can be shown that you thought you werent going to die or suffer GBH then your claim isnt going to stand).

    The risk of death or GBH is independent of the attacker's intent to cause them. That's the point.

    Hypothetically, if somebody is on top of you in a fight bouncing your head off the pavement they may not realize the level of damage they are doing (and the further damage they are risking), but that makes it no less real to the victim, and no less a justification for self-defense. They may just not be thinking clearly, or not familiar enough with the harm that a physical altercation can cause, to know the danger they are putting their victim in.

    Right, the actual intent of the attacker has little to no impact on whether the victim should feel sorry when someone is legitimately claiming self defense. Whether the victim perceived the attacker's intent to be to cause death or GBH does matter. If I think someone is going to kill me because theyre slamming my head into the concrete repeatedly after Ive screamed for help Im not going to feel very sorry when I shoot that person because they were slamming my head into the concrete while I screamed for help ohmygodwhatthefuckiswrongwiththem.

    Now, I would feel absolutely terrible if I was walking along and I noticed someone was following me and after a couple of blocks they try to confront me and in a panic I turn around and shoot them because because I thought that person was going to accost me only to learn later that they were trying to give me something I dropped.


    Although Im interested in seeing how Florida's reasonableness standard plays out since it seems to look at the reasonableness of the defendant's actions as opposed to what a reasonable person would do (basically, the jury would factor in the defendant's past, so if the defendant was a rape victim who was raped in an alley on her way home from work and she was being followed into an alley on her way home from work by someone who looked like her rapist the jury might conclude that her decision to shoot that person is reasonable even if a reasonable person wouldnt have shot him).

    camo_sig2.png
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Note: when you say he "pulled a story out of his ass" that is not the same as saying "maybe it's a lie, maybe it's not."

    That is saying that it is a lie. At least by the general definition of that particular idiom in that context.

    That last bit ("cowboy"), however, certainly betrays your bias here. Which doubtless you are also comfortable with.

    What bias? I don't have a bias.

    1) Zimmerman stalked Martin, got out of his vehicle and followed him on foot until Martin ran.

    2) Zimmerman had some altercation with Martin.

    3) Zimmerman shot Martin dead.

    That is being a cowboy, regardless of the ambiguities involved at step 2. He shouldn't have been following people around looking for a fight.

    He then offers-up a story that I don't believe and that he has no way to substantiate in order to make himself look good during steps 2-3.

    Maybe he should've thought about installing a dash camera in his vehicle before becoming the town vigilante. Maybe he should've considered a less violent hobby. Maybe he shoulv'e considered an alternative form of protection.

    But he didn't. He decided to drive around town with a firearm and pretend he was a superhero (and that's giving him the benefit of the doubt), ultimately culminating in a lethal confrontation, with nothing to record the event and no expectation that he should be held accountable.

    The Ender on
    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Ha, yeah no bias at all.

    I'll just start with "following people around looking for a fight," which you have nothing to substantiate other than the fact that he chose to concealed carry. You know, because of your bias.

    Also, do you have a citation on the "until Martin ran" part of (1)?


    EDIT: I mean, I thought we had the girlfriend claiming specifically that Martin wasn't going to run.

    mcdermott on
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I'll just start with "following people around looking for a fight," which you have nothing to substantiate other than the fact that he chose to concealed carry. You know, because of your bias.

    Zimmerman was the community 'neighborhood watch' member, and it was a regular part of his routine to do exactly this. It was in this capacity that he made all of those erroneous 9-1-1 phone calls, and apparently had a confrontation with a burglar where he made a citizen's arrest.

    EDIT: Zimmerman also, again, explicitly stated that he was following Martin around.
    Also, do you have a citation on the "until Martin ran" part of (1)?

    Zimmerman said it himself to the dispatcher in the 9-1-1 call. In fact, he says it twice.

    The Ender on
    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Ha, yeah no bias at all.

    Nope.

    Zimmerman shot Martin. That's as far as the physical evidence gets us. The rest is hearsay and unreliable testimony; you've decided to view this with your happily accepted bias in favor of Zimmerman and want to make it fit his story. I discard it, and am left with Zimmerman having shot Martin.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    It is not a part of his routine to "look for a fight." That's the biased part.

    Also, we're taking Zimmerman's statements at face value only when it benefits our position? Okay.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Ha, yeah no bias at all.

    Nope.

    Zimmerman shot Martin. That's as far as the physical evidence gets us. The rest is hearsay and unreliable testimony; you've decided to view this with your happily accepted bias in favor of Zimmerman and want to make it fit his story. I discard it, and am left with Zimmerman having shot Martin.

    It has nothing to do with Zimmerman to me.

    I view it with my bias towards the presumption of innocence, yes. At least as far as criminal proceedings go.

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Shado red wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Shado red wrote: »

    While this scenario is just a possibility I don't consider it extremely improbable:

    Martin sees a stranger watching him. He walks up and says, "What's your problem."
    The other guy stays in his car, and is talking on the phone. Martin chooses to ignore him and continue home.
    Martin notices the stranger got out of his car and is following him. He is afraid that the man means to harm him, so he walks faster (runs), and ditches him. After he ditches him his initial adrenaline and fear begin to go away. He thinks, "why did I run? I wasn't doing anything wrong. Who is this guy?"
    Martin goes back to where the guy was at. He sees Zimmerman still in the area. He walks up to him.
    Martin asks, "Who are you?"
    Zimmerman responds, "What are you doing here?"
    Zimmerman reaches in his pocket for his phone to call police again. Martin thinks he is going for a weapon, and jumps him.

    If that was the case, I think it is entirely appropriate for Zimmerman to spend the next 5 to 10 years in jail.

    While you, and others may feel it appropriate, I don't know if the law is going to agree. Especially if you continue with:
    Zimmerman is on the ground getting his head knocked into the ground.
    Zimmerman calls out for help.
    This continues for half a minute before Zimmerman remembers, and uses his gun.

    I can see the law giving Martin a free pass on the initial assault under self defense. However continuing to assault Zimmerman while he is calling for help is different.

    How likely do you really think that is.
    emp123 wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    No, that speaks to the fact that Florida law is retarded. I'm all for reasonable protections for self-defense but legalizing a shoot out at the OK corral is not that.

    It's my understanding that both sides at the O.K. Corral had, and used, guns.


    I'd almost be interested in your position on killing another person in self defense without a gun. If, say, Zimmerman had still killed Martin with a lucky punch, nearby blunt object, or some other non-firearm means. I mean, Martin's no less dead, and no less unarmed, and no less sixteen and black, does this change anything? It's the gun that's the problem?

    Almost. But given that we see above a clear desire to keep those goalposts on wheels, not quite.

    The problem is that I don't believe a story where Zimmerman doesn't start shit because he's the only one with a clear motive to start shit. And having started shit, he doesn't have a right to self defense anymore.

    Under Florida law, aggressors can still claim self defense if they have either tried to defuse the situation (tell the other person that they dont want to fight anymore/tried to stop fighting/tried to get away) or if the person theyre fighting (the victim) uses force that leads them to reasonably believe they will face GBH or death.

    Florida law is stupid.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    No, that speaks to the fact that Florida law is retarded. I'm all for reasonable protections for self-defense but legalizing a shoot out at the OK corral is not that.

    It's my understanding that both sides at the O.K. Corral had, and used, guns.


    I'd almost be interested in your position on killing another person in self defense without a gun. If, say, Zimmerman had still killed Martin with a lucky punch, nearby blunt object, or some other non-firearm means. I mean, Martin's no less dead, and no less unarmed, and no less sixteen and black, does this change anything? It's the gun that's the problem?

    Almost. But given that we see above a clear desire to keep those goalposts on wheels, not quite.

    The problem is that I don't believe a story where Zimmerman doesn't start shit because he's the only one with a clear motive to start shit. And having started shit, he doesn't have a right to self defense anymore.

    Under Florida law, aggressors can still claim self defense if they have either tried to defuse the situation (tell the other person that they dont want to fight anymore/tried to stop fighting/tried to get away) or if the person theyre fighting (the victim) uses force that leads them to reasonably believe they will face GBH or death.

    Florida law is stupid.

    Eh, that part sort of makes sense to me - I dont think you forfeit your life should you take a swing at someone (but you should probably forfeit your freedom via jail time). The really stupid part is the immunity from both civil suit and criminal charges for non-aggressors.

    camo_sig2.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    Eh, that part sort of makes sense to me - I dont think you forfeit your life should you take a swing at someone (but you should probably forfeit your freedom via jail time). The really stupid part is the immunity from both civil suit and criminal charges for non-aggressors.

    Immunity from civil suit is the kind of thing that makes sense in theory, but is pretty ridiculous in practice. If anything I'd think that a presumption of frivolity (putting a plaintiff on the hook for legal fees if they lose) would make more sense if you're concerned about the impact on those who employ self-defense, and even that is probably pushing it.

    The immunity from criminal charges looks to be largely...pointless? Since with probable cause the cops and prosecutors still get to do their thing. And probable cause should be required anyway. Any impact seems to be pretty minimal.

    And yes, I think restoring the duty to retreat for aggressors is sufficient. And it's not like they're suddenly off the hook for their original assault.

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    Im pretty sure hes not contesting that he shot Martin. He has been saying since the beginning that he shot Martin but did so in self defense.

    Again, one of the things that the government has to prove to convict him is "Zimmerman shot Martin". If Zimmerman admits this at the bail hearing, that is evidence that can be used against him. I'm sure the government is not going to have a tough time proving it, but why hand them a stick to beat him with? Zimmerman's lawyer is going to try to keep every piece of unhelpful evidence out. Announcing "I shot him" is unhelpful evidence.
    emp123 wrote: »
    As for the apology, I dont think people who were almost killed, but lived because they killed their attacker, are sorry for killing their attacker. However, they may be sorry about the situation which led to them killing their attacker (I dont regret killing X, but I regret having to kill X).

    I don't understand this. His lawyer, I'm sure, crafted the apology. The point of the statement was not "reveal your true feelings", it was to say the right thing to garner public sympathy, and particularly to burnish his image with potential jurors. I suspect that Zimmerman really *is* sorry, but if he weren't, do you think his lawyer would tell him "At the bail hearing, get up and tell everyone 'I bet you're wondering why I shot the bastard'"?

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Immunity from civil suit is the kind of thing that makes sense in theory, but is pretty ridiculous in practice. If anything I'd think that a presumption of frivolity (putting a plaintiff on the hook for legal fees if they lose) would make more sense if you're concerned about the impact on those who employ self-defense, and even that is probably pushing it.

    The immunity from criminal charges looks to be largely...pointless? Since with probable cause the cops and prosecutors still get to do their thing. And probable cause should be required anyway. Any impact seems to be pretty minimal.

    And yes, I think restoring the duty to retreat for aggressors is sufficient. And it's not like they're suddenly off the hook for their original assault.

    A "presumption of frivolity"? Good grief, do you work for ALEC? A "presumption of frivolity" means that anybody who files a lawsuit is assumed to be lying their ass off (which, in the case of lawyers, means they're acting unethically and are putting their license at risk) until they prove it's not frivolous. At which point they then have to meet the burden of proof in their case. You might as well have immunity at that point, it's the same damn thing.

    Every state, as far as I'm aware, already has mechanisms for dumping stupid lawsuits early (e.g., demurrers) and there are provisions for recovering costs in a lot of situations.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Like I said, even that would be excessive...I think it's definitely one of those things where the cure is worse than the disease (and the disease is exaggerated).

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    mythago wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    Im pretty sure hes not contesting that he shot Martin. He has been saying since the beginning that he shot Martin but did so in self defense.

    Again, one of the things that the government has to prove to convict him is "Zimmerman shot Martin". If Zimmerman admits this at the bail hearing, that is evidence that can be used against him. I'm sure the government is not going to have a tough time proving it, but why hand them a stick to beat him with? Zimmerman's lawyer is going to try to keep every piece of unhelpful evidence out. Announcing "I shot him" is unhelpful evidence.

    Hasnt he already admitted he shot Martin? Isnt his whole thing how he shot Martin in self defense? How can you claim self defense to defend your actions without first admitting you took the action?

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/23/george-zimmerman-lawyer-sorry-for-clients-trayvon-martin-apology/
    Zimmerman, who admits shooting the unarmed black teenager on February 26 this year, is pleading not guilty, claiming-self defence.
    mythago wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    As for the apology, I dont think people who were almost killed, but lived because they killed their attacker, are sorry for killing their attacker. However, they may be sorry about the situation which led to them killing their attacker (I dont regret killing X, but I regret having to kill X).

    I don't understand this. His lawyer, I'm sure, crafted the apology. The point of the statement was not "reveal your true feelings", it was to say the right thing to garner public sympathy, and particularly to burnish his image with potential jurors. I suspect that Zimmerman really *is* sorry, but if he weren't, do you think his lawyer would tell him "At the bail hearing, get up and tell everyone 'I bet you're wondering why I shot the bastard'"?

    Zimmerman's attorney apparently knew that he was going to apologize and didnt stop him per the article linked above:
    Mark O’Mara told CBS This Morning that if he had known the apology would upset Martin’s family, he would not have allowed Zimmerman to do it

    But that doesnt make it a wise decision. He has already admitted in court that he is sorry for the loss of Trayvon's life and that he didnt know how old he was or if he was armed (why would he say this if hes trying to not give the prosecution evidence that he shot Trayvon?) and in addition to the apology that is now on record the statements can be used against him in court. Is it that hard to imagine that the prosecutor will get up there and in closing arguments say something like:

    "George Zimmerman is sorry for the loss of Trayvon's life. He says he didnt know how old he was. He says he didnt know whether he was armed. Why would someone, who is claiming to have feared for his life, who has stated that he was having his head pounded into the concrete, be sorry about saving his life?"*

    Really, why apologize at all? He should have just said nothing, or if he wanted to say something, express regret about the situation.

    Further, per that same Raw Story article, Zimmerman's attorney had this to say:
    I’m not sure that we would have done it at the bond hearing, because the purpose of it truly was to get to the family and to respond directly to the family’s request. Had I known or been told that that wasn’t the time, it wouldn’t have happened. So I apologise for that.

    ...

    But certainly it wasn’t necessary to get a bond. It is not usual that you have somebody get up at all in a bond hearing. We wouldn’t have done it in this case.


    *God I hope someone who is a lawyer and has been a prosecutor for years could come up with a better way to use this against him.

    EDIT: I probably should have found more than one source for all of that, but its just so convenient when one article supports all your statements and Im lazy.

    emp123 on
    camo_sig2.png
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    The Ender wrote: »
    I'll just start with "following people around looking for a fight," which you have nothing to substantiate other than the fact that he chose to concealed carry. You know, because of your bias.

    Zimmerman was the community 'neighborhood watch' member, and it was a regular part of his routine to do exactly this.

    Please cite what says his job as a community neighborhood watch member is to follow people around looking for a fight.

    Surely you were just making claims based on the fact and not making up outright lies to suit your bias.

    Quid on
    PSN: allenquid
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    Hasnt he already admitted he shot Martin? Isnt his whole thing how he shot Martin in self defense? How can you claim self defense to defend your actions without first admitting you took the action?

    When did he admit he shot Martin? To the police, correct? Meaning that the police report claiming Zimmerman said thus-and-such is a piece of evidence the defense may try to exclude. Again: the apology had two important functions.

    1) Make Zimmerman more sympathetic.
    2) Say nothing that could be used against him by the DA.

    emp123 wrote: »
    Really, why apologize at all?

    See #1, above, and poisoning the well. Zimmerman's been in hiding and the only people talking on his behalf have been his dad (hardly an unbiased witness, and he's said some pretty dumb shit), his friend Frank Taafe (who also managed to come across as pretty racist), and his previous two attorneys, who apparently have never heard of "attorney-client privilege). The apology was, in essence, Zimmerman getting good PR, particularly with potential jurors.

    As we say, his attorney isn't under oath. I wouldn't expect him to say "Of course I knew the family was going to be upset. Zimmerman could have peed rainbows and they would have been upset, this man killed their son. But my job is to advocate for my client's interests, not make the dead guy's parents happy."

    Remember, all Zimmerman needs for self-defense (and in Florida, he gets that before a trial, with the 'preponderance' standard) is to show that there was a reasonable fear. If he thought Martin was armed or was an adult that helps him, not the DA.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • chocoboliciouschocobolicious Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Quid wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    I'll just start with "following people around looking for a fight," which you have nothing to substantiate other than the fact that he chose to concealed carry. You know, because of your bias.

    Zimmerman was the community 'neighborhood watch' member, and it was a regular part of his routine to do exactly this.

    Please cite what says his job as a community neighborhood watch member is to follow people around looking for a fight.

    Surely you were just making claims based on the fact and not making up outright lies to suit your bias.


    As soon as you cite evidence that proves he was "looking for a fight"

    I'm sure, since you are a bastion of unbiased knowledge flowing from the godhead, that this should be trivial.

    Evidence, mind, not conjecture. You know, something court admissible for us simpler types who can't see on the fourth plane of existence.

    chocobolicious on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    ....hey choco, I think he was saying the same thing. Check the post he was responding to.

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    I'm sure, since you are a bastion of unbiased knowledge flowing from the godhead

    So now you're being a silly goose at people who *agree* with you? This Zimmerman thing really has you tied in knots, doesn't it?

    If you bothered to go read the previous quotes, the person you just attacked said "following people around looking for a fight" was unsubstantiated. He then replied to another poster's assertion that it was Zimmerman's job to follow people around looking for a fight, asking for evidence that was in fact Zimmerman's job.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    Hasnt he already admitted he shot Martin? Isnt his whole thing how he shot Martin in self defense? How can you claim self defense to defend your actions without first admitting you took the action?

    When did he admit he shot Martin? To the police, correct? Meaning that the police report claiming Zimmerman said thus-and-such is a piece of evidence the defense may try to exclude. Again: the apology had two important functions.

    1) Make Zimmerman more sympathetic.
    2) Say nothing that could be used against him by the DA.

    I guess we're just going to disagree on that one. I see you point that that was the intention, but Im not sure that was the effect. All the news articles I see relating to Zimmerman have nothing to do with his apology (methodology was just going to news.google.com and searching for George Zimmerman and then reading the titles. 1 article in 5 pages said anything about the apology, most of them were about him possibly getting his bond adjusted/court inquiry into his financial status) so my shitty study tells me the news story (where I assume potential jurors are supposed to learn about the apology) hasnt really changed (but admittedly, I have no idea what the local news is going on about).

    Searching for George Zimmerman apology turns up more apology articles, but most of the headlines are talking about the apology being ill timed (one of them is about the EPA so I guess we know what really killed Trayvon) and its kind of lost by page 5.

    If he wanted to address stuff he could have released a prepared letter/statement from his attorney. I guess I just see saying nothing as better than saying something.

    I dunno, maybe its the facts of the case clouding my judgment, but when I hear "Im sorry about the loss of your son" my first thought is why are you sad about killing the man that was trying to kill you? Admittedly, when I think about a rape victim who, mid rape, kills her rapist, I see the apology in a more sympathetic light. So if the fact pattern was totally different (or really, hypothetically, if Martin killed Zimmerman after being followed and having his head slammed into the concrete Id feel sympathy towards Martin for having to kill someone since he was totally innocent, I guess much in the same way that I feel bad for the kid who was walking his dog and went to get his dog instead of help Trayvon (did someone say this kids story isnt true?)).
    emp123 wrote: »
    Really, why apologize at all?
    Remember, all Zimmerman needs for self-defense (and in Florida, he gets that before a trial, with the 'preponderance' standard) is to show that there was a reasonable fear. If he thought Martin was armed or was an adult that helps him, not the DA.[/quote]

    And this is why I think most likely outcome is either not guilty or guilty of manslaughter (maybe involuntary manslaughter?) which will be appealed and probably overturned.

    camo_sig2.png
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    I guess we're just going to disagree on that one. I see you point that that was the intention, but Im not sure that was the effect.

    I thought we were talking about "why did Zimmerman say that?" not "did it work?"

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • evanismynameevanismyname Registered User
    I think it's perfectly reasonable to feel sorry for killing an unarmed teenager, regardless of the situation. I don't believe that it was a simple case of "self-defense" either, but even it was purely self-defense, the kid was 17!

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    mythago wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    I guess we're just going to disagree on that one. I see you point that that was the intention, but Im not sure that was the effect.

    I thought we were talking about "why did Zimmerman say that?" not "did it work?"

    Isnt effectiveness going to be considered in deciding to apologize?

    emp123 on
    camo_sig2.png
  • chocoboliciouschocobolicious Registered User regular
    Actually I just quoted quid and meant to erase his part since its hard to copy parts of posts. I'm usually reading/responding at work from a phone. Also using Swype. So I tend to just post and then go back to work. I meant to erase Quid's quote and tag and just use what he had quote pruned out.

    Hah. I'm not quite that crazy.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    I feel you, choco. Phone-postin' is a bitch, especially when people don't trim quote trees (one of the drawbacks of the new drop-down quotes is that people forget).

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    Isnt effectiveness going to be considered in deciding to apologize?

    Yes. Sometimes apologies don't work out entirely as you expect them to. Are you just arguing because you're bored now or what?

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Martin sees a stranger watching him. He walks up and says, "What's your problem."
    The other guy stays in his car, and is talking on the phone. Martin chooses to ignore him and continue home.
    Martin notices the stranger got out of his car and is following him. He is afraid that the man means to harm him, so he walks faster (runs), and ditches him. After he ditches him his initial adrenaline and fear begin to go away. He thinks, "why did I run? I wasn't doing anything wrong. Who is this guy?"
    Martin goes back to where the guy was at. He sees Zimmerman still in the area. He walks up to him.
    Martin asks, "Who are you?"
    Zimmerman responds, "What are you doing here?"
    Zimmerman reaches in his pocket for his phone to call police again. Martin thinks he is going for a weapon, and jumps him.

    If that was the case, I think it is entirely appropriate for Zimmerman to spend the next 5 to 10 years in jail.

    Uh, if that was the case then Martin is the aggressor, not Zimmerman. Yes, even though Martin is unarmed and Zimmerman is packing.

    This part:

    Martin notices the stranger got out of his car and is following him. He is afraid that the man means to harm him, so he walks faster (runs), and ditches him. After he ditches him his initial adrenaline and fear begin to go away. He thinks, "why did I run? I wasn't doing anything wrong. Who is this guy?"

    Martin goes back to where the guy was at. He sees Zimmerman still in the area. He walks up to him.


    would mean that Martin has extracted himself from the confrontation, and willingly chose to re-engage Zimmerman. At this point, Martin would be the one starting (or rather, re-starting) shit, which would mean:
    HamHamJ wrote:
    And having started shit, he doesn't have a right to self defense anymore

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    I still don't quite fathom how this is anywhere outside the realm of possibilities. Teenagers are pretty much assholes.

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    mythago wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    Isnt effectiveness going to be considered in deciding to apologize?

    Yes. Sometimes apologies don't work out entirely as you expect them to. Are you just arguing because you're bored now or what?

    Right, but thats something you should factor in when youre debating whether or not youre going to do something, and goes back to my original point that his new counsel may be better than his old counsel but he still doesnt have fantastic representation.

    I think its totally foreseeable that his apology wouldnt go over well with the family and wouldnt get picked up by the news media. I think a press release would have been more effective.

    emp123 on
    camo_sig2.png
  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    BubbaT wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Martin sees a stranger watching him. He walks up and says, "What's your problem."
    The other guy stays in his car, and is talking on the phone. Martin chooses to ignore him and continue home.
    Martin notices the stranger got out of his car and is following him. He is afraid that the man means to harm him, so he walks faster (runs), and ditches him. After he ditches him his initial adrenaline and fear begin to go away. He thinks, "why did I run? I wasn't doing anything wrong. Who is this guy?"
    Martin goes back to where the guy was at. He sees Zimmerman still in the area. He walks up to him.
    Martin asks, "Who are you?"
    Zimmerman responds, "What are you doing here?"
    Zimmerman reaches in his pocket for his phone to call police again. Martin thinks he is going for a weapon, and jumps him.

    If that was the case, I think it is entirely appropriate for Zimmerman to spend the next 5 to 10 years in jail.

    Uh, if that was the case then Martin is the aggressor, not Zimmerman. Yes, even though Martin is unarmed and Zimmerman is packing.

    This part:

    Martin notices the stranger got out of his car and is following him. He is afraid that the man means to harm him, so he walks faster (runs), and ditches him. After he ditches him his initial adrenaline and fear begin to go away. He thinks, "why did I run? I wasn't doing anything wrong. Who is this guy?"

    Martin goes back to where the guy was at. He sees Zimmerman still in the area. He walks up to him.


    would mean that Martin has extracted himself from the confrontation, and willingly chose to re-engage Zimmerman. At this point, Martin would be the one starting (or rather, re-starting) shit, which would mean:
    HamHamJ wrote:
    And having started shit, he doesn't have a right to self defense anymore

    Walking up to someone to have a conversation is not assault, last I checked.

    At the end of the day, you've got a (most likely mentally ill) person running around the neighborhood armed with a deadly weapon stalking a teenager at night.

    Rambo either started the fight or instigated it via his stalking behavior, and then found out he couldn't win a fist fight with a 17 year old boy. So he shoots him.

    The shitty thing is that the law is so terribly written that that's pretty much A-OK for the state of Florida. Losing a fight with no witnesses? Just kill the guy. Doesn't matter if you started it, were winning at some point, anything. Hell, it doesn't even matter if you were winning, so long as this law remains as written and dead men remain silent, it's all gravy.

    Go Go Serial Killers, your new home is the Sunshine State.



    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Just to reiterate: the charge against Zimmerman is to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    His claim of self-defense is to be weighed based on a preponderance of evidence.

    At a pre-trial hearing, Zimmerman gets the chance to argue self-defense and/or SYG in front of a judge. So long as the judge believes that the claims of self-defense and/or SYG are more likely than not to be true, then the case never even goes to a jury trial. Acquittal.

    If the judge does not agree that it is proven more likely than not to be true, then the case proceeds to trial. However, self-defense can still be the defendant's claim, and the burden rests solely on the prosecution to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty as charged. Any evidence of self-defense whatsoever, even just Zimmerman's testimony, must be somehow shown by the prosecution to be unreasonable to believe.

    Even if the defendent instigates the fight, if he did not instigate deadly force (but rather the victim instigated deadly force), then the defendant may still have a valid claim of self-defense.

    I think many people overestimate how much of a "get out of jail free" card this could be. Claiming self defense when it isn't self defense can very often be shown to be bullshit by a decent prosecutor. Nevertheless, it will be the burden on the prosecutor to prove that none of the pictures of head wounds or medical records or Zimmerman's testimony raise any reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman was the instigator of deadly force (or serious bodily harm force). That could be difficult.

    Yar on
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Derrick wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Martin sees a stranger watching him. He walks up and says, "What's your problem."
    The other guy stays in his car, and is talking on the phone. Martin chooses to ignore him and continue home.
    Martin notices the stranger got out of his car and is following him. He is afraid that the man means to harm him, so he walks faster (runs), and ditches him. After he ditches him his initial adrenaline and fear begin to go away. He thinks, "why did I run? I wasn't doing anything wrong. Who is this guy?"
    Martin goes back to where the guy was at. He sees Zimmerman still in the area. He walks up to him.
    Martin asks, "Who are you?"
    Zimmerman responds, "What are you doing here?"
    Zimmerman reaches in his pocket for his phone to call police again. Martin thinks he is going for a weapon, and jumps him.

    If that was the case, I think it is entirely appropriate for Zimmerman to spend the next 5 to 10 years in jail.

    Uh, if that was the case then Martin is the aggressor, not Zimmerman. Yes, even though Martin is unarmed and Zimmerman is packing.

    This part:

    Martin notices the stranger got out of his car and is following him. He is afraid that the man means to harm him, so he walks faster (runs), and ditches him. After he ditches him his initial adrenaline and fear begin to go away. He thinks, "why did I run? I wasn't doing anything wrong. Who is this guy?"

    Martin goes back to where the guy was at. He sees Zimmerman still in the area. He walks up to him.


    would mean that Martin has extracted himself from the confrontation, and willingly chose to re-engage Zimmerman. At this point, Martin would be the one starting (or rather, re-starting) shit, which would mean:
    HamHamJ wrote:
    And having started shit, he doesn't have a right to self defense anymore

    Walking up to someone to have a conversation is not assault, last I checked.

    It's not last I checked either. That's probably why I never wrote anything that even came close to implying that it was assault.
    At the end of the day, you've got a (most likely mentally ill) person running around the neighborhood armed with a deadly weapon stalking a teenager at night.

    Do you?

    As a legal term under Florida law, "stalking" has a specific definition, which IMO Zimmerman fails to meet the criteria (eg, multiple instances of harassing behavior against a specific individual) for.
    Rambo either started the fight or instigated it via his stalking behavior, and then found out he couldn't win a fist fight with a 17 year old boy. So he shoots him.

    So walking up to someone isn't assault, but it is instigation.

    In that case - IF Martin successfully fled the scene and then returned and walked up to Zimmerman, then it would be Martin who instigated (or rather, re-instigated) the confrontation.

    Does the instigator have a right to self-defense?

    HamHamJ seemed to say No, that Zimmerman lost his right to self-defense when he "started shit." Well, if Martin successfully disengaged from the initial confrontation, and then returned to re-engage Zimmerman, how is that not also starting shit?
    The shitty thing is that the law is so terribly written that that's pretty much A-OK for the state of Florida. Losing a fight with no witnesses? Just kill the guy. Doesn't matter if you started it, were winning at some point, anything. Hell, it doesn't even matter if you were winning, so long as this law remains as written and dead men remain silent, it's all gravy.

    Go Go Serial Killers, your new home is the Sunshine State.

    Yeah, except for all the cases that have been successfully prosecuted even after the defendant claims self-defense under SYG.

    Like Marissa Alexander, who now faces 20 years in prison. Or John McNeil in neighboring Georgia, who was convicted after claiming SYG self-defense and is now serving life.

    But let's just ignore those, because they don't fit your narrative of "SYG = murder free-for-all."

    Let's also ignore that SYG laws don't appear to correlate with any sort of abnormal increase in the number of justifiable homicides in states which have such laws.

    http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/4/5/1333636517549/Justifiable-homicides-cha-001.jpg

    Because, you know, the narrative is what's important here. Not facts.

    BubbaT on
This discussion has been closed.