As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Trayvon Martin]'s Violent Attack on George Zimmerman

18687899192147

Posts

  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    Hannity is involved because Zimmerman spoke with him (I think on the same day as he called the prosecutors office, or I just heard he had called both on the same day, whichever).

    It was back when Zimmerman's former lawyers were holding (highly unprofessional) press conferences about how they couldn't find Zimmerman. Hannity said Zimmerman had called him around that time, and they had a conversation.

    The question now is whether Hannity can be called to testify about that conversation, or whether he's protected under journalist shield laws. IIRC Fox News has stated numerous times that folks like Hannity and O'Reilly are commentators and entertainers, rather than journalists. However, if Zimmerman thought he was protected by some sort of reporter-source confidentiality, he may have given Hannity details of the case that he didn't give to police.

    And yes, it would also be hearsay, so that's another issue.


    Now if Hannity was smart, he'd STFU about the case until it becomes clear what legal role, if any, he's going to play in it.

  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    PantsB wrote: »
    12) The person screaming on the tape was more likely to be zimmerman than martin. An eyewitness confirms this. The eyewitness also claimed zimmerman was on the ground. An expert who wasnt there says it was martin. In my mind that expert made a very dodgy comparison between a calm zimmerman and a stressed zimmerman. Also the recording was from two different sources. he also did not say that it was a match to martin, only that it was 48% likely that it was zimmerman. 48% likely that it was zimmerman is pretty damn likely. Anyone doing that type of report would put down 'inconclusive'. No comparison was done between old audio of martin, and the tape to at least have a comparsion. Also when you think about it, if the voice is of 2 possible people, and your damn software says its 48% likely to be one guy, thats pretty much 50%, which is pretty damn inconclusive, ie worthless in a court of law. But let the media run with it, its all they need.
    No. Multiple experts have said it could not have been Zimmerman. The 48% did not mean there was a 48% chance it was Zimmerman, it meant it matched 48% which is more than sufficient proof to disqualify him. Witnesses said the screaming immediately cut off with the gun shot.
    The software compared that audio to Zimmerman's voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he'd expect higher than 90 percent.

    "As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman," Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon's, because he didn't have a sample of the teen's voice to compare.

    Can we stop citing Owen as any sort of voice ID authority on this case? He violated his own standards and practices for voice ID analysis in coming up with Zimmerman's 48% match.

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/22783686#Comment_22783686

    BubbaT on
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    So last month Angela Corey (prosecutor in the Zimmerman case) took on a defendant, Marissa Alexander, claiming self-defense under SYG. And Corey crushed her (the defendant).

    https://showcase.duvalclerk.com/ViewCaseDetails.aspx?id=10193505
    (click the "Public Access" button)

    blog on behalf of the defendant (obviously biased source, but the only one I could find on the story with a quick google).
    In an unprovoked jealous rage, my husband violently confronted me while using the restroom. He assaulted me, shoving, strangling and holding me against my will, preventing me from fleeing all while I begged for him to leave. After a minute or two of trying to escape, I was able to make it to the garage where my truck was parked, but in my haste to leave I realized my keys were missing. I tried to open the garage but there was a mechanical failure. I was unable to leave, trapped in the dark with no way out. For protection against further assault I retrieved my weapon; which is registered and I have a concealed weapon permit. Trapped, no phone, I entered back into my home to either leave through another exit or obtain my cell phone.

    He and my two stepsons were supposed to be exiting the house thru the front door, but he didn’t leave. Instead he came into the kitchen that leads to the garage and realized I was unable to leave. Instead of leaving thru the front door where his vehicle was parked outside of the garage, he came into the kitchen by himself. I was terrified from the first encounter and feared he came to do as he had threatened. The weapon was in my right hand down by my side and he yelled, “Bitch I will kill you!”, and charged toward me. In fear and desperate attempt, I lifted my weapon up, turned away and discharged a single shot in the wall up in the ceiling. As I stood my ground it prevented him from doing what he threatened and he ran out of the home. Outside of the home, he contacted the police and falsely reported that I shot at him and his sons. The police arrived and I was taken into custody.

    ...
    The threat that day was very real, imminent, and the battery on me occurred minutes before the decision I made to protect myself. That decision was a last resort, necessary and a reaction to the continued threat on my life.
    http://www.justiceformarissa.blogspot.com/

    Corey was the prosecutor in this case, and secured a conviction for the state of Florida. The jury needed a mere 13 minutes to return guilty verdicts on 3 counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Alexander faces 20 years in prison.

    BubbaT on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    We have seen video immediately after the events that show no wounds.

    No, we haven't. Even in the initial release of the video, I said I thought I saw red marks on the back of his head. The later "enhanced" video clearly showed gashes down the back of his head.

    PantsB wrote: »
    However, if we are to assume that somehow they magically disappeared between the scene and the station, this does not mean they occurred due to Martin.

    Wasn't I supposedly insane for suggesting that even if it wasn't Zimmerman screaming for help, it might have been someone else? But, you think that Zimmerman got in another fight that resulted in gashes down the back of his head?

    PantsB wrote: »
    described the race of martin only when questioned by the 911 operator.
    So? That does not mean it wasn't a primary part of the reason he thought he was suspicious.

    It also doesn't mean he isn't an alien from Mars, sent to kill only people named Martin, because Martin sounds too much like Martian. The possibilities!

    PantsB wrote: »
    other stuff

    You're raising doubts about various aspects of what has been reported. Good. There are a lot of doubts. All around. We even have outright fabrications and lies that we know were widely circulated. It's a mess.

    PantsB wrote: »
    No they have to prove one at least aspect of his self defense claim is false. For instance, if Martin was the one screaming for help its highly unlikely a reasonable person in Zimmerman's position would fear for his life. If Zimmerman, a man with a history of violent confrontations and anger management issues, made Martin feel threatened by stalking him through a neighborhood in his car and then getting out and following him on foot then Martin has a right to defend himself. This would mean Zimmerman couldn't claim Stand your ground.

    Actually, a self-defense claim is decided based on a preponderance of evidence (as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt). So a lot of what you say here may be true, but it isn't a matter of "at least one aspect." Zimmerman's case will need to show that it is simply more likely than not that he acted in self defense, and SYG means that this doesn't necessarily include a need to show that he attempted retreat. Unlike a burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt," a preponderance of evidence could likely mean that a broken nose and gashes on the head are convincing enough compared to a convoluted argument about someone screaming in the background on a 911 call and audio experts' testimony about who it matches 48% or 90% or 60%.

  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Yar wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    We have seen video immediately after the events that show no wounds.

    No, we haven't. Even in the initial release of the video, I said I thought I saw red marks on the back of his head. The later "enhanced" video clearly showed gashes down the back of his head.

    @Yar : Just curious as to your opinion on this...

    I feel that a single frame from an enhanced video doesn't constitute the video "clearly showing gashes", it constitutes the single frame showing the gashes, which in my mind proves a lot less. Would you agree that the other portions of the enhanced video that we've seen do not show any gashes but show the same parts of his head? If so, how do you explain representing this as the video clearly showing gashes? Gashes that would seemingly only appear in one frame out of an entire video?

    Death of Rats on
    No I don't.
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Here's what I know about the video:

    * When CNN first aired it, they cut out the one part of the video where you can actually see the back of his head. I'm more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt here, it isn't quite like the "he looks suspicious, he looks black" hack-job that NBC did. But it was still kinda odd, considering their report was all about how you couldn't see the wounds he was supposed to have.

    * Even so, at the very end of that video, you can sort of see the back of his head from the side, and I thought it vaguely looked like a red splotch was there, but not enough to state any conclusion.

    * Since then, I've seen a still-shot that ABC says is from an "enhanced" video in which there are some fairly visible red fleshy marks on the back of his head. Maybe by "enhanced" they meant "when we saw that NBC fired that producer, we decided to release the version where we didn't cut out the important part, and call it an 'ehanced' version." I haven't seen any evidence that the gash only appears for one frame and then disappears... because that would be totally bizarre. LIke I said, I've seen a still-shot.

    * So I looked it up, and it's frustrating as holy hell, because when ABC shows the enhanced video (which to me just looks like a less compressed version), they've got their damn footer all over the screen, covering up Zimmerman during the part where you can see the back of his head. What is wrong with these people? Nevertheless, you can see the red marks poke out from behind the on-screen banner a little, and it's not just for one frame.

    * I do not agree that any other portions of either version of the video show any evidence of a lack of these same red marks. I never agreed that the original video was proof that he wasn't injured. I mainly thought that it was too poor of quality to see much of anything, but that in the one part right at the end where you see the right half of the back of his head (the only time on the original CNN release that you could), it looked like there was a red mark, precisely where the later video showed there to be one. I am pretty well convinced that the idea that the video showed he wasn't injured, like a lot of the "truths" that have been spread around on this case, was created and perpetuated largely in people's imaginations and in sensationalist journalism.

    Yar on
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    That's the thing I find ridiculously frustrating, if they have a video that shows red marks on the back of his head, either show it or don't mention it. Don't show one frame out of the video, show the whole section, minus the footer, zoomed in if you have to. Put that claim to rest.

    But unfortunately the new media is more interested in trolling everyone than actually reporting. I'm sure a lot of people would like to see proof that there was violence against Zimmerman, even if before that proof aired they thought it didn't. But doing so might put some of the media stomping of this to rest, so they decide to release just enough for people (like me) to be skeptical of their claims, but still have other people throw it out as conclusive proof.

    No I don't.
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    Apparently the new story now is that two years ago, Zimmerman was an active organizer in the black community seeking justice for Sherman Ware, a black homeless man who was beaten up by the white son of a high-ranking police official in Sanford. Two of the cops Zimmerman was trying to get disciplined in that case were also cops that are now facing heat for letting Zimmerman go easy in the Trayvon response. Craziness.

  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    Yar wrote: »
    Apparently the new story now is that two years ago, Zimmerman was an active organizer in the black community seeking justice for Sherman Ware, a black homeless man who was beaten up by the white son of a high-ranking police official in Sanford. Two of the cops Zimmerman was trying to get disciplined in that case were also cops that are now facing heat for letting Zimmerman go easy in the Trayvon response. Craziness.

    It's only crazy if you bought into the "Zimmerman is grand wizard of the KKK!" line.

    It matches up perfectly with the "Zimmerman is an obsessive law-and-order nut bordering on vigilantism" line.

  • Caveman PawsCaveman Paws Registered User regular
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Hannity is involved because Zimmerman spoke with him (I think on the same day as he called the prosecutors office, or I just heard he had called both on the same day, whichever).

    It was back when Zimmerman's former lawyers were holding (highly unprofessional) press conferences about how they couldn't find Zimmerman. Hannity said Zimmerman had called him around that time, and they had a conversation.

    The question now is whether Hannity can be called to testify about that conversation, or whether he's protected under journalist shield laws. IIRC Fox News has stated numerous times that folks like Hannity and O'Reilly are commentators and entertainers, rather than journalists. However, if Zimmerman thought he was protected by some sort of reporter-source confidentiality, he may have given Hannity details of the case that he didn't give to police.

    And yes, it would also be hearsay, so that's another issue.


    Now if Hannity was smart, he'd STFU about the case until it becomes clear what legal role, if any, he's going to play in it.

    I'm sure he is too busy looking for a book deal to do much else. (I'm not really sure, I just dislike Hannity and enjoy saying snarky things about him).

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Hannity is involved because Zimmerman spoke with him (I think on the same day as he called the prosecutors office, or I just heard he had called both on the same day, whichever).

    It was back when Zimmerman's former lawyers were holding (highly unprofessional) press conferences about how they couldn't find Zimmerman. Hannity said Zimmerman had called him around that time, and they had a conversation.

    The question now is whether Hannity can be called to testify about that conversation, or whether he's protected under journalist shield laws. IIRC Fox News has stated numerous times that folks like Hannity and O'Reilly are commentators and entertainers, rather than journalists. However, if Zimmerman thought he was protected by some sort of reporter-source confidentiality, he may have given Hannity details of the case that he didn't give to police.

    And yes, it would also be hearsay, so that's another issue.


    Now if Hannity was smart, he'd STFU about the case until it becomes clear what legal role, if any, he's going to play in it.

    Should Hannity be called to testify, his statements regarding what Zimmerman told him would be admissible because they fall under an exception to the hearsay rule (well, the Federal Rules according to wikipedia, so I dont know about Florida law) since theyre admissions by a party opponent.

    Whether Hannity will have to testify remains to be seen though. As much as Id love for a court to declare what Hannity and O'Riely do as not-journalism (which shouldnt be that hard since that what Fox News says they are) I doubt that will happen. But I lean towards pessimism.

  • Shado redShado red Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    BubbaT wrote: »

    It matches up perfectly with the "Zimmerman is an obsessive law-and-order nut bordering on vigilantism" line.

    Vigilante wanna be cops are always trying to hold police accountable for instances of abuse of authority.

    Shado red on
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    Shado red wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »

    It matches up perfectly with the "Zimmerman is an obsessive law-and-order nut bordering on vigilantism" line.

    Vigilante wanna be cops are always trying to hold police accountable for instances of abuse of authority.

    Many vigilante types are not cop-friendly, because they view cops as part of a corrupt system. For example, the Minutemen on the Mexican border.

    Heck, if vigilantes were always pro-cop, they wouldn't need to become vigilantes in the first place. They'd just trust the cops to handle everything.

  • Shado redShado red Registered User regular
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Shado red wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »

    It matches up perfectly with the "Zimmerman is an obsessive law-and-order nut bordering on vigilantism" line.

    Vigilante wanna be cops are always trying to hold police accountable for instances of abuse of authority.

    Many vigilante types are not cop-friendly, because they view cops as part of a corrupt system. For example, the Minutemen on the Mexican border.

    Heck, if vigilantes were always pro-cop, they wouldn't need to become vigilantes in the first place. They'd just trust the cops to handle everything.


    You're right, my mistake, I hear vigilante and I associate it with Batman. I still don't see how you can get vigilante out of that story, or are you saying that it just doesn't disprove vigilantism?

    For the most part from that story I got that he was actively involved with trying to improve his community.
    Organizing the community against an instance of police abuse of power.
    Organizing the community to create a neighborhood watch program to stop burglaries.
    An annoying do-gooder sure, but vigilante, I just don't see it.

    If Zimmerman can be painted as a vigilante then we can say he intended to confront Martin all along. That he was hoping for a fight. That he was looking for an excuse to use his gun. We could say that he put on his gun that day thinking, "I hope I get to use this to catch a bad guy." This would put all of the blame for the incident at Zimmerman's feet, and leave Martin as a completely innocent victim. Zimmerman can go to jail, and justice for this tragedy will be served.

    That Zimmerman may or may not have walked up to Martin. That Zimmerman may or may not have thrown the first punch. That Zimmerman may or may not have been reasonably fearful of death or serious bodily harm before he used his gun. All of these become minor details. Zimmerman was out looking for trouble, and he found it.

    I don't see the evidence for the vigilante motive in general. If we decide to go with the version of events that puts Zimmerman as the only one at fault, then him being a vigilante would be an understandable motive for his actions. People seem to be going backwards though. Zimmerman is a vigilante, so he confronted Martin, he instigated the fight, he wanted to use his gun.

    To me his actions of calling 911 to report suspicious behavior on numerous occasions seems to indicate he wanted to assist law enforcement. This isn't an activity that I associate with someone that wants to take maters in their own hands, and deal out punishment without the law.

  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Shado red wrote: »
    To me his actions of calling 911 to report suspicious behavior on numerous occasions seems to indicate he wanted to assist law enforcement. This isn't an activity that I associate with someone that wants to take maters in their own hands, and deal out punishment without the law.

    I kinda lost sight of it in all the mediagasm, but one of the first things that struck me about the initial reports was the line in the 911 call that goes, "These assholes always get away." More than anything else I think that indicates that Zimmerman had lost faith in the ability of the police to keep his neighborhood safe.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    Shado red wrote: »
    If Zimmerman can be painted as a vigilante then we can say he intended to confront Martin all along. That he was hoping for a fight. That he was looking for an excuse to use his gun. We could say that he put on his gun that day thinking, "I hope I get to use this to catch a bad guy." This would put all of the blame for the incident at Zimmerman's feet, and leave Martin as a completely innocent victim. Zimmerman can go to jail, and justice for this tragedy will be served.

    I do think he intended to confront Martin. I don't know that he was hoping for a fight or an excuse to shoot, but I do think he wanted to confront Martin - otherwise why follow Martin?

    However, even if Zimmerman initiated a verbal confrontation with Martin, that doesn't necessarily put the blame at Zimmerman's feet, legally. If Martin threw the first punch then Martin threw the first punch, regardless of who started the verbal confrontation, and is not an innocent victim. Verbal confrontation can be most anything. If Zimmerman had walked up to Martin and said "Your breath stinks and your shoes are ugly!", that's a verbal confrontation. It in no way would excuse a physical response from Martin.
    That Zimmerman may or may not have walked up to Martin. That Zimmerman may or may not have thrown the first punch. That Zimmerman may or may not have been reasonably fearful of death or serious bodily harm before he used his gun. All of these become minor details. Zimmerman was out looking for trouble, and he found it.

    Maybe they become minor details morally. They remain huge, critical issues legally.


    Astaereth wrote: »
    Shado red wrote: »
    To me his actions of calling 911 to report suspicious behavior on numerous occasions seems to indicate he wanted to assist law enforcement. This isn't an activity that I associate with someone that wants to take maters in their own hands, and deal out punishment without the law.

    I kinda lost sight of it in all the mediagasm, but one of the first things that struck me about the initial reports was the line in the 911 call that goes, "These assholes always get away." More than anything else I think that indicates that Zimmerman had lost faith in the ability of the police to keep his neighborhood safe.

    Also this.

  • CabezoneCabezone Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    In many states throwing the first punch is not always the guilty party. Many states have "fighting words" precedents. Had Martin felt threatened by Zimmerman's actions/words him throwing the first punch does not make in automatically guilty in many states. I dunno what the laws are in Florida but I know California has this kind of legal precedent.

    Unfortunately, in this case, Martin is no longer around to explain.

    Cabezone on
  • Shado redShado red Registered User regular
    He does say, "These assholes they always get away." Not unreasonable to assume that he is venting his frustration, or that he may intend to do something about it.

    In the call, after he says that, he continues to talk for a while. Martin runs and Zimmerman losses sight of him. He then talks about meeting the police when they come, before they end their conversation. Put in context I don't think it is as indicative that he wished a confrontation as it seems on its own.

    Could he have continued to search for Martin?
    Could he have gone back to his car?

    We are just guessing on this part. The next thing we "know" is that Martin asks, "Why are you following me?" and Zimmerman responds, "What are you doing here?"

    Did Zimmerman continue pursuit?
    Did Martin double back?

    It's anyone's guess. I think it likely Zimmerman continued to look for, and follow him. Martin noticing Zimmerman behind him again turned, and asked the question.

  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    Cabezone wrote: »
    In many states throwing the first punch is not always the guilty party. Many states have "fighting words" precedents. Had Martin felt threatened by Zimmerman's actions/words him throwing the first punch does not make in automatically guilty in many states. I dunno what the laws are in Florida but I know California has this kind of legal precedent.

    Unfortunately, in this case, Martin is no longer around to explain.

    The "fighting words" doctrine is very narrowly defined these days, to the point of virtual irrelevance. I don't think the Court has ruled anything to actually constitute "fighting words" since the doctrine was created in 1942. And in that time they've dealt with Neo-Nazi marches through Jewish neighborhoods, flag-burning, cross-burning, and the various antics of the Westboro Baptist Church.

    About the only thing I can think of that Zimmerman could have said to justify an attack by Martin, given recent rulings, would be a direct threat of violence.

    You're right in this case it's relatively moot, as Zimmerman can make up whatever conversation he wants between Martin and himself.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Shado red wrote: »
    To me his actions of calling 911 to report suspicious behavior on numerous occasions seems to indicate he wanted to assist law enforcement. This isn't an activity that I associate with someone that wants to take maters in their own hands, and deal out punishment without the law.

    I kinda lost sight of it in all the mediagasm, but one of the first things that struck me about the initial reports was the line in the 911 call that goes, "These assholes always get away." More than anything else I think that indicates that Zimmerman had lost faith in the ability of the police to keep his neighborhood safe.

    Definitely. And hey, I can understand that...my house just got robbed over the weekend, and I lost several thousand dollars in stuff (much of it family jewelry, which can't be replaced). Break-ins, both home and auto, are common around here. The cops come by, and take a report, and that's about it. Yes, this is the same neighborhood with the crazy dusthead trying to grab some lady in her car the weekend before. I trust the cops around here to give me a ticket if I'm speeding, but to actually keep me safe? Ha. Right.

    Still, he continued to call the cops before taking action on his own. For all we know his actual intent really was just to follow Martin, so that when the cops finally showed up, eventually, maybe they'd have a realistic shot at finding him.

  • RozRoz Boss of InternetRegistered User regular
    BubbaT wrote: »
    So last month Angela Corey (prosecutor in the Zimmerman case) took on a defendant, Marissa Alexander, claiming self-defense under SYG. And Corey crushed her (the defendant).

    https://showcase.duvalclerk.com/ViewCaseDetails.aspx?id=10193505
    (click the "Public Access" button)

    blog on behalf of the defendant (obviously biased source, but the only one I could find on the story with a quick google).
    In an unprovoked jealous rage, my husband violently confronted me while using the restroom. He assaulted me, shoving, strangling and holding me against my will, preventing me from fleeing all while I begged for him to leave. After a minute or two of trying to escape, I was able to make it to the garage where my truck was parked, but in my haste to leave I realized my keys were missing. I tried to open the garage but there was a mechanical failure. I was unable to leave, trapped in the dark with no way out. For protection against further assault I retrieved my weapon; which is registered and I have a concealed weapon permit. Trapped, no phone, I entered back into my home to either leave through another exit or obtain my cell phone.

    He and my two stepsons were supposed to be exiting the house thru the front door, but he didn’t leave. Instead he came into the kitchen that leads to the garage and realized I was unable to leave. Instead of leaving thru the front door where his vehicle was parked outside of the garage, he came into the kitchen by himself. I was terrified from the first encounter and feared he came to do as he had threatened. The weapon was in my right hand down by my side and he yelled, “Bitch I will kill you!”, and charged toward me. In fear and desperate attempt, I lifted my weapon up, turned away and discharged a single shot in the wall up in the ceiling. As I stood my ground it prevented him from doing what he threatened and he ran out of the home. Outside of the home, he contacted the police and falsely reported that I shot at him and his sons. The police arrived and I was taken into custody.

    ...
    The threat that day was very real, imminent, and the battery on me occurred minutes before the decision I made to protect myself. That decision was a last resort, necessary and a reaction to the continued threat on my life.
    http://www.justiceformarissa.blogspot.com/

    Corey was the prosecutor in this case, and secured a conviction for the state of Florida. The jury needed a mere 13 minutes to return guilty verdicts on 3 counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Alexander faces 20 years in prison.

    See Marissa, you're doing wrong. Your supposed to kill your husband, that way no one can refute your testimony.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Is Florida one of those states where threatening deadly force has the same standard as actually using it? I know that in Texas, IIRC, you can threaten deadly force at a lower standard than if you actually use it. It's an issue, because you run into situations where, theoretically, showing a gun or firing a warning shot (like into the ceiling) can actually be used against you as evidence that you weren't justified in doing so.

    Because logically, if you didn't actually fire the gun at your attacker then it implies you didn't feel threatened enough to justify threatening the deadly force, if the standards for threatening and using are the same.

    Basically, if you weren't scared enough to actually shoot the person then your own actions suggest that you weren't justified.


    EDIT: If I didn't make it clear, I believe most states are not like Texas. The threat of deadly force is basically the same as the use of deadly force.

    mcdermott on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    10-20-Life

    Draw a gun, 10 years, use a gun 20 years, shoot someone, life.

    That's the general Florida rule of thumb on gun crime.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Hannity is involved because Zimmerman spoke with him (I think on the same day as he called the prosecutors office, or I just heard he had called both on the same day, whichever).

    It was back when Zimmerman's former lawyers were holding (highly unprofessional) press conferences about how they couldn't find Zimmerman. Hannity said Zimmerman had called him around that time, and they had a conversation.

    The question now is whether Hannity can be called to testify about that conversation, or whether he's protected under journalist shield laws. IIRC Fox News has stated numerous times that folks like Hannity and O'Reilly are commentators and entertainers, rather than journalists. However, if Zimmerman thought he was protected by some sort of reporter-source confidentiality, he may have given Hannity details of the case that he didn't give to police.

    And yes, it would also be hearsay, so that's another issue.


    Now if Hannity was smart, he'd STFU about the case until it becomes clear what legal role, if any, he's going to play in it.

    just poppin in to say that statements of the defendant offered by the prosecution against him aren't usually hearsay, there is an exception to the rule for that

    EDIT: oh poop someone beat me to it!

    So It Goes on
  • PhantPhant Registered User regular
    10-20-Life

    Draw a gun, 10 years, use a gun 20 years, shoot someone, life.

    That's the general Florida rule of thumb on gun crime.

    That is... the dumbest thing I've read today. The _best_ case scenario in a confrontation involving a gun is that when it is drawn the other party buggers off. Assuming the armed party isn't the aggressor, of course, but still. Firing a warning shot is dumb stuff people get from watching TV, but if the scenario seems to be anything like what she described, hit her with discharging a firearm inside city limits or what have you.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Phant wrote: »
    10-20-Life

    Draw a gun, 10 years, use a gun 20 years, shoot someone, life.

    That's the general Florida rule of thumb on gun crime.

    That is... the dumbest thing I've read today. The _best_ case scenario in a confrontation involving a gun is that when it is drawn the other party buggers off. Assuming the armed party isn't the aggressor, of course, but still. Firing a warning shot is dumb stuff people get from watching TV, but if the scenario seems to be anything like what she described, hit her with discharging a firearm inside city limits or what have you.

    It might be kill someone, life. I can't remember exactly.

    I don't think you understand how guns or the people who use them work, though, since most of those people will be getting their gun safety lessons from television.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • BarrakkethBarrakketh Registered User regular
    Phant wrote: »
    10-20-Life

    Draw a gun, 10 years, use a gun 20 years, shoot someone, life.

    That's the general Florida rule of thumb on gun crime.

    That is... the dumbest thing I've read today. The _best_ case scenario in a confrontation involving a gun is that when it is drawn the other party buggers off.
    Here's a really simple rule that you should know about CCW (carrying a concealed weapon):

    You do not, under any circumstances, draw your gun unless you intend to shoot to kill. Period. This should be covered in every course you would be required to take before being issued your concealed carry license.
    It might be kill someone, life. I can't remember exactly.
    Injure or kill someone, and it is 25-Life. Only the prosecutor can waive the mandatory minimum sentences.

    Rollers are red, chargers are blue....omae wa mou shindeiru
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Is Florida one of those states where threatening deadly force has the same standard as actually using it? I know that in Texas, IIRC, you can threaten deadly force at a lower standard than if you actually use it. It's an issue, because you run into situations where, theoretically, showing a gun or firing a warning shot (like into the ceiling) can actually be used against you as evidence that you weren't justified in doing so.

    Because logically, if you didn't actually fire the gun at your attacker then it implies you didn't feel threatened enough to justify threatening the deadly force, if the standards for threatening and using are the same.

    Basically, if you weren't scared enough to actually shoot the person then your own actions suggest that you weren't justified.


    EDIT: If I didn't make it clear, I believe most states are not like Texas. The threat of deadly force is basically the same as the use of deadly force.

    At any rate, the case demonstrates that SYG isn't a blank check to get away with anything - even in LOLFLORIDA. That, and Corey has experience in beating SYG defenses.

  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    In other news, the judge assigned to the Zimmerman trial is removing herself.
    Zimmerman judge to step down from Trayvon Martin case

    The Seminole County Court said Circuit Judge Jessica Recksiedler would decide whether to recuse, or disqualify, herself from the case by Friday, due to a potential conflict of interest. But courthouse workers told the Orlando (Fla.) Sentinel Recksiedler would surrender control of the case Wednesday.

    Mark O'Mara, the lawyer for the defendant, George Zimmerman, filed paperwork Monday asking Recksiedler, who became a judge last year, to step down from the case. Recksiedler's husband is an Orlando-area lawyer under contract with CNN to provide on-air legal analysis of the case and was originally approached to represent Zimmerman.
    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/04/18/Zimmerman-judge-to-step-down-from-Trayvon-Martin-case/UPI-36831334736000/

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    BubbaT wrote: »
    In other news, the judge assigned to the Zimmerman trial is removing herself.
    Zimmerman judge to step down from Trayvon Martin case

    The Seminole County Court said Circuit Judge Jessica Recksiedler would decide whether to recuse, or disqualify, herself from the case by Friday, due to a potential conflict of interest. But courthouse workers told the Orlando (Fla.) Sentinel Recksiedler would surrender control of the case Wednesday.

    Mark O'Mara, the lawyer for the defendant, George Zimmerman, filed paperwork Monday asking Recksiedler, who became a judge last year, to step down from the case. Recksiedler's husband is an Orlando-area lawyer under contract with CNN to provide on-air legal analysis of the case and was originally approached to represent Zimmerman.
    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/04/18/Zimmerman-judge-to-step-down-from-Trayvon-Martin-case/UPI-36831334736000/

    Yeah, the judge revealed a potential conflict of interest and Zimmerman requested she be replaced. Fairly standard incident.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • RozRoz Boss of InternetRegistered User regular
    BubbaT wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Is Florida one of those states where threatening deadly force has the same standard as actually using it? I know that in Texas, IIRC, you can threaten deadly force at a lower standard than if you actually use it. It's an issue, because you run into situations where, theoretically, showing a gun or firing a warning shot (like into the ceiling) can actually be used against you as evidence that you weren't justified in doing so.

    Because logically, if you didn't actually fire the gun at your attacker then it implies you didn't feel threatened enough to justify threatening the deadly force, if the standards for threatening and using are the same.

    Basically, if you weren't scared enough to actually shoot the person then your own actions suggest that you weren't justified.


    EDIT: If I didn't make it clear, I believe most states are not like Texas. The threat of deadly force is basically the same as the use of deadly force.

    At any rate, the case demonstrates that SYG isn't a blank check to get away with anything - even in LOLFLORIDA. That, and Corey has experience in beating SYG defenses.

    ...where the other party is still alive.

  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Roz wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Is Florida one of those states where threatening deadly force has the same standard as actually using it? I know that in Texas, IIRC, you can threaten deadly force at a lower standard than if you actually use it. It's an issue, because you run into situations where, theoretically, showing a gun or firing a warning shot (like into the ceiling) can actually be used against you as evidence that you weren't justified in doing so.

    Because logically, if you didn't actually fire the gun at your attacker then it implies you didn't feel threatened enough to justify threatening the deadly force, if the standards for threatening and using are the same.

    Basically, if you weren't scared enough to actually shoot the person then your own actions suggest that you weren't justified.


    EDIT: If I didn't make it clear, I believe most states are not like Texas. The threat of deadly force is basically the same as the use of deadly force.

    At any rate, the case demonstrates that SYG isn't a blank check to get away with anything - even in LOLFLORIDA. That, and Corey has experience in beating SYG defenses.

    ...where the other party is still alive.

    Martin being alive would only hurt Zimmerman if Martin's testimony contradicted Zimmerman's. If Martin's testimony were to align with Zimmerman's then it would help Zimmerman instead.

    The latter is what happened in the Marissa Alexander case. The "other party" - ie, the victim - is identified as a Mr. Gray. And he pretty much corroborated the defendant's (Marissa Alexander) entire story. Here's Gray's sworn deposition:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/89762872/Marissa-Alexander-Alleged-Victim-Disposition

    Highlights:

    - Gray confessed to beating Alexander on multiple occassions, including one instance that required Alexander to be hospitalized.
    Page 10 wrote:
    Gray: And the third incident we was staying together and I pusher her back and she fell in the bathtub and hit her head.
    ...
    I heard later that she was taken to the hospital.

    - Gray also had multiple arrests for beating other women.
    Q: Have you ever been arrested for domestic violence against any other woman other than Ms. Alexander?
    - Gray: Yes.
    Q: How many times?
    - Gray: I want to say, I think it was one, but it may have been two.

    - Gray beat Alexander on the night of the incident in question, and threatened to kill her.
    Page 20 wrote:
    Q: Did you ever push her into the bathroom door hard enough to crack the door?
    - Gray: Probably.
    and
    Page 17 wrote:
    Gray: I told her if I can't have her, ain't nobody going to have her.

    - Gray stated that he was advancing on Alexander when she fired.
    - Gray: I seen the gun.
    Q: At that time were you going toward her?
    - Gray: Yeah, I was going towards her.
    Q: Were you going toward her when she, as you described it, raised the gun and shot it in the air?
    - Gray: Yeah.

    - Gray also stated that if not for the presence of their children, he would have tried to take Alexander's weapon from her.
    - Gray: I believe it would have been worse than it would have if my kids hadn't have been there.
    Q: What do you mean it would have been worse?
    - Gray: ... if my kids weren't there, I knew I probably would have tried to take the gun from her, you know. I just don't know what would have happened. If my kids wouldn't have been there, I probably would have put my hand on her.

    - Gray stated that he had threatened to kill Alexander on prior occasions.
    - Gray: I used to always tell her that, if I can't have you, nobody going to have you. It was not the first time of ever saying it to her.
    ...
    Q: And correct me if I'm wrong, but the purpose of saying something like that was to let her know that... if she didn't do what you wanted her to do that you could have her hurt or something worse than that; is that correct?
    - Gray: That's correct.
    and
    Q: Did you ever tell her that if she ever cheated on you that you would kill her?
    - Gray: Yeah, I did.

    - Gray stated that he believed Alexander was acting in self-defense.
    Page 37 wrote:
    Q: Do you think Marissa was doing more than just trying to defend herself?
    ...
    - Gray: I mean, can you like say it a different way? I don't understand was she doing more than trying - was she doing more than - no. I mean because she knew the relationships I been in and I put my hand on her before. I honestly think she just didn't want me to put my hands on her anymore so she did what she feel like she have to do to make sure she wouldn't get hurt, you know. You know, she did what she had to do.


    And still Alexander's argument that she was acting in self-defense while in reasonable fear of death/grievous bodily harm, under SYG, was rejected. Heck, Alexander even tried to retreat first, through the garage, even though under SYG there is no "duty to retreat."

    BubbaT on
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    Then again, maybe I'm missing the most important part.

    Marissa Alexander is not a white male.

    download.jpg

  • CabezoneCabezone Registered User regular
    She also hasn't been convicted of anything.

  • AF-IXAF-IX (LGKAOS) Whiteman AFBRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I don't think you understand how guns or the people who use them work, though, since most of those people will be getting their gun safety lessons from television.

    I resent that statement, good sir.
    As a CCW permit holder, the training is quite serious and thorough. As "Barraketh" stated...you're taught to draw your weapon as an absolute last resort.

    The vast majority of CCW citizens are law-abiding folks that honestly pray they never find themselves in a situation where they'd have to resort to their gun.

    But as with anything, there are nuts out there that take it too far. Usually they're dressed in camo w/a confederate flag on them.

    AF-IX on
  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    I thought that Marissa Alexander had been convicted on 3 counts and is facing like a 20 year prison sentence?

    steam_sig.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Cabezone wrote: »
    She also hasn't been convicted of anything.

    ... His original post says she was?

    Seems she's awaiting sentencing now.

  • mindsporkmindspork Registered User regular
    https://showcase.duvalclerk.com/ViewCaseDetails.aspx?id=10193505&court=0

    She was found guilty of 3 counts of "1 S784.021(1)(A) AGGRAVATED ASSAULT - DEADLY WEAPON"

    Sentencing scheduled for 4/23/12.

  • mindsporkmindspork Registered User regular
    mindspork wrote: »
    https://showcase.duvalclerk.com/ViewCaseDetails.aspx?id=10193505&court=0

    She was found guilty of 3 counts of "1 S784.021(1)(A) AGGRAVATED ASSAULT - DEADLY WEAPON"

    Sentencing scheduled for 4/23/12.

    Oh, and she's been in jail since Feb 2011 when they revoked the $125,000 bond.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Seems SYG isn't foolproof after all. It's possible it was just 'cism, but I'd think it's more likely what I was getting at earlier. Using a gun to threaten somebody is deadly force, and if you didn't feel threatened enough to actually shoot them you likely weren't justified. I'd have to dig in sometime when I have the time to see what the prosecutor was arguing.

This discussion has been closed.