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

19798100102103147

Posts

  • balerbowerbalerbower Registered User regular
    yep.

    just as those who believe in zimmerman's innocence are not a pack of white hood wearing racists, those who believe in zimmerman's guilt are not a lawless, bloodthirsty lynch mob calling for his head.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Tenek wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    No, asserting that we should ignore law because you think he's a guilty fuck is pretty close, though.

    ... what? Ignore the law? I think he's guilty, I don't think he doesn't deserve a fair trial. I'm also open to changing my mind about the "guilty" part depending on the outcome of said trial (please note that "convincing evidence of innocence" is more likely to produce that outcome than "insufficient evidence to convict".)

    That is exactly what I said, you think he's guilty and we should ignore law because you think so. You are making wild assumptions and want to throw a potentially, and allegedly, innocent man in jail.

    But I mean, I guess all those witches in the 1600-1800s deserved to get burned because they were super fucking guilty right? I bet you heard it from a guy of a guy who they cursed into sleeping with one of them too?

    bowen on
  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    No, asserting that we should ignore law because you think he's a guilty fuck is pretty close, though.

    ... what? Ignore the law? I think he's guilty, I don't think he doesn't deserve a fair trial. I'm also open to changing my mind about the "guilty" part depending on the outcome of said trial (please note that "convincing evidence of innocence" is more likely to produce that outcome than "insufficient evidence to convict".)

    That is exactly what I said, you think he's guilty and we should ignore law because you think so. You are making wild assumptions and want to throw a potentially, and allegedly, innocent man in jail.

    But I mean, I guess all those witches in the 1600-1800s deserved to get burned because they were super fucking guilty right? I bet you heard it from a guy of a guy who they cursed into sleeping with one of them too?

    I guess I'll have to submit it to the rest of you: Did I say we should ignore the law?

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    Pardon me I confused you with the 6 or so other people that were arguing similar points.

  • Jubal77Jubal77 Registered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    Looks like the website Zimmerman put up raised 204k dolla. The Prosc quickly asked to deny bond and increase it because bail amounts are so damn fair anyway. They are supposed to be set from family wealth which it was. But I guess getting donations to help pay for legal fees that could go into the millions is just a horrible injustice.

    Is it still set from family wealth after said wealth has gone up by $200k?

    He doesnt have access to the money.


    The earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it.
    Chief Joseph
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    valiance wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    We know, at least from the recording, that Martin had already tried to approach Zimmerman once. We have on the recording that Zimmerman lsot sight of Martin, and acknowledged dispatch's request to stop following him. We know from other 911 calls that Zimmerman has placed that he has stated that he does not want to approach anyone he suspects, and it seems that on this call he was behaving similarly. And we have his statement later, perhaps less reliable, that he was returning to his car and was confronted. We also have Martin's friend's testimony that Martin did not intend to ignore Zimmerman and return home, and that Martin spoke to Zimmerman first.

    Dispatch: Zimmerman, stop following Martin.
    Zimmerman: Ok.

    Martin's friend: Martin, if you think someone's following you, you need to run back to the house.
    Martin: No.

    Those two conversations right there are what lead me to suspect that Martin initiated the confrontation. But it certainly isn't 100% or even 75% convincing.

    It's not at all convincing to me. Martin's girlfriend's testimony indicates the complete opposite to me:
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-arrest-now-abc-reveals-crucial-phone/story?id=15959017

    where did you get that transcript?
    "He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run."

    Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.

    "Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn't answer the phone."


    I get from that that Martin felt cornered (or his girlfriend thought it sounded like he was cornered), and then Martin quite likely began the verbal confrontation.

    She also ignores the fact that Martin pushing Zimmerman would cause the headset to fall same as Zimmerman pushing Martin.

    This is also where I'll point out that even if Martin was "cornered," and that went to his feeling imminently threatened with physical harm, that this doesn't necessarily make Zimmerman's actions illegal. Not his actions before the altercation, and not his choice to use deadly force to defend himself during it. It's actually possible, legally, for both Martin and Zimmerman to be justified here. Making this a huge tragedy, but no crime. Which speaks to both the value of avoiding confrontation while carrying, and of avoiding physical violence with others unless absolutely necessary (whether or not Martin attacked Zimmerman, which we don't know, the lesson remains).

  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    Looks like the website Zimmerman put up raised 204k dolla. The Prosc quickly asked to deny bond and increase it because bail amounts are so damn fair anyway. They are supposed to be set from family wealth which it was. But I guess getting donations to help pay for legal fees that could go into the millions is just a horrible injustice.

    Is it still set from family wealth after said wealth has gone up by $200k?

    He doesnt have access to the money.

    If the money's for him then unless funds in excess of his legal costs are going to be sent back that's splitting hairs.. he'll get it eventually.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    Looks like the website Zimmerman put up raised 204k dolla. The Prosc quickly asked to deny bond and increase it because bail amounts are so damn fair anyway. They are supposed to be set from family wealth which it was. But I guess getting donations to help pay for legal fees that could go into the millions is just a horrible injustice.

    Is it still set from family wealth after said wealth has gone up by $200k?

    He doesnt have access to the money.

    If the money's for him then unless funds in excess of his legal costs are going to be sent back that's splitting hairs.. he'll get it eventually.

    Except that the purpose of bail is to ensure he shows for trial, not to drain him of net worth through the bond.

    If he were to flee the jurisdiction, wouldn't those funds wind up frozen?

    Besides which, would $200K in net worth be enough to alter the bail math anyway?

  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    Looks like the website Zimmerman put up raised 204k dolla. The Prosc quickly asked to deny bond and increase it because bail amounts are so damn fair anyway. They are supposed to be set from family wealth which it was. But I guess getting donations to help pay for legal fees that could go into the millions is just a horrible injustice.

    Is it still set from family wealth after said wealth has gone up by $200k?

    He doesnt have access to the money.

    If the money's for him then unless funds in excess of his legal costs are going to be sent back that's splitting hairs.. he'll get it eventually.

    Except that the purpose of bail is to ensure he shows for trial, not to drain him of net worth through the bond.

    If he were to flee the jurisdiction, wouldn't those funds wind up frozen?

    Besides which, would $200K in net worth be enough to alter the bail math anyway?

    Beats me. I'm just saying, if it's supposed to be based on wealth then it seems reasonable to have to take that into account.

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    This is also where I'll point out that even if Martin was "cornered," and that went to his feeling imminently threatened with physical harm, that this doesn't necessarily make Zimmerman's actions illegal. Not his actions before the altercation, and not his choice to use deadly force to defend himself during it. It's actually possible, legally, for both Martin and Zimmerman to be justified here. Making this a huge tragedy, but no crime. Which speaks to both the value of avoiding confrontation while carrying, and of avoiding physical violence with others unless absolutely necessary (whether or not Martin attacked Zimmerman, which we don't know, the lesson remains).

    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.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Jubal77Jubal77 Registered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    Looks like the website Zimmerman put up raised 204k dolla. The Prosc quickly asked to deny bond and increase it because bail amounts are so damn fair anyway. They are supposed to be set from family wealth which it was. But I guess getting donations to help pay for legal fees that could go into the millions is just a horrible injustice.

    Is it still set from family wealth after said wealth has gone up by $200k?

    He doesnt have access to the money.

    If the money's for him then unless funds in excess of his legal costs are going to be sent back that's splitting hairs.. he'll get it eventually.

    No his lawyer will. Its setup as a trust fun administered by his lawyer.


    The earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it.
    Chief Joseph
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    The point is that losing other people's money is not a deterant to him choosing to flee.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Jubal77Jubal77 Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    The point is that losing other people's money is not a deterant to him choosing to flee.

    Bail is not a deterrent for people choosing to flee.


    The earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it.
    Chief Joseph
  • Shado redShado red Registered User
    Tenek wrote: »
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    Looks like the website Zimmerman put up raised 204k dolla. The Prosc quickly asked to deny bond and increase it because bail amounts are so damn fair anyway. They are supposed to be set from family wealth which it was. But I guess getting donations to help pay for legal fees that could go into the millions is just a horrible injustice.

    Is it still set from family wealth after said wealth has gone up by $200k?

    Family wealth plays a part in setting the bond amount, but it isn't the only deciding factor. I don't think that the bond amount can later be adjusted just because the defendant became wealth after it was initially set. Realistically he only needs to come up with 10% of the bond amount anyway.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    This is also where I'll point out that even if Martin was "cornered," and that went to his feeling imminently threatened with physical harm, that this doesn't necessarily make Zimmerman's actions illegal. Not his actions before the altercation, and not his choice to use deadly force to defend himself during it. It's actually possible, legally, for both Martin and Zimmerman to be justified here. Making this a huge tragedy, but no crime. Which speaks to both the value of avoiding confrontation while carrying, and of avoiding physical violence with others unless absolutely necessary (whether or not Martin attacked Zimmerman, which we don't know, the lesson remains).

    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.

    A situation in which both parties were justified in a use of force is going to be fairly uncommon.

    However, any time you allow for reasonable protections for self defense this is a thing that can happen, since self-defense is based on the reasonable perception of the person initiating the use of force for self-defense. Not necessarily the intent of the perceived aggressor. So it's always going to be possible for some misunderstanding to lead to a perception of imminent harm even when no criminal intent exists on the part of the perceived aggressor, at which point that perceived aggressor will also be able to use force in self-defense.

    That this can lead to the death of one or the other is a result of the fact that we cannot, logically, require either party to actually be dead before allowing them to use deadly force in self-defense...as covered a page or two ago.

    Even outside the many states where there is no duty to retreat (not just Florida, as covered repeatedly) this could still happen if either party (or more to the point both parties) had a reasonable perception that retreat wasn't safely possible.


    Also, at what point have we "legalized a shoot out at the OK corral?" I'm not seeing that here, or anywhere else in Florida. We did have that one use of self-defense laws in the gang shootout, but that was "legal" only in that the person who initiated the unlawful use of deadly force was, themselves, killed. Had that party survived, they could absolutely have been tried.

    mcdermott on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    The first account I read of his friend's statement did not include the "walk fast" part. It just said that she told him to run and he said he wasn't going to.

    Like I said, I go back and forth as to who I think likely started the fight, and it is very plausible that Zimmerman cornerned him in an attempt to hold him until police arrived. I'm hopeful that there's enough brought up in the trial to clarify things beyond just what Zimmerman claims happened.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    The point is that losing other people's money is not a deterant to him choosing to flee.

    At the same time, $200K is hardly "live out your days comfortably in a non-extradition country" money.

    I'd think that the means to effectively flee, such as connections in foreign countries or extensive criminal connections, would be a larger factor than a couple hundred thousand dollars of net worth.

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    However, any time you allow for reasonable protections for self defense this is a thing that can happen, since self-defense is based on the reasonable perception of the person initiating the use of force for self-defense. Not necessarily the intent of the perceived aggressor.

    If you choose to define it that way, which suggests that that is a stupid way to define it. If you shoot an innocent person you should go to jail. If you really feel threatened enough to take someone's life, you should feel threatened enough to take that risk if it turns out you were wrong.
    Also, at what point have we "legalized a shoot out at the OK corral?"

    The point where two people can have a shoot out without either doing something illegal.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    However, any time you allow for reasonable protections for self defense this is a thing that can happen, since self-defense is based on the reasonable perception of the person initiating the use of force for self-defense. Not necessarily the intent of the perceived aggressor.

    If you choose to define it that way, which suggests that that is a stupid way to define it. If you shoot an innocent person you should go to jail. If you really feel threatened enough to take someone's life, you should feel threatened enough to take that risk if it turns out you were wrong.

    Well obviously we fundamentally disagree. I'm fine with that.

    As I've covered in this thread and others, a person should be able to at least theoretically* know the legality of their own actions, from their own perspective alone (which is all they can have), at the time they are taking them. I think this is a requirement in any just criminal system.

    * - Given, say, the ability to pause time and consult the breadth of legal knowledge with perfect understanding before taking their action.

    Also, at what point have we "legalized a shoot out at the OK corral?"

    The point where two people can have a shoot out without either doing something illegal.

    See, and I on the other hand realize how ridiculously improbable this is (no examples shown as of yet but feel free to provide one) and thus I don't necessarily worry about the theoretical possibility.

    If your argument boils down to "but what if <extremely improbable scenario> and then <unlikely responses> and then <other remote possibility> so <outcome that will probably never happen> would totally not be illegal!" then honestly I don't care.

    Like, I'm having a pretty tough time even concocting a scenario that would lead to your "legal shoot out" in the real world. Hence the above. I can come up with scenarios in which either or both party do commit criminal acts (including unjustified uses of force in self-defense) that would lead to it...but then that wouldn't be a "legal shoot out," now would it? Those crimes may be hard to prove, of course (as in this case, assuming Zimmerman's actions were criminal). But that a crime is difficult to prosecute makes it no less criminal.

    mcdermott on
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, at what point have we "legalized a shoot out at the OK corral?"

    The point where two people can have a shoot out without either doing something illegal.

    See, and I on the other hand realize how ridiculously improbable this is (no examples shown as of yet but feel free to provide one) and thus I don't necessarily worry about the theoretical possibility.

    If your argument boils down to "but what if <extremely improbable scenario> and then <unlikely responses> and then <other remote possibility> so <outcome that will probably never happen> would totally not be illegal!" then honestly I don't care.

    Like, I'm having a pretty tough time even concocting a scenario that would lead to your "legal shoot out" in the real world. Hence the above. I can come up with scenarios in which either or both party do commit criminal acts that (including unjustified uses of force in self-defense) that would lead to it...but then that wouldn't be a "legal shoot out," now would it? Those crimes may be hard to prove, of course (as in this case, assuming Zimmerman's actions were criminal). But that a crime is difficult to prosecute makes it no less criminal.

    If Zimmerman's actions are not criminal, then this example is already proof enough, even though Martin didn't happen to have a gun on his end.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, at what point have we "legalized a shoot out at the OK corral?"

    The point where two people can have a shoot out without either doing something illegal.

    See, and I on the other hand realize how ridiculously improbable this is (no examples shown as of yet but feel free to provide one) and thus I don't necessarily worry about the theoretical possibility.

    If your argument boils down to "but what if <extremely improbable scenario> and then <unlikely responses> and then <other remote possibility> so <outcome that will probably never happen> would totally not be illegal!" then honestly I don't care.

    Like, I'm having a pretty tough time even concocting a scenario that would lead to your "legal shoot out" in the real world. Hence the above. I can come up with scenarios in which either or both party do commit criminal acts that (including unjustified uses of force in self-defense) that would lead to it...but then that wouldn't be a "legal shoot out," now would it? Those crimes may be hard to prove, of course (as in this case, assuming Zimmerman's actions were criminal). But that a crime is difficult to prosecute makes it no less criminal.

    If Zimmerman's actions are not criminal, then this example is already proof enough, even though Martin didn't happen to have a gun on his end.

    Whatevs. But that is not this:

    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.

    mcdermott on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I am, however, still quite interested how you find the idea of a belligerent teenager to be so fantastical as to warrant dismissal as a possibility.

    mcdermott on
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I am, however, still quite interested how you find the idea of a belligerent teenager to be so fantastical as to warrant dismissal as a possibility.

    The idea that Martin's response to being stalked and losing his pursuer was to turn around, track him down, and jump him without preamble is so alien to my thought process that I cannot place myself in Martin's narrative frame of reference and construe a scenario were these are the actions of a sane person, and AFAIK we have no reason to think Martin was insane.

    A scenario were Martin yells at Zimmerman about following him, and then Zimmerman backs off, but instead of going on his way Martin again hunts Zimmerman down is equally fantastical to me.
    mcdermott wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, at what point have we "legalized a shoot out at the OK corral?"

    The point where two people can have a shoot out without either doing something illegal.

    See, and I on the other hand realize how ridiculously improbable this is (no examples shown as of yet but feel free to provide one) and thus I don't necessarily worry about the theoretical possibility.

    If your argument boils down to "but what if <extremely improbable scenario> and then <unlikely responses> and then <other remote possibility> so <outcome that will probably never happen> would totally not be illegal!" then honestly I don't care.

    Like, I'm having a pretty tough time even concocting a scenario that would lead to your "legal shoot out" in the real world. Hence the above. I can come up with scenarios in which either or both party do commit criminal acts that (including unjustified uses of force in self-defense) that would lead to it...but then that wouldn't be a "legal shoot out," now would it? Those crimes may be hard to prove, of course (as in this case, assuming Zimmerman's actions were criminal). But that a crime is difficult to prosecute makes it no less criminal.

    If Zimmerman's actions are not criminal, then this example is already proof enough, even though Martin didn't happen to have a gun on his end.

    Whatevs. But that is not this:

    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.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I am, however, still quite interested how you find the idea of a belligerent teenager to be so fantastical as to warrant dismissal as a possibility.

    The idea that Martin's response to being stalked and losing his pursuer was to turn around, track him down, and jump him without preamble is so alien to my thought process that I cannot place myself in Martin's narrative frame of reference and construe a scenario were these are the actions of a sane person, and AFAIK we have no reason to think Martin was insane.

    A scenario were Martin yells at Zimmerman about following him, and then Zimmerman backs off, but instead of going on his way Martin again hunts Zimmerman down is equally fantastical to me.

    Well, ignoring the fact that in the second scenario Zimmerman has no legal obligation to back off, I still don't find that to be at all fantastical.

    You seriously can't imagine a teenager that would jump somebody for pissing them off? That's, like, a thing that happens. Hell, I hung out with some kids back in high school who were the type to do precisely that.

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    He doesnt have access to the money.

    What, did he put it in a time-lock safe?

    The issue is that he collected $200K worth of legal-defense fund and didn't tell the court. (I suspect, reading between the lines, that he didn't tell his current lawyer either.) There's nothing wrong with a legal defense fund, but it's just fucking stupid to lie to a judge about it.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Shado redShado red Registered User
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I am, however, still quite interested how you find the idea of a belligerent teenager to be so fantastical as to warrant dismissal as a possibility.

    The idea that Martin's response to being stalked and losing his pursuer was to turn around, track him down, and jump him without preamble is so alien to my thought process that I cannot place myself in Martin's narrative frame of reference and construe a scenario were these are the actions of a sane person, and AFAIK we have no reason to think Martin was insane.

    A scenario were Martin yells at Zimmerman about following him, and then Zimmerman backs off, but instead of going on his way Martin again hunts Zimmerman down is equally fantastical to me.
    mcdermott wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, at what point have we "legalized a shoot out at the OK corral?"

    The point where two people can have a shoot out without either doing something illegal.

    See, and I on the other hand realize how ridiculously improbable this is (no examples shown as of yet but feel free to provide one) and thus I don't necessarily worry about the theoretical possibility.

    If your argument boils down to "but what if <extremely improbable scenario> and then <unlikely responses> and then <other remote possibility> so <outcome that will probably never happen> would totally not be illegal!" then honestly I don't care.

    Like, I'm having a pretty tough time even concocting a scenario that would lead to your "legal shoot out" in the real world. Hence the above. I can come up with scenarios in which either or both party do commit criminal acts that (including unjustified uses of force in self-defense) that would lead to it...but then that wouldn't be a "legal shoot out," now would it? Those crimes may be hard to prove, of course (as in this case, assuming Zimmerman's actions were criminal). But that a crime is difficult to prosecute makes it no less criminal.

    If Zimmerman's actions are not criminal, then this example is already proof enough, even though Martin didn't happen to have a gun on his end.

    Whatevs. But that is not this:

    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.

    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.

  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    The point is that losing other people's money is not a deterant to him choosing to flee.

    At the same time, $200K is hardly "live out your days comfortably in a non-extradition country" money.

    Depends very heavily on the country, incidentally. Just as an example, Burma denies that they have a valid extradition treaty with the U.S., and it would take the average man in Burma about 150 years to make $200,000. I wouldn't exactly call it a luxurious lifestyle -- nobody emigrate to Burma or anything -- but $200K will go a lot further there than it will here.

    I agree with you, though, that having the money is an ancillary factor when one considers that he probably doesn't know how to get out of this country and into another without a passport, and he also probably doesn't know how to transfer the money into a foreign bank without the Feds immediately flagging the wire order and seizing the funds.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    SammyF wrote: »
    Depends very heavily on the country, incidentally. Just as an example, Burma denies that they have a valid extradition treaty with the U.S., and it would take the average man in Burma about 150 years to make $200,000. I wouldn't exactly call it a luxurious lifestyle -- nobody emigrate to Burma or anything -- but $200K will go a lot further there than it will here.

    I agree with you, though, that having the money is an ancillary factor when one considers that he probably doesn't know how to get out of this country and into another without a passport, and he also probably doesn't know how to transfer the money into a foreign bank without the Feds immediately flagging the wire order and seizing the funds.

    Yeah, that's all I'm saying. Bail is supposed to be set to mitigate the flight risk. This $200K doesn't really have any effect on the flight risk.

    And while lying to the court regarding your wealth is indeed a terrible idea, I could almost see this being an honest mistake. Maybe. Like, mentally he almost certainly has zeroed this out a far as his personal wealth goes, since that money collected is almost certainly going to be offset by anticipated attorney's fees and the other costs of his defense.

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    SammyF wrote: »
    Depends very heavily on the country, incidentally. Just as an example, Burma denies that they have a valid extradition treaty with the U.S., and it would take the average man in Burma about 150 years to make $200,000. I wouldn't exactly call it a luxurious lifestyle -- nobody emigrate to Burma or anything -- but $200K will go a lot further there than it will here.

    I agree with you, though, that having the money is an ancillary factor when one considers that he probably doesn't know how to get out of this country and into another without a passport, and he also probably doesn't know how to transfer the money into a foreign bank without the Feds immediately flagging the wire order and seizing the funds.

    If it's not enough money to run with, then why bother to hide it from the court?

    My edumacated guess is that Zimmerman's family didn't bother to tell his new lawyer (who is about three thousand percent better at this than the previous two), his lawyer gave the court the information he had, and then later on when he's explaining to them that they need to shut down their website, somebody says "But we've already collected $200K in donations!"

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2012
    4 people die every year getting change out of vending machines.

    Clearly, the solution is to start shooting the vending machines.


    OK, I am kidding. I know full well that hand to hand combat can be deadly, and if you are a real martial artist it is deadly more often than not.

    Not seeing a weapon is no guarantee that there isn't one, and considering how breakable the human body is that is no protection anyway.

    We come in peace, shoot to kill!

    Just_Bri_Thanks on
    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    SammyF wrote: »
    Depends very heavily on the country, incidentally. Just as an example, Burma denies that they have a valid extradition treaty with the U.S., and it would take the average man in Burma about 150 years to make $200,000. I wouldn't exactly call it a luxurious lifestyle -- nobody emigrate to Burma or anything -- but $200K will go a lot further there than it will here.

    I agree with you, though, that having the money is an ancillary factor when one considers that he probably doesn't know how to get out of this country and into another without a passport, and he also probably doesn't know how to transfer the money into a foreign bank without the Feds immediately flagging the wire order and seizing the funds.

    If it's not enough money to run with, then why bother to hide it from the court?

    My edumacated guess is that Zimmerman's family didn't bother to tell his new lawyer (who is about three thousand percent better at this than the previous two), his lawyer gave the court the information he had, and then later on when he's explaining to them that they need to shut down their website, somebody says "But we've already collected $200K in donations!"

    Oh it's definitely enough to run to some places, it's just that any place which won't extradite your ass back to the U.S. is also usually the sort of place where you can't pay for stuff with a personal check drafted on Bank of America. He would theoretically have to figure out how to get the money out of the U.S. first.

    In any case, I would be inclined to think this is much more likely to be a case of "holy shit I didn't realize how much money this site raised in just a week!" than a case of "I wonder if $200,000 in twenty-dollar-bills would weigh too much for me to be able to carry it through an airport in a dufflebag?"

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    Not seeing a weapon is no guarantee that there isn't one, and considering how breakable the human body is that is no protection anyway.

    So you are ALWAYS in reasonable fear of your life and can shoot an unarmed person with impunity, because they MIGHT have a gun or MIGHT be a martial arts master? Really?

    P.S.: It's not *that* easy to kill somebody with your bare hands, unless they're sitting there letting you do it.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I am, however, still quite interested how you find the idea of a belligerent teenager to be so fantastical as to warrant dismissal as a possibility.

    The idea that Martin's response to being stalked and losing his pursuer was to turn around, track him down, and jump him without preamble is so alien to my thought process that I cannot place myself in Martin's narrative frame of reference and construe a scenario were these are the actions of a sane person, and AFAIK we have no reason to think Martin was insane.

    A scenario were Martin yells at Zimmerman about following him, and then Zimmerman backs off, but instead of going on his way Martin again hunts Zimmerman down is equally fantastical to me.

    Well, ignoring the fact that in the second scenario Zimmerman has no legal obligation to back off, I still don't find that to be at all fantastical.

    You seriously can't imagine a teenager that would jump somebody for pissing them off? That's, like, a thing that happens. Hell, I hung out with some kids back in high school who were the type to do precisely that.

    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.
    Shado red wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I am, however, still quite interested how you find the idea of a belligerent teenager to be so fantastical as to warrant dismissal as a possibility.

    The idea that Martin's response to being stalked and losing his pursuer was to turn around, track him down, and jump him without preamble is so alien to my thought process that I cannot place myself in Martin's narrative frame of reference and construe a scenario were these are the actions of a sane person, and AFAIK we have no reason to think Martin was insane.

    A scenario were Martin yells at Zimmerman about following him, and then Zimmerman backs off, but instead of going on his way Martin again hunts Zimmerman down is equally fantastical to me.
    mcdermott wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, at what point have we "legalized a shoot out at the OK corral?"

    The point where two people can have a shoot out without either doing something illegal.

    See, and I on the other hand realize how ridiculously improbable this is (no examples shown as of yet but feel free to provide one) and thus I don't necessarily worry about the theoretical possibility.

    If your argument boils down to "but what if <extremely improbable scenario> and then <unlikely responses> and then <other remote possibility> so <outcome that will probably never happen> would totally not be illegal!" then honestly I don't care.

    Like, I'm having a pretty tough time even concocting a scenario that would lead to your "legal shoot out" in the real world. Hence the above. I can come up with scenarios in which either or both party do commit criminal acts that (including unjustified uses of force in self-defense) that would lead to it...but then that wouldn't be a "legal shoot out," now would it? Those crimes may be hard to prove, of course (as in this case, assuming Zimmerman's actions were criminal). But that a crime is difficult to prosecute makes it no less criminal.

    If Zimmerman's actions are not criminal, then this example is already proof enough, even though Martin didn't happen to have a gun on his end.

    Whatevs. But that is not this:

    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.

    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 racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Shado redShado red Registered User
    mythago wrote: »
    Not seeing a weapon is no guarantee that there isn't one, and considering how breakable the human body is that is no protection anyway.

    So you are ALWAYS in reasonable fear of your life and can shoot an unarmed person with impunity, because they MIGHT have a gun or MIGHT be a martial arts master? Really?

    P.S.: It's not *that* easy to kill somebody with your bare hands, unless they're sitting there letting you do it.

    If you are in a fight you can reasonably fear that your life may be in danger. The exact circumstances of the fight have to be considered of course. Looking at this one as an example (at least what might have happened) getting your head repeatedly slammed on the ground hard enough to bleed seems to fall well into the reasonable fear of death, or serious bodily harm. Having brain damage counts as serious bodily harm.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I guess we may as well just start sewing fucking Voo Doo dolls and consulting Astrological charts to figure things out, since apparently science is just so damn shitty.

    Also, hyperbole FTW.

    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.


    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
    Who's demanding you prove a negative?

    People are hoping the truth is figured out.

    You, for some reason, are hoping he's guilty and that it is also proved and if not that he is punished anyway because screw rights or something.

    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.

    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.

    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.
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2012
    mythago wrote: »
    Not seeing a weapon is no guarantee that there isn't one, and considering how breakable the human body is that is no protection anyway.

    So you are ALWAYS in reasonable fear of your life and can shoot an unarmed person with impunity, because they MIGHT have a gun or MIGHT be a martial arts master? Really?

    P.S.: It's not *that* easy to kill somebody with your bare hands, unless they're sitting there letting you do it.

    Me personally? No. I don't carry a gun and consider extracting myself a sufficient response.

    That being said, I have had my ass kicked badly before, requiring a hospital visit.

    The guy did time for it.

    Edit: I believe if I have fairly consistent on these boards in that I am unwilling to attach an absolute response to anything. There is always nuance. If you feel that anything I say is 100% inflexible then you are misunderstanding me.

    Just_Bri_Thanks on
    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    Shado red wrote: »
    If you are in a fight you can reasonably fear that your life may be in danger. The exact circumstances of the fight have to be considered of course.

    The second sentence makes the first meaningless.

    If your first sentence were true, then the law would never ask whether the person claiming self defense "reasonably" believed they were in fear of great bodily harm or death, and therefore that deadly force is OK. It would assume if you were in a fight, that alone is enough to say your fear was reasonable. Do you understand that there are very good reasons we don't, as a matter of law, make that assumption and require a reasonable belief?

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Shado redShado red Registered User
    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.

    I am assuming that Martin's autopsy shows that he didn't receive wounds from the fight (other than the gun shot). This would show that he is the primary aggressor, and unlikely to be calling for help.

    I can come up with scenarios where Martin didn't receive wounds, but did call for help. They just fall into the "unlikely" realm.

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    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.[/quote]

    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.


    mythago wrote: »
    SammyF wrote: »
    Depends very heavily on the country, incidentally. Just as an example, Burma denies that they have a valid extradition treaty with the U.S., and it would take the average man in Burma about 150 years to make $200,000. I wouldn't exactly call it a luxurious lifestyle -- nobody emigrate to Burma or anything -- but $200K will go a lot further there than it will here.

    I agree with you, though, that having the money is an ancillary factor when one considers that he probably doesn't know how to get out of this country and into another without a passport, and he also probably doesn't know how to transfer the money into a foreign bank without the Feds immediately flagging the wire order and seizing the funds.

    If it's not enough money to run with, then why bother to hide it from the court?

    My edumacated guess is that Zimmerman's family didn't bother to tell his new lawyer (who is about three thousand percent better at this than the previous two), his lawyer gave the court the information he had, and then later on when he's explaining to them that they need to shut down their website, somebody says "But we've already collected $200K in donations!"

    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.

    camo_sig2.png
This discussion has been closed.