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

[Trayvon Martin]'s Violent Attack on George Zimmerman

199100102104105147

Posts

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    I feel bad for John McNeil, too. I think he should have been left alone.

  • gjaustingjaustin Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    gjaustin wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    It is typical for the prosecutor to go for a greater charge than they can likely achieve. It makes plea bargaining easier, and I'm pretty sure that FL works like a lot of places - when the jury goes into deliberation, if they agree "not guilty" on murder II, then that instantaneously results in a charge of manslaughter that they must then deliberate on, based on the same trial procedings.

    When I was on a jury, some of the charges before us worked that way. The judge explained that for some of the charges, if we found not guilty, before even turning in our verdict we must also then deliberate and agree guilty/not-guilty regarding a specific lesser charge for the same offense.

    There are of course a ton of practical reasons for this, but IMO one of the big problems with it is that it allows for the appearance of a compromise option. If there is any significant disagreement about the greater charge, human nature tends towards an offer of "ok how about not guilty on the greater, guilty on the lesser?" despite the fact that perhaps everyone on the room actually feels like it is either guilty on the greater or not guilty on all, and they ought to be deliberating instead of compromising.

    Then they might as well charge him with Murder 1, some hate crimes, and jaywalking while they're at it.

    I happen to think that he's very likely guilty of manslaughter. But I've seen absolutely zero evidence that even remotely suggests that murder is an appropriate charge. This is what is making me seriously reconsider that he's even guilty of anything at all.

    Lesser included offenses are a thing. It allows jurys to convict defendants of lesser crimes that are included in the nature of the charged offense. So if someone ran across the street illegally and then murdered someone and was charged with Murder I, the jury could find him guilty of Murder II but not jaywalking since jaywalking isnt an element of Murder I. In this case, since Zimmerman was charged with Murder II he can be found guilty of (I think) anything from Murder II to manslaughter/criminally negligent homicide, but I dont know Florida's homicide laws and Im too lazy to look them up so Im uncertain where the range of lesser included actually lays.


    As for charging everything in the book and then going to trial, it doesnt really work like that. They need to have some grounds to charge him with a crime and the closest they came to a hate crime was the ambiguous 911 call and even that probably wouldnt be enough to convict him (although it would probably be enough to charge him, but again IANAL so...).

    This is way old, but I was on vacation so let me clarify my point. I absolutely understand and agree with lesser included charges.

    What I'm objecting to is "greater included charges". Unless there's some evidence that isn't public knowledge yet, there's absolutely no way they're going to be able to convict him of Murder 2. So I'm accusing them of playing politics with the charges to try and satiate the (justifiable) outrage over how the case was originally handled.

    The point of my sarcasm is that if they're going to charge him with crimes purely for political reasons, they shouldn't half-ass it. They should just throw the book at him. The judge will throw most of it out, but then that isn't their problem is it?

    TLDR: Cynicism

    Your belief is not required
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    BubbaT wrote: »

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

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

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

    "Such laws" differ from state to state. Florida's SYG law is unusually broad. Most states' laws simply take the "no duty to retreat" and extend it outside the home. Florida's law goes well beyond that. Instead of raising self-defense at trial, a defendant can file a motion and only has to prove self-defense was more likely than not (that's the standard in a civil case, btw). If she loses the motion she can still raise self-defense at the criminal trial - two bites at the apple, and the first one is a very big bite indeed. The law is being so badly abused in Florida that there's now a statewide task force reviewing it.

    So, you know, as the facts are important, Florida's SYG law is not the same as those other states. Seems a little misplaced to say that because it doesn't cause problems in California it must work just fine in Florida.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • tuxkamentuxkamen Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Ha, yeah no bias at all.

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

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


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

    Informational note: According to the affadavit taken by Crump (?), she asked him to run and he said, "I'm not going to run, I'm just going to walk fast."

    tuxkamen on

    Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
    Spoiler:
    3DS: 2406-5451-5770
  • GaardeanGaardean Registered User regular
    tuxkamen wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Ha, yeah no bias at all.

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

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


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

    Informational note: According to the affadavit taken by Crump (?), she asked him to run and he said, "I'm not going to run, I'm just going to walk fast."

    At first, yes, but she said that shortly afterwards, he did agree to run. Zimmerman also says in the 911 call that Martin ran, so I don't think whether Martin ran or not is a major note of contention.

    Eventually, he would run, said the girl

    steam_sig.png
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    gjaustin wrote: »
    This is way old, but I was on vacation so let me clarify my point. I absolutely understand and agree with lesser included charges.

    What I'm objecting to is "greater included charges". Unless there's some evidence that isn't public knowledge yet, there's absolutely no way they're going to be able to convict him of Murder 2. So I'm accusing them of playing politics with the charges to try and satiate the (justifiable) outrage over how the case was originally handled.

    The point of my sarcasm is that if they're going to charge him with crimes purely for political reasons, they shouldn't half-ass it. They should just throw the book at him. The judge will throw most of it out, but then that isn't their problem is it?

    TLDR: Cynicism

    Hold on there, though... do you mean "no way" as in "practically speaking," or do you mean, "there's no way that evidence could support the idea that Zimmerman killed Martin with an unplanned but rational intent to murder?" Because a lot of people seem to believe, based on what they've heard, that Zimmerman did just that. I have no problem with a greater charge, even if "practically speaking" it isn't likely to succeed, so long as the prosecutor believes in good faith that the evidence could, with an ideal trial, support such a conviction. Which is in contrast to "throwing the book," where presumably a prosecutor just starts throwing charges out there that are extreme on their face. For example, I'd say that first degree murder is almost certainly not what happened here, and would seem disingenuous on its face. Second degree? It's possible. The evidence suggests it might be what happened.

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    Gaardean wrote: »
    At first, yes, but she said that shortly afterwards, he did agree to run. Zimmerman also says in the 911 call that Martin ran, so I don't think whether Martin ran or not is a major note of contention.

    Eventually, he would run, said the girl

    It's not clear from that, though, what happened. I mean, we've got Zimmerman on the phone with dispatch, saying Martin approached him, then ran off, and then Zimmerman agreeing not to follow Martin anymore, and we've got Martin's girlfriend on the phone with Martin, and later saying that he ran and that Zimmerman caught up with him. These two accounts don't exactly add up. Maybe Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin. Maybe Martin decided to confront Zimmerman. Maybe both.

  • valiancevaliance Registered User regular
    Anyone have any information on cases where a Black person has shot a white person under SYG and gotten away with it? Or vice versa?
    Is there some kind of precedent for suspecting SYG is racist, or is the race element solely from the Martin case?

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    Well, McNeil "got away with it" for more than a year, which so far is a lot better than Zimmerman did. But in the end that isn't a good example.

  • valiancevaliance Registered User regular
    Yar wrote: »
    Well, McNeil "got away with it" for more than a year, which so far is a lot better than Zimmerman did. But in the end that isn't a good example.

    No, not really. I suppose "got away with it" is an imprecise term, legally speaking, but I'm not a lawyer and I think we all know what it means. Anyone know? I have this suspicion that SYG is pretty racist, but really no grounds for it other than the Martin, McNeil and Alexander cases.

  • GaardeanGaardean Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Yar wrote: »
    Gaardean wrote: »
    At first, yes, but she said that shortly afterwards, he did agree to run. Zimmerman also says in the 911 call that Martin ran, so I don't think whether Martin ran or not is a major note of contention.

    Eventually, he would run, said the girl

    It's not clear from that, though, what happened. I mean, we've got Zimmerman on the phone with dispatch, saying Martin approached him, then ran off, and then Zimmerman agreeing not to follow Martin anymore, and we've got Martin's girlfriend on the phone with Martin, and later saying that he ran and that Zimmerman caught up with him. These two accounts don't exactly add up. Maybe Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin. Maybe Martin decided to confront Zimmerman. Maybe both.

    That part right there is kinda open to interpretation. The dispatcher only says "we don't need you to do that" (aka. cover our behind so we can't be sued if you follow them and get shot) and Zimmerman only acknowledges. From my understanding, (based on third hand information from a statement from Zimmerman's father) Zimmerman continued instead across the complex to a road sign so he could let the cops know where he was before heading back to his truck (Which seems somewhat reasonable, given that he repeats "I don't see him" two or three more times in the 911 call, even after the dispatcher's statement about not needing to follow Martin, which, to me, sounded like he was still moving/looking around) I can easily see a situation where Martin ran a looping path to lose Zimmerman instead of leading some guy to his parent's house (especially given that nobody was at home at the time but his younger brother) and the two just happened to meet again at some point, leading each to think they're being suddenly ambushed.

    Gaardean on
    steam_sig.png
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    valiance wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Well, McNeil "got away with it" for more than a year, which so far is a lot better than Zimmerman did. But in the end that isn't a good example.

    No, not really. I suppose "got away with it" is an imprecise term, legally speaking, but I'm not a lawyer and I think we all know what it means. Anyone know? I have this suspicion that SYG is pretty racist, but really no grounds for it other than the Martin, McNeil and Alexander cases.

    The entire criminal justice system is plagued with racial issues. So long as SYG is part of the CJ system, it can't escape those systemic issues.

  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    BubbaT wrote: »
    valiance wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Well, McNeil "got away with it" for more than a year, which so far is a lot better than Zimmerman did. But in the end that isn't a good example.

    No, not really. I suppose "got away with it" is an imprecise term, legally speaking, but I'm not a lawyer and I think we all know what it means. Anyone know? I have this suspicion that SYG is pretty racist, but really no grounds for it other than the Martin, McNeil and Alexander cases.

    The entire criminal justice system is plagued with racial issues. So long as SYG is part of the CJ system, it can't escape those systemic issues.

    This is not a good argument if you're trying to argue against SYG specifically.

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »

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

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

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

    "Such laws" differ from state to state. Florida's SYG law is unusually broad. Most states' laws simply take the "no duty to retreat" and extend it outside the home. Florida's law goes well beyond that. Instead of raising self-defense at trial, a defendant can file a motion and only has to prove self-defense was more likely than not (that's the standard in a civil case, btw). If she loses the motion she can still raise self-defense at the criminal trial - two bites at the apple, and the first one is a very big bite indeed. The law is being so badly abused in Florida that there's now a statewide task force reviewing it.

    I'm not saying there aren't issues with the law. The pretrial motion is a major point of contention, and definitely makes cases harder to prosecute. Whether that's good or not is up for debate.

    I don't know that the task force, in and of itself, is proof that the law is being abused. You might want to at least wait until the group makes an anti-SYG finding or recommendation before touting it as proof of SYG's flaws.

    Because that very task force you linked is already under attack for being too pro-SYG. It includes:
    - Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll (leader of the task force), who co-sponsored the SYG bill when she was in the Florida House in 2005.
    - State Rep. Dennis Baxley, author of the SYG bill in the Florida House.
    - State Sen. David Simmons, who voted for SYG in the Florida Senate.
    - State Sen. Gary Siplin, who voted for SYG in the Florida Senate.
    - State Rep. Jason Brodeur, who is a member of ALEC - a conservative group which promoted SYG laws throughout the country.


    Anyways, what I was saying was that SYG hasn't turned Florida into some giant playground for "serial killers".

    What kind of serial killer would even use SYG anyways? I've never heard of any serial killer whose MO was to get caught every time and try to beat the rap in court over and over by claiming self-defense.
    So, you know, as the facts are important, Florida's SYG law is not the same as those other states. Seems a little misplaced to say that because it doesn't cause problems in California it must work just fine in Florida.

    California's SYG law is actually broader than Florida's, I think. It allows the "defender" to pursue, rather than simply not retreat. And it retains Florida's burden on the prosecution to disprove self-defense.
    A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/bodily injury/ <insert crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.

    The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another). If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of <insert crime(s) charged>.
    http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3470.html

  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    Daedalus wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    valiance wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Well, McNeil "got away with it" for more than a year, which so far is a lot better than Zimmerman did. But in the end that isn't a good example.

    No, not really. I suppose "got away with it" is an imprecise term, legally speaking, but I'm not a lawyer and I think we all know what it means. Anyone know? I have this suspicion that SYG is pretty racist, but really no grounds for it other than the Martin, McNeil and Alexander cases.

    The entire criminal justice system is plagued with racial issues. So long as SYG is part of the CJ system, it can't escape those systemic issues.

    This is not a good argument if you're trying to argue against SYG specifically.

    I'm not trying to argue against SYG specifically, at least from a racism angle. I'm just saying that racism so systematically pervades the criminal justice system in the US that it affects the enforcement of all laws, of which SYG is one.

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    BubbaT wrote: »
    I'm not saying there aren't issues with the law. The pretrial motion is a major point of contention, and definitely makes cases harder to prosecute. Whether that's good or not is up for debate.

    I don't know that the task force, in and of itself, is proof that the law is being abused. You might want to at least wait until the group makes an anti-SYG finding or recommendation before touting it as proof of SYG's flaws.

    Not only are you "not saying there aren't issues with the law", you argued that the law works in other states, therefore it's wrong to speculate that it causes problems in Florida. That argument ignores the very significant differences between the way virtually other state implements SYG and the way Florida does.

    That's why there is a task force. The state legislators who sponsored it are backpedaling because they thought it was only going to be used by law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves against criminal scum. Whether the task force is flawed or is going to whitewash it, is a different issue, but there was not a collective "Working as intended".

    BubbaT wrote: »
    Anyways, what I was saying was that SYG hasn't turned Florida into some giant playground for "serial killers".

    Sure. But it creates an out for *anyone* accused of homicide, and as numerous articles people have linked to about SYG discuss, everyone from gangbangers to people who commit the ultimate act of domestic violence are suddenly remembering they were in fear of their life.
    BubbaT wrote: »
    California's SYG law is actually broader than Florida's, I think. It allows the "defender" to pursue, rather than simply not retreat. And it retains Florida's burden on the prosecution to disprove self-defense.
    A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/bodily injury/ <insert crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.

    The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another). If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of <insert crime(s) charged>.
    http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3470.html

    California's law is NOT broader than Florida's. It doesn't provide civil immunity, and it doesn't allow the defendant - before any trial - to make a motion with a showing on "preponderance of the evidence" (that is, more likely than not), and get an easy shot at a self-defense claim before getting to make it all over again at trial. California doesn't allow pursuit, period; it allows pursuit IF reasonably necessary in order to defend oneself from the danger. (So, let's say I attack you with the obvious intent to kill, you fire at me, and I run around a corner to pick up a gun we both know is lying there. You have the right to pursue me to stop me from picking up that gun and killing you. You don't have the right to hunt me down if there's no further danger.) I don't see that Florida actually prohibits pursuit.

    ETA: and I agree with you on racism and the criminal justice system.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    All this pedantry is getting annoying. It's so obvious what happened.

    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    All this pedantry is getting annoying. It's so obvious what happened.

    Why don't you explain it :rotate:

  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    bowen wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    All this pedantry is getting annoying. It's so obvious what happened.

    Why don't you explain it :rotate:

    Oh no! I'm not falling for that trap! Let's just say people are angry at Zimmerman for a reason.

    I understand we all need to stay objectionable on this, but in an effort to do this, some of us are just starting to sound silly.

    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Let's just say people are angry at Zimmerman for a reason.

    I used to think that reason was a gun owner panicked and killed an unarmed teen. But then, if that were the real reason, the public would be angry about that man who shot who the unarmed mentally handicapped man who was walking his dog.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/29/us/stand-your-ground/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Let's just say people are angry at Zimmerman for a reason.

    I used to think that reason was a gun owner panicked and killed an unarmed teen. But then, if that were the real reason, the public would be angry about that man who shot who the unarmed mentally handicapped man who was walking his dog.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/29/us/stand-your-ground/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

    If I were certain people on this forum and in youtube comments I would have to "be objective" about that case too. Who knows maybe that guy thought the mentally handicapped guy was totally going to jump in his car and murder him and his wife at the same time. I mean you NEVER know right? Right?

    He told police he had no choice but to shoot. He said he couldn't drive away from Adkins because the dog was in the way and he "thought he had no other options,"

    I... That's it I'm done. This world sometimes.

    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Oh no! I'm not falling for that trap! Let's just say people are angry at Zimmerman for a reason.

    I understand we all need to stay objectionable on this, but in an effort to do this, some of us are just starting to sound silly.

    Many a people see logic as silly, that does not make it so.

    If it directly counters your world view, be it as it may, that doesn't make it any less topical, applicable, or right.

    You might say, "White guy shoots a black guy, racism!"

    And I might say, "Black guy jumped the white guy, assault!"

    Which one is right? Who knows, that's what evidence and logic are for. And "people" can be angry about a great many thing. Lest you think the Salem Witch Trials, or the Red Scare in recent history are good indicators that people are always right, or moral.

    bowen on
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    All this pedantry is getting annoying. It's so obvious what happened.

    Why don't you explain it :rotate:

    Oh no! I'm not falling for that trap! Let's just say people are angry at Zimmerman for a reason.

    I understand we all need to stay objectionable on this, but in an effort to do this, some of us are just starting to sound silly.

    So why are you posting?

    PSN: allenquid
  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    edited May 2012
    bowen wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Oh no! I'm not falling for that trap! Let's just say people are angry at Zimmerman for a reason.

    I understand we all need to stay objectionable on this, but in an effort to do this, some of us are just starting to sound silly.

    Many a people see logic as silly, that does not make it so.

    If it directly counters your world view, be it as it may, that doesn't make it any less topical, applicable, or right.

    You might say, "White guy shoots a black guy, racism!"

    And I might say, "Black guy jumped the white guy, assault!"

    Which one is right? Who knows, that's what evidence and logic are for. And "people" can be angry about a great many thing. Lest you think the Salem Witch Trials, or the Red Scare in recent history are good indicators that people are always right, or moral.

    Why is it only racism or assault? I wouldn't say either. What I would say is Zimmerman was CLEARLY wrong in approaching that kid. His irresponsibility lead to Treyvon's death. If they somehow determine that Treyvon turned on him, so what? If a guy chases a lion around and then gets bitten are you gonna blame the lion? Seriously.

    Bhaalen on
    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    If a guy chases a lion around and then gets bitten are you gonna blame the lion? Seriously.

    o_O

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Why is it only racism or assault? I wouldn't say either. What I would say is Zimmerman was CLEARLY wrong in approaching that kid. His irresponsibility lead to Treyvon's death. If they somehow determine that Treyvon turned on him, so what? If a guy chases a lion around and then gets bitten are you gonna blame the lion? Seriously.

    Are you saying Martin is no smarter or in control of his actions than a lion?

    PSN: allenquid
  • Tiger BurningTiger Burning (poster is a bear)Registered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    All this pedantry is getting annoying. It's so obvious what happened.

    Why don't you explain it :rotate:

    Oh no! I'm not falling for that trap! Let's just say people are angry at Zimmerman for a reason.

    I understand we all need to stay objectionable on this, but in an effort to do this, some of us are just starting to sound silly.

    Bhaalen wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Oh no! I'm not falling for that trap! Let's just say people are angry at Zimmerman for a reason.

    I understand we all need to stay objectionable on this, but in an effort to do this, some of us are just starting to sound silly.

    Many a people see logic as silly, that does not make it so.

    If it directly counters your world view, be it as it may, that doesn't make it any less topical, applicable, or right.

    You might say, "White guy shoots a black guy, racism!"

    And I might say, "Black guy jumped the white guy, assault!"

    Which one is right? Who knows, that's what evidence and logic are for. And "people" can be angry about a great many thing. Lest you think the Salem Witch Trials, or the Red Scare in recent history are good indicators that people are always right, or moral.

    Why is it only racism or assault? I wouldn't say either. What I would say is Zimmerman was CLEARLY wrong in approaching that kid. His irresponsibility lead to Treyvon's death. If they somehow determine that Treyvon turned on him, so what? If a guy chases a lion around and then gets bitten are you gonna blame the lion? Seriously.

    Heh. I think you needn't have worried that people would think you weren't "objectionable".

    “You could tell by the way he talked, though, that he had gone to school a long time. That was probably what was wrong with him.”
  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    edited May 2012
    Are you saying Martin is no smarter or in control of his actions than a lion?

    Bad analogy is bad. I'm saying, so what if Treyvon turned on someone hounding him. Zimmerman shouldn't have been doing what he was doing. Plain and simple. If you think Zimmerman was in the right chasing Treyvon around then you need help.

    Bhaalen on
    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    edited May 2012
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    All this pedantry is getting annoying. It's so obvious what happened.

    Why don't you explain it :rotate:

    Oh no! I'm not falling for that trap! Let's just say people are angry at Zimmerman for a reason.

    I understand we all need to stay objectionable on this, but in an effort to do this, some of us are just starting to sound silly.

    Bhaalen wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Oh no! I'm not falling for that trap! Let's just say people are angry at Zimmerman for a reason.

    I understand we all need to stay objectionable on this, but in an effort to do this, some of us are just starting to sound silly.

    Many a people see logic as silly, that does not make it so.

    If it directly counters your world view, be it as it may, that doesn't make it any less topical, applicable, or right.

    You might say, "White guy shoots a black guy, racism!"

    And I might say, "Black guy jumped the white guy, assault!"

    Which one is right? Who knows, that's what evidence and logic are for. And "people" can be angry about a great many thing. Lest you think the Salem Witch Trials, or the Red Scare in recent history are good indicators that people are always right, or moral.

    Why is it only racism or assault? I wouldn't say either. What I would say is Zimmerman was CLEARLY wrong in approaching that kid. His irresponsibility lead to Treyvon's death. If they somehow determine that Treyvon turned on him, so what? If a guy chases a lion around and then gets bitten are you gonna blame the lion? Seriously.

    Heh. I think you needn't have worried that people would think you weren't "objectionable".

    People in this thread were starting to crap on each other over small bits of logic and objectionable arguments. It was starting to seem silly to me when it's kinda obvious who's in the wrong here. I know we can break this thing down with scientific levels of objectivity, but I think you guys are focusing your objectivity in the wrong place.

    Treyvon is dead. Really think about that for a second. What are the odds of dieing at 17? Pretty low in this country. The ONLY reason
    he died is Zimmerman shot him. Why was Zimmerman in the position to shoot Treyvon? Because he had a gun and was following him around when he shouldn't have been.

    Zimmerman was in the wrong here, and you all would have the guts to just say it, if it was one of your loved ones he killed by being a vigilante.

    Bhaalen on
    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    All this pedantry is getting annoying. It's so obvious what happened.

    Why don't you explain it :rotate:

    Oh no! I'm not falling for that trap! Let's just say people are angry at Zimmerman for a reason.

    I understand we all need to stay objectionable on this, but in an effort to do this, some of us are just starting to sound silly.

    Bhaalen wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Oh no! I'm not falling for that trap! Let's just say people are angry at Zimmerman for a reason.

    I understand we all need to stay objectionable on this, but in an effort to do this, some of us are just starting to sound silly.

    Many a people see logic as silly, that does not make it so.

    If it directly counters your world view, be it as it may, that doesn't make it any less topical, applicable, or right.

    You might say, "White guy shoots a black guy, racism!"

    And I might say, "Black guy jumped the white guy, assault!"

    Which one is right? Who knows, that's what evidence and logic are for. And "people" can be angry about a great many thing. Lest you think the Salem Witch Trials, or the Red Scare in recent history are good indicators that people are always right, or moral.

    Why is it only racism or assault? I wouldn't say either. What I would say is Zimmerman was CLEARLY wrong in approaching that kid. His irresponsibility lead to Treyvon's death. If they somehow determine that Treyvon turned on him, so what? If a guy chases a lion around and then gets bitten are you gonna blame the lion? Seriously.

    Heh. I think you needn't have worried that people would think you weren't "objectionable".

    People in this thread were starting to crap on each other over small bits of logic and objectionable arguments. It was starting to seem silly to me when it's kinda obvious who's in the wrong here. I know we can break this thing down with scientific levels of objectivity, but I think you guys are focusing your objectivity in the wrong place.

    Treyvon is dead. Really think about that for a second. What are the odds of dieing at 17? Pretty low in this country. The ONLY reason
    he died is Zimmerman shot him. Why was Zimmerman in the position to shoot Treyvon? Because he had a gun and was following him around when he shouldn't have been.

    Zimmerman was in the wrong here, and you all would have the guts to just say it, if it was one of your loved ones he killed by being a vigilante.

    And we're going to give him a life sentence for it

    I guess

    This is why we keep invested parties from judging the case

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Are you saying Martin is no smarter or in control of his actions than a lion?

    Bad analogy is bad. I'm saying, so what if Treyvon turned on someone hounding him. Zimmerman shouldn't have been doing what he was doing. Plain and simple. If you think Zimmerman was in the right chasing Treyvon around then you need help.

    I don't recall anyone in this thread saying Zimmerman should have. So? Does he forfeit his right to self defense if his story is true?

    "Well Zim, turns out it WAS self defense. But you were kind of a dick so fuck it. "

    PSN: allenquid
  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    Paladin wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    All this pedantry is getting annoying. It's so obvious what happened.

    Why don't you explain it :rotate:

    Oh no! I'm not falling for that trap! Let's just say people are angry at Zimmerman for a reason.

    I understand we all need to stay objectionable on this, but in an effort to do this, some of us are just starting to sound silly.

    Bhaalen wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Oh no! I'm not falling for that trap! Let's just say people are angry at Zimmerman for a reason.

    I understand we all need to stay objectionable on this, but in an effort to do this, some of us are just starting to sound silly.

    Many a people see logic as silly, that does not make it so.

    If it directly counters your world view, be it as it may, that doesn't make it any less topical, applicable, or right.

    You might say, "White guy shoots a black guy, racism!"

    And I might say, "Black guy jumped the white guy, assault!"

    Which one is right? Who knows, that's what evidence and logic are for. And "people" can be angry about a great many thing. Lest you think the Salem Witch Trials, or the Red Scare in recent history are good indicators that people are always right, or moral.

    Why is it only racism or assault? I wouldn't say either. What I would say is Zimmerman was CLEARLY wrong in approaching that kid. His irresponsibility lead to Treyvon's death. If they somehow determine that Treyvon turned on him, so what? If a guy chases a lion around and then gets bitten are you gonna blame the lion? Seriously.

    Heh. I think you needn't have worried that people would think you weren't "objectionable".

    People in this thread were starting to crap on each other over small bits of logic and objectionable arguments. It was starting to seem silly to me when it's kinda obvious who's in the wrong here. I know we can break this thing down with scientific levels of objectivity, but I think you guys are focusing your objectivity in the wrong place.

    Treyvon is dead. Really think about that for a second. What are the odds of dieing at 17? Pretty low in this country. The ONLY reason
    he died is Zimmerman shot him. Why was Zimmerman in the position to shoot Treyvon? Because he had a gun and was following him around when he shouldn't have been.

    Zimmerman was in the wrong here, and you all would have the guts to just say it, if it was one of your loved ones he killed by being a vigilante.

    And we're going to give him a life sentence for it

    I guess

    This is why we keep invested parties from judging the case

    I don't know if he should get life honestly. I don't think Zimmermans an evil man really, just selfish and attention hungry. Probably shouldn't be that hard to rehabilitate him.

    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    I'm not saying there aren't issues with the law. The pretrial motion is a major point of contention, and definitely makes cases harder to prosecute. Whether that's good or not is up for debate.

    I don't know that the task force, in and of itself, is proof that the law is being abused. You might want to at least wait until the group makes an anti-SYG finding or recommendation before touting it as proof of SYG's flaws.

    Not only are you "not saying there aren't issues with the law", you argued that the law works in other states, therefore it's wrong to speculate that it causes problems in Florida. That argument ignores the very significant differences between the way virtually other state implements SYG and the way Florida does.

    Actually, I didn't say there are no issues with the law. Nor did I say the law "works" in other states.

    What I said was that SYG has not turned Florida into a bloody playground for serial killers. I was responding to this:
    Derrick wrote:
    The shitty thing is that the law is so terribly written that that's pretty much A-OK for the state of Florida. Losing a fight with no witnesses? Just kill the guy. Doesn't matter if you started it, were winning at some point, anything. Hell, it doesn't even matter if you were winning, so long as this law remains as written and dead men remain silent, it's all gravy.

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

    which
    1) is absolutely NOT what Florida's law says. Florida's law says you have to be in reasonable fear of imminent death/GBH;
    and
    2) is topped off with hyperbolic nonsense about how SYG is some sort of welcome mat for serial killers.
    That's why there is a task force. The state legislators who sponsored it are backpedaling because they thought it was only going to be used by law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves against criminal scum. Whether the task force is flawed or is going to whitewash it, is a different issue, but there was not a collective "Working as intended".

    The task force hasn't even begun its work yet, let alone made an anti-SYG finding/recommendation. What if it comes back with a report that fully endorses the current SYG law? Or with a report that endorses minor, cosmetic changes to the law, but keeps the core principles of SYG intact?

    BubbaT wrote: »
    Anyways, what I was saying was that SYG hasn't turned Florida into some giant playground for "serial killers".

    Sure. But it creates an out for *anyone* accused of homicide, and as numerous articles people have linked to about SYG discuss, everyone from gangbangers to people who commit the ultimate act of domestic violence are suddenly remembering they were in fear of their life.[/quote]

    If a there's a finding of fact that a "preponderance of the evidence" (ie, a 51% chance) that the suspect acted in self-defense, then what's the point of going to trial? The prosecution will just lose at trial anyways. If they can't meet the standard for 51%, then how in the world are they going to meet the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" needed to convict?

    It isn't even a new out or second bite of the apple. Florida judges are able to set aside a jury verdict in any criminal case - not just SYG-related ones - if they feel the evidence does not support the verdict. All the SYG pre-trial motion does is move the judge's decision to the beginning of the court process on SYG-related cases, rather than delaying it until after the jury has convicted (judges can't set aside acquittals, only convictions).


    BTW - that "gangbanger" case featured a guy who "suddenly remembered" he was in fear for his life because he was being shot at.

    BubbaT wrote: »
    California's SYG law is actually broader than Florida's, I think. It allows the "defender" to pursue, rather than simply not retreat. And it retains Florida's burden on the prosecution to disprove self-defense.
    A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/bodily injury/ <insert crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.

    The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another). If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of <insert crime(s) charged>.
    http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3470.html

    California's law is NOT broader than Florida's. It doesn't provide civil immunity, and it doesn't allow the defendant - before any trial - to make a motion with a showing on "preponderance of the evidence" (that is, more likely than not), and get an easy shot at a self-defense claim before getting to make it all over again at trial. California doesn't allow pursuit, period; it allows pursuit IF reasonably necessary in order to defend oneself from the danger. (So, let's say I attack you with the obvious intent to kill, you fire at me, and I run around a corner to pick up a gun we both know is lying there. You have the right to pursue me to stop me from picking up that gun and killing you. You don't have the right to hunt me down if there's no further danger.) I don't see that Florida actually prohibits pursuit.[/quote]

    I'd argue the Marissa Alexander case is an example of Florida prohibiting "pursuit". The judge in that case ruled that since she returned from the (locked) garage to the house, that she went from a safe area to a dangerous area, and therefore that was proof that she didn't feel threatened.

    CA's law and FL's law are each broader in different areas. Especially with how CA's law has been as much defined through case law as it has through legislative text. A 2005 CA court decision found that SYG was available even to people using illegally-owned guns - in that case, a convicted felon who shot a would-be attacker. Even though it's a felony for a convicted felon to even possess a gun under any other circumstance.

  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    edited May 2012
    Quid wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Are you saying Martin is no smarter or in control of his actions than a lion?

    Bad analogy is bad. I'm saying, so what if Treyvon turned on someone hounding him. Zimmerman shouldn't have been doing what he was doing. Plain and simple. If you think Zimmerman was in the right chasing Treyvon around then you need help.

    I don't recall anyone in this thread saying Zimmerman should have. So? Does he forfeit his right to self defense if his story is true?

    "Well Zim, turns out it WAS self defense. But you were kind of a dick so fuck it. "

    No, your right. If Treyvon did turn on Zimmerman so violently that Zimmerman feared for his life then that should be taken into account.
    Regardless of that, Zimmerman should serve time for instigating such a confrontation.

    What's funny is that Treyvon wasn't armed and Zimmerman was supposedly afraid for his life, yet Zimmerman WAS armed. Maybe Treyvon could tell in some way. We'll never know. What we do know is this never would have happened if it wasn't for Zimmermans irresponsibility . He's wrong for doing what he did and should serve time for it.

    I don't recall anyone in this thread saying Zimmerman should have.

    Of course no one would say this. THAT'S my point. Is so obviously wrong chasing that boy around that saying Zimmerman was right for doing it would make you look like a fool for saying it. This is what he should be punished for.

    All the people saying he should be put to death, or get a life sentence, are just as silly as the people that he could, or should, get off on self defense.

    Bhaalen on
    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    The most he should be charge for is following and possibly harrasing someone.

    Guessing that's not a particularly harsh charge with any jail time.

    PSN: allenquid
  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    Quid wrote: »
    The most he should be charge for is following and possibly harrasing someone.

    Guessing that's not a particularly harsh charge with any jail time.

    He should be charged with acting recklessly and causing someones death because of it.

    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • override367override367 misogynist/MRA/socially irresponsible Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    The most he should be charge for is following and possibly harrasing someone.

    Guessing that's not a particularly harsh charge with any jail time.

    Manslaughter is where I'd aim, as they'd almost certainly get a conviction

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    The most he should be charge for is following and possibly harrasing someone.

    Guessing that's not a particularly harsh charge with any jail time.

    He should be charged with acting recklessly and causing someones death because of it.

    How would you feel if that was only 4 years in prison?

  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Let's just say people are angry at Zimmerman for a reason.

    I used to think that reason was a gun owner panicked and killed an unarmed teen. But then, if that were the real reason, the public would be angry about that man who shot who the unarmed mentally handicapped man who was walking his dog.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/29/us/stand-your-ground/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

    If I were certain people on this forum and in youtube comments I would have to "be objective" about that case too. Who knows maybe that guy thought the mentally handicapped guy was totally going to jump in his car and murder him and his wife at the same time. I mean you NEVER know right? Right?

    He told police he had no choice but to shoot. He said he couldn't drive away from Adkins because the dog was in the way and he "thought he had no other options,"

    I... That's it I'm done. This world sometimes.

    ???

    How can a dog block a SUV? Just run over the dog. Granted, under the law he doesn't have a duty to retreat, but the shooter is the one claiming he tried to retreat. The idea that some dog can stop a SUV is preposterous. It's a dog, not a dinosaur.

    This case stinks way, way more than Zimmerman-Martin. The shooter claims his would-be attacker "air swung" his arms at the shooter's car, and was carrying a weapon (a 3-foot pipe/bat), which was then never found?

    WTF.

    Punching a car is not grounds for lethal force in self-defense under AZ law. And that's if the punch even connects with the car, rather than being an "air swing" - whatever that is.

    And where could the weapon have gone? The "attacker" supposedly brandishing it was shot and killed at the scene, so it's not like he ran off and threw it in the river. 3-foot lengths of metal/wood don't just vanish into thin air.

    BubbaT on
  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    bowen wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    The most he should be charge for is following and possibly harrasing someone.

    Guessing that's not a particularly harsh charge with any jail time.

    He should be charged with acting recklessly and causing someones death because of it.

    How would you feel if that was only 4 years in prison?

    4 yrs in prison for someone as cowardly as Zimmerman would probably be more then enough. That and some psycho therapy.

    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
This discussion has been closed.