Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
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

1103104106108109147

Posts

  • chocoboliciouschocobolicious Registered User regular
    I'm almost 30 and if a 6'3" "kid" came after me I'd be pretty damn afraid.

    People to stop calling him a kid. He was 17. I'm sorry, most of your growth is done at that point. You're more then capable of taking down an "adult" (in fact your reactions, tolerances and physical reactions to pain and exertions are far better at that age then when you are coming on 30.

    Its person A and B.

    If you can't come up with a reasonable scenario using a blind scenario then you have no leg to stand on. Everything else its invariably just fluff.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    I'm almost 30 and if a 6'3" "kid" came after me I'd be pretty damn afraid.

    People to stop calling him a kid. He was 17. I'm sorry, most of your growth is done at that point. You're more then capable of taking down an "adult" (in fact your reactions, tolerances and physical reactions to pain and exertions are far better at that age then when you are coming on 30.

    Its person A and B.

    If you can't come up with a reasonable scenario using a blind scenario then you have no leg to stand on. Everything else its invariably just fluff.

    Clearly you are trying to justify a personal bias.

    PSN: allenquid
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    BubbaT wrote: »
    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:

    Oh, I agree with you completely about the silliness of the "go go serial killers" argument. But yeah, you were saying the law "works" in other states; you put up a chart showing that SYG laws don't affect the rate of claimed justifiable homicides, i.e., actual killers don't find SYG useful. That chart isn't helpful to us in looking at Florida's law.

    BubbaT wrote: »
    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?

    I'm really not sure what your point is. Other states are not flipping out about their SYG laws because of the Martin killing. Florida is, and not simply because of this; it's because the law is way too broad and prone to abuse. It's bad enough that the government has actually appointed a task force to review the law, instead of just letting the Legislature do it or whatever. Of course it's possible that the task force will fuck up, whitewash or otherwise be useless; wouldn't surprise me.

    BubbaT wrote: »
    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).

    *headdesk*

    1) Judges in EVERY state can set aside a jury's verdict if it's not supported by the evidence (JNOV); this is true in civil cases, too. There are particular legal standards by which a judge can do so. "Well, shit, he looks innocent to me, guys" is not that standard. It's also brought after all the evidence has been admitted and after the jury has deliberated.

    2) You have it backwards. The issue isn't "what's the point of going to trial", it's "why are we having a motion before trial instead of just having the trial?" If the defendant loses, then the prosecution has to do it all over again, only with a higher standards. If the defendant wins, he would certainly have won at trial. Again, there's no reason for this procedure other than to give the defendant a free throw - particularly as:

    3) Florida's SYG treats a motion (such as would be brought in a civil case) as the equivalent of an acquittal. The prosecution doesn't get to appeal the motion, or move for reconsideration; if they lose, that's it, the defendant can't be prosecuted. AND is immune from a civil suit, don't forget that.

    4) Shit, if this is such a fabulous idea, why are we even having criminal trials? Make prosecutors do every element of their case to "preponderance of the evidence", and then only if they win the whole thing do they get to actually go to trial, and repeat the procedure.


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

    I'm not talking about a specific, individual case, but about a new defense available to people who weren't really acting in self-defense. If you kill the other guy, it's that much easier in Florida to say you were acting in self-defense. This is not just hippie liberal ACLU types complaining there's a problem.


    BubbaT wrote: »
    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.

    No, the Alexander case is not about prohibiting "pursuit". Read the CALCRIM instruction again. It permits pursuit "if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/bodily injury/<insert crime>) has passed". In other words, the judge at the pre-trial hearing ruled that she didn't need to pursue him to protect herself; he didn't rule "sorry, but self-defense goes out the window when you pursue". And the jury, apparently swayed by her ex-husband suddenly changing his story, convicted her in what, 12 minutes?

    I don't understand what point you're trying to make re the convicted felon. The case you're talking about is People v. Rhodes. Using a weapon for self-defense does not, by itself, automagically mean that the felon illegally possessed a weapon. (This makes sense, when you think about it. Imagine that A, who is convicted of a felony, is attacked by B who wants to kill her. A snatches a shotgun out of B's rifle rack and kills him, then drops it and calls the police. Is A guilty of being a felong unlawfully possessing a firearm?) Rhodes also pointed out that he was not actually charged with illegal possession of a weapon.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    1) Judges in EVERY state can set aside a jury's verdict if it's not supported by the evidence (JNOV); this is true in civil cases, too. There are particular legal standards by which a judge can do so. "Well, shit, he looks innocent to me, guys" is not that standard. It's also brought after all the evidence has been admitted and after the jury has deliberated.

    2) You have it backwards. The issue isn't "what's the point of going to trial", it's "why are we having a motion before trial instead of just having the trial?" If the defendant loses, then the prosecution has to do it all over again, only with a higher standards. If the defendant wins, he would certainly have won at trial. Again, there's no reason for this procedure other than to give the defendant a free throw - particularly as:

    3) Florida's SYG treats a motion (such as would be brought in a civil case) as the equivalent of an acquittal. The prosecution doesn't get to appeal the motion, or move for reconsideration; if they lose, that's it, the defendant can't be prosecuted. AND is immune from a civil suit, don't forget that.

    4) Shit, if this is such a fabulous idea, why are we even having criminal trials? Make prosecutors do every element of their case to "preponderance of the evidence", and then only if they win the whole thing do they get to actually go to trial, and repeat the procedure.

    I guess I fail to see what's bad, from the state's perspective, about it. Like you said, if they lose there they'd have lost anyway. I'd guess the idea is to spare the defendant the expense and burden of a full trial in cases where the prosecution can't even meet the preponderance standard. Ideally no prosecutor would go forward in such a case, but I guess it depends how far you trust prosecutorial discretion. Aside from the expense of the extra proceeding, what's the issue?

    I think if we did it for every crime it would become an excessive burden on the state. However, I think self-defense cases do have some unique qualities that perhaps warrant it, if we were going to ever bother with the idea at all.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    Also, christ, no one is trolling anyone, this is D&D not G&T. We, you know, argue and debate about things like semantics and pedantry because they're applicable.

    Pedantry is the name of the game when it comes to law and essentially locking someone up and throwing away the key. That's someone's life, regardless if he murderdeathkilled another being, he is still a person.

  • GaardeanGaardean Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    1) Judges in EVERY state can set aside a jury's verdict if it's not supported by the evidence (JNOV); this is true in civil cases, too. There are particular legal standards by which a judge can do so. "Well, shit, he looks innocent to me, guys" is not that standard. It's also brought after all the evidence has been admitted and after the jury has deliberated.

    2) You have it backwards. The issue isn't "what's the point of going to trial", it's "why are we having a motion before trial instead of just having the trial?" If the defendant loses, then the prosecution has to do it all over again, only with a higher standards. If the defendant wins, he would certainly have won at trial. Again, there's no reason for this procedure other than to give the defendant a free throw - particularly as:

    3) Florida's SYG treats a motion (such as would be brought in a civil case) as the equivalent of an acquittal. The prosecution doesn't get to appeal the motion, or move for reconsideration; if they lose, that's it, the defendant can't be prosecuted. AND is immune from a civil suit, don't forget that.

    4) Shit, if this is such a fabulous idea, why are we even having criminal trials? Make prosecutors do every element of their case to "preponderance of the evidence", and then only if they win the whole thing do they get to actually go to trial, and repeat the procedure.

    I guess I fail to see what's bad, from the state's perspective, about it. Like you said, if they lose there they'd have lost anyway. I'd guess the idea is to spare the defendant the expense and burden of a full trial in cases where the prosecution can't even meet the preponderance standard. Ideally no prosecutor would go forward in such a case, but I guess it depends how far you trust prosecutorial discretion. Aside from the expense of the extra proceeding, what's the issue?

    I think if we did it for every crime it would become an excessive burden on the state. However, I think self-defense cases do have some unique qualities that perhaps warrant it, if we were going to ever bother with the idea at all.

    The problem isn't the process itself, but the absolute immunity it can grant without the full due process of law. It puts a great deal of power into a single judge's opinion on a case, and prevents any and all legal recourse afterwards. It just seems like an open gateway for corruption of the system, to me. If it merely resulted in a dismissed case, rather than acquittal, and had no civil immunity, I don't think anyone would have a serious problem with it.

    steam_sig.png
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    As far as I know SYG doesn't have any civil immunity?

  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    what's this that Martin had jewelry on him? I've only read that these last few pages .... is that new or something?

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Gaardean wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    1) Judges in EVERY state can set aside a jury's verdict if it's not supported by the evidence (JNOV); this is true in civil cases, too. There are particular legal standards by which a judge can do so. "Well, shit, he looks innocent to me, guys" is not that standard. It's also brought after all the evidence has been admitted and after the jury has deliberated.

    2) You have it backwards. The issue isn't "what's the point of going to trial", it's "why are we having a motion before trial instead of just having the trial?" If the defendant loses, then the prosecution has to do it all over again, only with a higher standards. If the defendant wins, he would certainly have won at trial. Again, there's no reason for this procedure other than to give the defendant a free throw - particularly as:

    3) Florida's SYG treats a motion (such as would be brought in a civil case) as the equivalent of an acquittal. The prosecution doesn't get to appeal the motion, or move for reconsideration; if they lose, that's it, the defendant can't be prosecuted. AND is immune from a civil suit, don't forget that.

    4) Shit, if this is such a fabulous idea, why are we even having criminal trials? Make prosecutors do every element of their case to "preponderance of the evidence", and then only if they win the whole thing do they get to actually go to trial, and repeat the procedure.

    I guess I fail to see what's bad, from the state's perspective, about it. Like you said, if they lose there they'd have lost anyway. I'd guess the idea is to spare the defendant the expense and burden of a full trial in cases where the prosecution can't even meet the preponderance standard. Ideally no prosecutor would go forward in such a case, but I guess it depends how far you trust prosecutorial discretion. Aside from the expense of the extra proceeding, what's the issue?

    I think if we did it for every crime it would become an excessive burden on the state. However, I think self-defense cases do have some unique qualities that perhaps warrant it, if we were going to ever bother with the idea at all.

    The problem isn't the process itself, but the absolute immunity it can grant without the full due process of law. It puts a great deal of power into a single judge's opinion on a case, and prevents any and all legal recourse afterwards. It just seems like an open gateway for corruption of the system, to me. If it merely resulted in a dismissed case, rather than acquittal, and had no civil immunity, I don't think anyone would have a serious problem with it.

    The civil immunity (which Florida does grant, bowen) is an issue.

    On the criminal side due process is a right of the accused...so this doesn't infringe it.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Xaquin wrote: »
    what's this that Martin had jewelry on him? I've only read that these last few pages .... is that new or something?

    It's old, and I'm not confident in the veracity. It wasn't at the scene, it was a character smear regarding his suspension from school. But yeah, it seems he was busted at school with a bunch of jewelry that "a friend gave him to hold" or some shit.

    Basically Trayvon Martin the innocent angel may be a lie, but the relevance to the events leading to his death is tenuous at best.

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Xaquin wrote: »
    what's this that Martin had jewelry on him? I've only read that these last few pages .... is that new or something?

    I assume what is referred to here is that Martin was currently suspended from school, because the school found in his backpack: marijuana, women's jewelry, and a screwdrivier they believed to be a burglary instrument. Martin was possibly an actual burglar. Not as likely, but still possible, was that he was actually in the process of scoping out targets on his way back from the store, or that he actually was one of the ones responsible for prior burglaries in the neighborhood.

    That is generally considered to be smearing Martin for racist purposes, though. It doesn't really have a whole lot to do with the most relevant questions about what happened when he was shot.

    Yar on
  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Playing night stalker shouldn't lead to altercations.

    Sure, but why play night stalker?

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Elki wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Playing night stalker shouldn't lead to altercations.

    Sure, but why play night stalker?

    I dunno. It's not the best idea. But as somebody who was just robbed for thousands upon thousands of dollars I can understand what might lead somebody to it.

  • GaardeanGaardean Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Gaardean wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    1) Judges in EVERY state can set aside a jury's verdict if it's not supported by the evidence (JNOV); this is true in civil cases, too. There are particular legal standards by which a judge can do so. "Well, shit, he looks innocent to me, guys" is not that standard. It's also brought after all the evidence has been admitted and after the jury has deliberated.

    2) You have it backwards. The issue isn't "what's the point of going to trial", it's "why are we having a motion before trial instead of just having the trial?" If the defendant loses, then the prosecution has to do it all over again, only with a higher standards. If the defendant wins, he would certainly have won at trial. Again, there's no reason for this procedure other than to give the defendant a free throw - particularly as:

    3) Florida's SYG treats a motion (such as would be brought in a civil case) as the equivalent of an acquittal. The prosecution doesn't get to appeal the motion, or move for reconsideration; if they lose, that's it, the defendant can't be prosecuted. AND is immune from a civil suit, don't forget that.

    4) Shit, if this is such a fabulous idea, why are we even having criminal trials? Make prosecutors do every element of their case to "preponderance of the evidence", and then only if they win the whole thing do they get to actually go to trial, and repeat the procedure.

    I guess I fail to see what's bad, from the state's perspective, about it. Like you said, if they lose there they'd have lost anyway. I'd guess the idea is to spare the defendant the expense and burden of a full trial in cases where the prosecution can't even meet the preponderance standard. Ideally no prosecutor would go forward in such a case, but I guess it depends how far you trust prosecutorial discretion. Aside from the expense of the extra proceeding, what's the issue?

    I think if we did it for every crime it would become an excessive burden on the state. However, I think self-defense cases do have some unique qualities that perhaps warrant it, if we were going to ever bother with the idea at all.

    The problem isn't the process itself, but the absolute immunity it can grant without the full due process of law. It puts a great deal of power into a single judge's opinion on a case, and prevents any and all legal recourse afterwards. It just seems like an open gateway for corruption of the system, to me. If it merely resulted in a dismissed case, rather than acquittal, and had no civil immunity, I don't think anyone would have a serious problem with it.

    The civil immunity (which Florida does grant, bowen) is an issue.

    On the criminal side due process is a right of the accused...so this doesn't infringe it.

    Poorly phrased on my part, what I mean is that it allows for full exoneration without a jury and without full cross-examination of the evidence, or, if there is full cross-examination, the defense can put forth a minimal case (there's no penalty for them losing this part) and be much better prepared to counter the prosecution (who are greatly at risk, and can't afford to hold back) during the actual trial. It gives the defense a practice run, essentially. The worst way I can think of it is that it allows more protection to someone who kills another in a justified manner than is allowed an innocent person on trial who didn't kill anyone at all.

    steam_sig.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Thing is, that's not necessarily absurd since the former is (assuming they were justified) probably the VICTIM of a crime.

  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Playing night stalker shouldn't lead to altercations.

    Sure, but why play night stalker?

    I dunno. It's not the best idea. But as somebody who was just robbed for thousands upon thousands of dollars I can understand what might lead somebody to it.

    Can you please elaborate on this point?

    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Do you not understand how it's not a good idea?

    PSN: allenquid
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    I misunderstood that to be, "It's not always the best idea..." the first time I read it, perhaps he did too.

  • gjaustingjaustin Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Do you not understand how it's not a good idea?

    I assume he's more referencing the implication of the statement. Both that it isn't a terrible idea, yet it isn't the best idea.

    Decent idea: Make sure suspicious (in your opinion) people aren't up to no good.

    Better idea: Calling the police when you see something suspicious and not following the person to ask them what they're doing.

    Worse idea: Not caring that people have been robbed and just minding your own business.

    Your belief is not required
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    Out of curiosity, how many people who don't believe that Zimmerman should be criminally prosecuted also believe that Zimmerman ought to be liable for Trayvon Martin's wrongful death? Leaving aside the civil immunity granted by Florida's statute on self defense for the moment.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    Even among us devil advocates? None I'd say. He is guilty as donkey dick for what led up to that kid's death.

    Criminally guilty? Possibly. Civilly guilty? :rotate: is there even a possibility?

  • BandableBandable Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Playing night stalker shouldn't lead to altercations.

    And yelling "Fire" in a theater shouldn't start a riot, but it is an obviously possible result. Is there any compelling reason that citizens should stalk each other? I can't think of one that doesn't end with the word vigilante.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    gjaustin wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Do you not understand how it's not a good idea?

    I assume he's more referencing the implication of the statement. Both that it isn't a terrible idea, yet it isn't the best idea.

    Decent idea: Make sure suspicious (in your opinion) people aren't up to no good.

    Better idea: Calling the police when you see something suspicious and not following the person to ask them what they're doing.

    Worse idea: Not caring that people have been robbed and just minding your own business.

    This is pretty much my feeling.

    And yeah, I can we holding him civilly liable even if acquitted were he not immune. Lower bar for civil liability and lower burden to prove it.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    See, not we. Dumb phone.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Bandable wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Playing night stalker shouldn't lead to altercations.

    And yelling "Fire" in a theater shouldn't start a riot, but it is an obviously possible result. Is there any compelling reason that citizens should stalk each other? I can't think of one that doesn't end with the word vigilante.

    There's always going to be a fine line between neighborhood watch and and vigilantism. Keeping line of sight on a suspicious person increases exponentially the odds that the police will be able to find and/or deter them when/if they show up.

    Not understanding the motivation here means you either live in a better neighborhood than I do, or your cops are superheroes.

    I'd definitely accept that there may be some liability accepted in doing so. But of a more civil nature...you should have every incentive to avoid a confrontation but if your actions are lawful (and particularly if theirs are not) you shouldn't face criminal charges.

  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    I'm a 6' tall brown guy. I've been followed in stores and in neighborhoods by semi racist people since I was a teenager. The thought of someone stalking me and shooting me has always weighed on my mind. Especially since I live in the Florida panhandle... This case just upsets me sooo much.


    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    But you are entirely unbiased, right?

  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    mcdermott wrote: »
    But you are entirely unbiased, right?

    Why are you such a jerk in 90% of the threads you post in? I'm probably going to get jailed for that, but I don't care. It needed to be said.

    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    I have a low tolerance for silly goosery.

    You want to talk about objectivity, when you're admitting right now that this case upsets you greatly and in a very personal way. I don't think it's absurd to suggest that you're not entirely objective here.

    I'm not either. I've been assaulted in the past, so that colors my position. I've also had to point guns at people and make snap decisions on whether or not to shoot them, so that does too. I've also been robbed recently (since this thread started, actually), so lump that in there as well. Maybe all of this colors my position in this case. Though, if you missed it, my position is that there's a pretty high likelihood that Zimmerman is "actually" guilty of a criminal homicide.

    But my overriding position, in all cases, is that presumption of innocence, burden of proof, and rules of evidence should trump "actual" guilt. The rights of the accused aren't rights otherwise. Also, that trial by media is bullshit even when the person on the receiving end is (IMO) likely a scumbag (regardless of criminal guilt). These positions go well beyond this case specifically, which is why I don't necessarily think it's my own biases (other than the bias in favor of presumption of innocence and rights of the accused which I readily embrace).

    See my comments, for instance, back when Johannes Mehserle was on trial, and being sentenced. Same thing. I...dislike...cops as a general principle. Most of my biases make me personally want to see bad things happen to that dude. But that's now how the criminal justice system works, or should work.


    EDIT: Seriously, if you hadn't brought up "objectivity" earlier I wouldn't even have said anything. But given that you did...yes, I felt a little 'casm was warranted.

    mcdermott on
  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I have a low tolerance for silly goosery.

    You want to talk about objectivity, when you're admitting right now that this case upsets you greatly and in a very personal way. I don't think it's absurd to suggest that you're not entirely objective here.

    I'm not either. I've been assaulted in the past, so that colors my position. I've also had to point guns at people and make snap decisions on whether or not to shoot them, so that does too. I've also been robbed recently (since this thread started, actually), so lump that in there as well. Maybe all of this colors my position in this case. Though, if you missed it, my position is that there's a pretty high likelihood that Zimmerman is "actually" guilty of a criminal homicide.

    But my overriding position, in all cases, is that presumption of innocence, burden of proof, and rules of evidence should trump "actual" guilt. The rights of the accused aren't rights otherwise. Also, that trial by media is bullshit even when the person on the receiving end is (IMO) likely a scumbag (regardless of criminal guilt). These positions go well beyond this case specifically, which is why I don't necessarily think it's my own biases (other than the bias in favor of presumption of innocence and rights of the accused which I readily embrace).

    See my comments, for instance, back when Johannes Mehserle was on trial, and being sentenced. Same thing. I...dislike...cops as a general principle. Most of my biases make me personally want to see bad things happen to that dude. But that's now how the criminal justice system works, or should work.


    EDIT: Seriously, if you hadn't brought up "objectivity" earlier I wouldn't even have said anything. But given that you did...yes, I felt a little 'casm was warranted.

    I shouldn't of said objectivity. I should have said goosey devils advocate on every thread ever.



    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    I shouldn't of said objectivity. I should have said goosey devils advocate on every thread ever.

    Think of me as a cooling rod for the occasionally reactionary echo chamber that this subforum can become.

    Where (for example) people forget that the same justice system they're advocating for Zimmerman (or Mehserle) is the one they'd have to apply to any given downtrodden member of the underclass they empathize that winds up in its path. The same justice system that keeps Martin out of jail when he is in possession of what was almost certainly very, very stolen property. Just as an example. It needs to apply to everybody, in all cases.

    The couple of times I've suggested some possible scenarios in this case that I don't really buy, that was playing devil's advocate. The rest? My views on both self-defense and the rights of the accused in the criminal justice system? That's, like, actually my position.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Like, want my gut reaction to this case? Here's me, from page one:

    I know. It's ridiculously fucked up. I'll also say that it does seem like these castle/stand/whatever laws do seem to embolden fucktards like him. Reducing or removing the risk of liability or prosecution doesn't seem to help trigger-happy assholes make good decisions.

    Or like page three:

    I'll point out that when I say "mental issues," I don't mean of the kind that would lead to him not being criminally responsible.

    I'm just saying I don't buy the level of premeditation that's being suggested here. Racism? Yes. Vigilantism? Yes. But to me it sounds like this dude just wasn't necessarily all there. I mean, 46 times he called the cops? Seriously?

    EDIT: I'll just reiterate again, in case it got lost in there, that I'm perfectly fine seeing this guy spend a good long time in prison for what he did. Don't want there to be any confusion.

    But the more information that came out, the less confident I was in my knee-jerk reactions. And the close this got to "going into a courtroom" than "hurgle-burgling on the interwebs" the less comfortable I was with the rhetoric I had previously been spouting personally.

  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    I think one of the worst things Martin's side did was trying to paint the kid as a saint. I'm not saying he was a criminal (maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, we don't know - yet) but upping him to such a degree is just stupid in the long run. I know why they did it, but it's not helping them now.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    I shouldn't of said objectivity. I should have said goosey devils advocate on every thread ever.

    McDermott and I have made it clear we're not playing at devil's advocate. We simply value due process more than a lot of people in this thread seem to value someone they believe is guilty beyond any doubt getting punished.

    PSN: allenquid
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    On the criminal side due process is a right of the accused...so this doesn't infringe it.

    I....actually have no idea what you're trying to say here. Are you just arguing randomly for the sake of arguing?

    If Florida's SYG law said "Upon the granting of said motion, the baliff shall have the prosecutor taken out and shot," or "If the judge decides that it was more likely than not that it was self-defense, the defendant wins one million dollars," that wouldn't infringe on the due process rights of the accused, either, but it would be a stupid fucking law with no meaningful purpose.

    The pretrial hearing process is available only under SYG and also cuts off the rights of other people. The dead person's heirs are not parties to the criminal case. In a non-insane state, they can bring a wrongful death suit. But Florida's SYG says "Sorry, we're talking away your right to bring that lawsuit, forever, based on a single motion heard by a judge which can't be appealed, certainly not be you."

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    On the criminal side due process is a right of the accused...so this doesn't infringe it.

    I....actually have no idea what you're trying to say here. Are you just arguing randomly for the sake of arguing?

    I'm saying that on the criminal side nothing about this pretrial motion crap infringes anybody's rights. That's it. Like, yeah it puts a lot of power into the hands of a judge, but only to acquit. So any perversion of due process is in favor of the accused, which generally is better than the alternative.

    If Florida's SYG law said "Upon the granting of said motion, the baliff shall have the prosecutor taken out and shot,"...

    ...it would infringe the prosecutor's right to life...

    ...or "If the judge decides that it was more likely than not that it was self-defense, the defendant wins one million dollars," that wouldn't infringe on the due process rights of the accused, either, but it would be a stupid fucking law with no meaningful purpose.

    Awarding money would be silly, yes, but not some grievous breach.

    Giving somebody who is allegedly the victim of a crime the means to dispose of a case quickly and get on with their life is not on its face an absurd idea. If the prosecutor can't meet a preponderance burden, they should wait until they can. Or move on. But as we've seen in various cases, prosecutors don't always do that, and certainly aren't averse to ridiculous overcharging as well.

    The pretrial hearing process is available only under SYG and also cuts off the rights of other people. The dead person's heirs are not parties to the criminal case. In a non-insane state, they can bring a wrongful death suit. But Florida's SYG says "Sorry, we're talking away your right to bring that lawsuit, forever, based on a single motion heard by a judge which can't be appealed, certainly not be you."

    I agreed, in the post you quoted, that the civil immunity is a problem. You failed to quote that portion, though. Was this on purpose?

  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    I shouldn't of said objectivity. I should have said goosey devils advocate on every thread ever.

    McDermott and I have made it clear we're not playing at devil's advocate. We simply value due process more than a lot of people in this thread seem to value someone they believe is guilty beyond any doubt getting punished.

    And the entirely subjective way you choose to throw that virtue around makes both of your arguments wanting to say the least.

    Take, for instance, your taking at face value that Martin attacked Zimmerman without any proof. I don't hear a lot of clamoring for "innocent until proven guilty!" for Martin. Zimmerman's defense should, first and foremost, have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin is guilty of assault and battery AND that Zimmerman's life was in serious danger.

    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Edit: Whoops.

    Quid on
    PSN: allenquid
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Derrick wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    I shouldn't of said objectivity. I should have said goosey devils advocate on every thread ever.

    McDermott and I have made it clear we're not playing at devil's advocate. We simply value due process more than a lot of people in this thread seem to value someone they believe is guilty beyond any doubt getting punished.

    And the entirely subjective way you choose to throw that virtue around makes both of your arguments wanting to say the least.

    Take, for instance, your taking at face value that Martin attacked Zimmerman without any proof. I don't hear a lot of clamoring for "innocent until proven guilty!" for Martin. Zimmerman's defense should, first and foremost, have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin is guilty of assault and battery AND that Zimmerman's life was in serious danger.

    I believe I pointed out that, at least according to my understanding, the reason Martin wasn't tucked safely away in jail rather than off on a Skittles run is this very "innocent until proven guilty" idea. I mean, unless he's just an amateur jewelry merchant looking to corner the market at his local high school.

    I've also pointed out multiple times that, had Martin survived, he'd have the same presumption regarding any alleged assault.

    Unfortunately due process is for the living. But this makes the argument no less consistent.

    mcdermott on
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Derrick wrote: »
    Take, for instance, your taking at face value that Martin attacked Zimmerman without any proof.

    I've never actually said I believe this to be the truth either.

    Seriously we just went over assumptions, like, two pages ago.

    And Martin is not the one on trial, Zimmerman is. So it's up to the prosecutor to prove him guilty of the crime of murder.

    Quid on
    PSN: allenquid
This discussion has been closed.