Notices
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 440
Like Tree93Likes

Thread: Zimmerman trial

  1. #201  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Not as similar as one might think.

    When inserting a magazine into the Kel-Tec PF-9, the pistol is in a safe condition because the chamber is empty. It takes the conscious act of cycling the slide to chamber a round. That's why I wondered when he chambered the round.

    Furthermore, with most revolvers, there's the exposed cylinder and hammer that the target person can attempt to prevent from moving in order to prevent the gun from firing, and firing a revolver from a pocket or other concealed location can also foul the cylinder and/or hammer. The only possible way I know for the target person to prevent the PF-9 from firing is to push against the muzzle end of the slide/barrel in hopes that moving it will prevent the hammer from contacting the firing pin, which is rather dubious.
    Another inscrutable post by you. Why would somebody want to carry a defensive weapon that can be disabled by the attacker?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by justiceisnotblind View Post
    George Z. claim was self-defense, under Florida's law for self defense it states that you can meet, when attacked, force with force.  This is were the self-defense law has its failings, force with force, most people, I assume, would interpret  that to mean like force.
    Why would you make that assumption? If your life is in danger you will use the force you have available. I guarantee it.
     So if an attacker has a weapon and is attacking you with that weapon you can use like force.  Gun, knife, sword, like force.  It's self-defense not license to kill because you are attacked. Trayvon was unarmed where is the like force. You can use deadly force under  the self-defense law if you fear for your life or think you will suffer great bodily harm.  What? now the juror is asked to read your mind and know what you were thinking. The defense say's George was being pummeled and severely beaten by Trayvon, I googled images of people that have been attacked and beaten and here are images of what that looks like.
    The juror is not asked to read anybody's mind. She just has to look for proof of guilt, and acquit if there isn't proof. A person defending himself does not have to wait until he has life threatening injuries. That would be stupid. The threat to Z's life would have been from a concussion which does not necessarily leave any external marks. Images of people that have been attacked and beaten are irrelevant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    A statement by four of the jurors —

    We, the undersigned jurors, understand there is a great deal of interest in this case. But we ask you to remember that we are not public officials and we did not invite this type of attention into our lives.

    Sorry to burst the bubble of four out of the six jurors, but when a person becomes empanelled on a jury, they actually became a member of the justice system — a public official. True, they were not elected, but they became a public official nonetheless. Someone should have told them so.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    A statement by four of the jurors —

    We, the undersigned jurors, understand there is a great deal of interest in this case. But we ask you to remember that we are not public officials and we did not invite this type of attention into our lives.

    Sorry to burst the bubble of four out of the six jurors, but when a person becomes empanelled on a jury, they actually became a member of the justice system — a public official. True, they were not elected, but they became a public official nonetheless. Someone should have told them so.
    A juror is not a public official. A juror is a private citizen doing their duty, and no they should not undergo public scrutiny. They should be able to do their job without pressure from a lynch mob. Leave them alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    A statement by four of the jurors —

    We, the undersigned jurors, understand there is a great deal of interest in this case. But we ask you to remember that we are not public officials and we did not invite this type of attention into our lives.

    Sorry to burst the bubble of four out of the six jurors, but when a person becomes empanelled on a jury, they actually became a member of the justice system — a public official. True, they were not elected, but they became a public official nonetheless. Someone should have told them so.
    A juror is not a public official. A juror is a private citizen doing their duty, and no they should not undergo public scrutiny. They should be able to do their job without pressure from a lynch mob. Leave them alone.
    Agreed, Jurors are more or less forced into duty. There are few options for getting out of jury duty. Put yourself in their shoes.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    The definition of civilized would exclude the greater majority of the population, including Zimmerman.

    Also, as I pointed out, when Elvis Presley first appeared on the scene, his music and style of dancing was deemed uncivilized and uncouth. Because people saw it as being 'black'.

    Which is ironic, when you consider that Martin has been described here as not being a civilized human being (at a guess, because of his dress and the music he listened to or is the unspoken description just too uncomfortable to be said out loud in polite society?) and somehow or other likened to the types of wild animals one would find in those drive through safari types.

    Perhaps Martin should have acted white and followed people around in a car while armed instead?

    Ah, speculation is fun, isn't it?

    So much more civilized, isn't it:

    civ·i·lized

    [siv-uh-lahyzd] Show IPA
    adjective 1. having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc.


    2. polite; well-bred; refined.

    3. of or pertaining to civilized people: The civilized world must fight ignorance.

    4. easy to manage or control; well organized or ordered: The car is quiet and civilized, even in sharp turns.

    Civilized | Define Civilized at Dictionary.com





    There are uncivilized white people also. You'll see them with all the same trappings, but they'll be biker gangs, or in the 80's they might be all in punk attire, or stuff like that.

    If one of those white people walked through the same neighborhood, would you profile him?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    A statement by four of the jurors —

    We, the undersigned jurors, understand there is a great deal of interest in this case. But we ask you to remember that we are not public officials and we did not invite this type of attention into our lives.

    Sorry to burst the bubble of four out of the six jurors, but when a person becomes empanelled on a jury, they actually became a member of the justice system — a public official. True, they were not elected, but they became a public official nonetheless. Someone should have told them so.
    A juror is not a public official. A juror is a private citizen doing their duty, and no they should not undergo public scrutiny. They should be able to do their job without pressure from a lynch mob. Leave them alone.
    Agreed, Jurors are more or less forced into duty. There are few options for getting out of jury duty. Put yourself in their shoes.
    What do you think happens when you don't respond to a summons for jury duty? I personally know someone who hadn't responded for 5 years and absolutely nothing ever happened to him. The theory I have about that, is as long as they are not hard up for jurors they will not spend any time and resources trying to round up people that don't respond to a jury duty summons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Besides that, Juries actually have the right to acquit parties they know to be guilty, if they so desire. It's called "Jury Nullification". A judge may overturn a conviction if they have reason to believe the Jury knew the person to be innocent but convicted anyway, but they cannot overturn an acquittal.

    Jury nullification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Ascended likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    In the same way that drafted members of the armed forces are temporary members of the government, members of a jury are also temporary members of the government, whether they want to be or not — at least in Massachusetts and, I have no reason to doubt, elsewhere in the USA.

    As a member of the government, jurors are "invested with the power to present or indict a person for a public offense, or to try a question of fact." (Black's Law Dictionary), and they are required as members to adhere to the rules of the judicial system or, consequently, face discipline — even imprisonment.

    As regards to law enforcement, in an emergency. if a law enforcement officer asks you to help enforce the law, you effectively become a member of the government and are empowered and protected as a law enforcement officer even if you leave the officer's presence. So, for example, let's say you're standing near a house and the suspect runs in the front door and the officer is chasing him. If the officer tells you to go around the back and make sure the suspect doesn't leave the house, you are thus empowered and can leave the officer's presence to perform your duty.

    I have given here three examples in which ordinary citizens can be called to become temporary members of the government, both empowered and accountable, and one of them is as a juror. Anything less would make a mockery of our judicial system.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    In the same way that drafted members of the armed forces are temporary members of the government, members of a jury are also temporary members of the government, whether they want to be or not — at least in Massachusetts and, I have no reason to doubt, elsewhere in the USA.

    As a member of the government, jurors are "invested with the power to present or indict a person for a public offense, or to try a question of fact." (Black's Law Dictionary), and they are required as members to adhere to the rules of the judicial system or, consequently, face discipline — even imprisonment.

    As regards to law enforcement, in an emergency. if a law enforcement officer asks you to help enforce the law, you effectively become a member of the government and are empowered and protected as a law enforcement officer even if you leave the officer's presence. So, for example, let's say you're standing near a house and the suspect runs in the front door and the officer is chasing him. If the officer tells you to go around the back and make sure the suspect doesn't leave the house, you are thus empowered and can leave the officer's presence to perform your duty.

    I have given here three examples in which ordinary citizens can be called to become temporary members of the government, both empowered and accountable, and one of them is as a juror. Anything less would make a mockery of our judicial system.
    Do you have a point, or are you just rambling aimlessly as usual?
    The jurors were saying they have no duty to go public or become public figures. Do you disagree with that? I do not want any jurors to be ever under any public pressure. Do you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Besides that, Juries actually have the right to acquit parties they know to be guilty, if they so desire. It's called "Jury Nullification". A judge may overturn a conviction if they have reason to believe the Jury knew the person to be innocent but convicted anyway, but they cannot overturn an acquittal.
    More common that the jury simply failed to follow the law because they disagreed with it.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    A statement by four of the jurors —

    We, the undersigned jurors, understand there is a great deal of interest in this case. But we ask you to remember that we are not public officials and we did not invite this type of attention into our lives.

    Sorry to burst the bubble of four out of the six jurors, but when a person becomes empanelled on a jury, they actually became a member of the justice system — a public official. True, they were not elected, but they became a public official nonetheless. Someone should have told them so.
    A juror is not a public official. A juror is a private citizen doing their duty, and no they should not undergo public scrutiny. They should be able to do their job without pressure from a lynch mob. Leave them alone.
    Agreed, Jurors are more or less forced into duty. There are few options for getting out of jury duty. Put yourself in their shoes.
    What do you think happens when you don't respond to a summons for jury duty? I personally know someone who hadn't responded for 5 years and absolutely nothing ever happened to him. The theory I have about that, is as long as they are not hard up for jurors they will not spend any time and resources trying to round up people that don't respond to a jury duty summons.
    I got summoned for jury duty last year and there was threat of license suspension attached to the summons if I did not respond. In Texas its a huge pain in the butt to have your license suspended. I imagine its different in every state. Your friend may have gotten away with it but I didn't want to take any chances.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    The people who WERE jurors on the trial cease to be jurors once the trial is over. They are not obligated in any way to speak to the public at all about the deliberations and no one has the right to harass them after the fact.

    It seems no one who wanted Zimmerman convicted is willing to believe that the evidence to convict just wasn't there. People are willing to speculate all these horrible things about Zimmerman, the defendant, in order to justify their hate and desire for revenge against him. If hte kid he had shot had been white would there be such an uproar? If Zimmerman had been black?

    The way the law works in the USA is a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt lays squarely on the prosecution's shoulders. In this case the prosecutions failed to remove all possible doubt from the scenario suggesting that Zimmerman killed him without provocation and not out of self defense.

    There was sufficient tangible evidence to support Zimmerman's claims that he was being beaten. There were witnesses that also collaborated Zimmerman's story. There was reasonable doubt and for that reason, the jury could not convict. Why is that so hard for some people to swallow?
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post

    I got summoned for jury duty last year and there was threat of license suspension attached to the summons if I did not respond. In Texas its a huge pain in the butt to have your license suspended. I imagine its different in every state. Your friend may have gotten away with it but I didn't want to take any chances.
    I guess getting you license suspended would get your attention. I don't really see how they can do that, because not responding to a jury summons has nothing to do with your driving record. But I'd do a search of what would qualify you to get out of jury duty in the state you reside in and then see if you can find a way to qualify to legally get out of jury duty. From what I know of your life I wouldn't think it would be very difficult to find a valid reason.

    Getting back to my friend, he lived in Tucson AZ where they select jurors from your DMV records. Anytime he got a threatening letter he filled it in the trash, and they never followed through on the threat. Here in Washington state they still select jurors from the voter registration. So if you never register to vote you won't ever get a jury summons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    The following article does make a very good point.

    The Quiet Racism in the Zimmerman Trial
    by Steven Mazie
    July 16, 2013, 9:18 AM

    The Quiet Racism in the Zimmerman Trial | Praxis | Big Think
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post

    I got summoned for jury duty last year and there was threat of license suspension attached to the summons if I did not respond. In Texas its a huge pain in the butt to have your license suspended. I imagine its different in every state. Your friend may have gotten away with it but I didn't want to take any chances.
    I guess getting you license suspended would get your attention. I don't really see how they can do that, because not responding to a jury summons has nothing to do with your driving record. But I'd do a search of what would qualify you to get out of jury duty in the state you reside in and then see if you can find a way to qualify to legally get out of jury duty. From what I know of your life I wouldn't think it would be very difficult to find a valid reason.

    Getting back to my friend, he lived in Tucson AZ where they select jurors from your DMV records. Anytime he got a threatening letter he filled it in the trash, and they never followed through on the threat. Here in Washington state they still select jurors from the voter registration. So if you never register to vote you won't ever get a jury summons.
    Well in TX there are lots of reasons they may exempt you from duty but you still have to respond and claim one of those exemptions. In my case I had just completed a US government course and had a new found interest in how things like that worked so I didn't object to participating. So I showed up on time only to sit and wait and wait and eventually be told we could go home because either the case was dismissed or the plea got changed to guilty or something like that. I got paid my little $8 and went home, feeling like I had been stood up for a date.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    The following article does make a very good point.

    The Quiet Racism in the Zimmerman Trial
    by Steven Mazie
    July 16, 2013, 9:18 AM

    The Quiet Racism in the Zimmerman Trial | Praxis | Big Think
    What garbage.

    Juror B-37 sounded sincere when she disavowed any racial overtones in the alleged crime, trial and jury deliberations. But the claim is dubious. Given the realities of race in the United States, and given the racial identities of the two people involved in this deadly altercation, there are resounding racial implications in each stage of this killing and its aftermath.
    So what the author is saying here is that, even if there is no evidence of profiling, there must be profiling because of the racial identities of the people involved. Profile much?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Ok, let's say for a moment that Zimmerman, the mostly non-white guy, was a sworn member of the KKK. Does being racist allow a person of the race this person dislikes the right to attack them and slam their head into the ground? Are racists not allowed to defend themselves unless the attacker is of the same race of themselves?
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    The following article does make a very good point.

    The Quiet Racism in the Zimmerman Trial
    by Steven Mazie
    July 16, 2013, 9:18 AM

    The Quiet Racism in the Zimmerman Trial | Praxis | Big Think
    What garbage.

    Juror B-37 sounded sincere when she disavowed any racial overtones in the alleged crime, trial and jury deliberations. But the claim is dubious. Given the realities of race in the United States, and given the racial identities of the two people involved in this deadly altercation, there are resounding racial implications in each stage of this killing and its aftermath.
    So what the author is saying here is that, even if there is no evidence of profiling, there must be profiling because of the racial identities of the people involved. Profile much?
    The point he made was that had they been able to bring up the racial profiling arguments, the jury might have come to a different conclusion. However it wasn't allowed. Next point is the jury make up. Again, there was no black jurors, so the black perspective was not part of the jury. Did that provide an advantage to the defendant? I'd have to say yes it did, but that's what good attorneys do for their clients.

    What makes this case a very high profile case nationally? It's because an unarmed teenager was shot to death on the street by an armed individual who decided he was justified in doing so. After the incident happened the cops let the man go home, like he had every right to kill an unarmed man. That didn't set very well with most US citizens, so the cops finally bowed to pressure and arrested him. I never had a feeling the prosecutors were committed to winning this case from the start and their poor performance kind of supports that feeling.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Unarmed being used to undermine the beating the mans head into the pavement- right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Unarmed being used to undermine the beating the mans head into the pavement- right?
    So if I pick a fight with you, and you start winning by banging my head on the ground, I have a good excuse to shoot your ass dead and get away with it- right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    So if I pick a fight with you, and you start winning by banging my head on the ground, I have a good excuse to shoot your ass dead and get away with it- right?
    Yes, I really do see it that way. A person does not need a firearm, or even a weapon, to be lethal.

    I mentioned to S.G., the other day while we were driving, how interesting it is that even the biggest asshole you ever met will slam on the brakes if a squirrel darts out in front of him.
    We often entertain thoughts of the worst of people in society.
    But in actuality, even the jerks aren't always That Bad. They'll still go to lengths to not cause too much harm when it's put right in their Dunbar Number.

    I can understand giving the benefit of the doubt and wanting to believe the best in people.

    But when your life is on the line, you have to think worst case scenario and that your head is being pounded into the pavement by one of the 10%.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    A statement by four of the jurors —

    We, the undersigned jurors, understand there is a great deal of interest in this case. But we ask you to remember that we are not public officials and we did not invite this type of attention into our lives.

    Sorry to burst the bubble of four out of the six jurors, but when a person becomes empanelled on a jury, they actually became a member of the justice system — a public official. True, they were not elected, but they became a public official nonetheless. Someone should have told them so.
    A juror is not a public official. A juror is a private citizen doing their duty, and no they should not undergo public scrutiny. They should be able to do their job without pressure from a lynch mob. Leave them alone.
    Agreed, Jurors are more or less forced into duty. There are few options for getting out of jury duty. Put yourself in their shoes.
    What do you think happens when you don't respond to a summons for jury duty? I personally know someone who hadn't responded for 5 years and absolutely nothing ever happened to him. The theory I have about that, is as long as they are not hard up for jurors they will not spend any time and resources trying to round up people that don't respond to a jury duty summons.
    Mr. Bad Robot!! In Hawai'i, a lady I knew didn't respond, because she didn't ever physically get the summons. A policeman was dispatched to her house with a summons to appear before the judge to account for why she had not shown up or responded.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    I really thought he'd get at least manslaughter. I was personally surprised by the verdict. However, that being said, did they have enough evidence to support any kind of conviction? I didn't watch the trial.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Black's Law Dictionary —
    Public official. A person who, upon being issued a commission, taking required oath, enters upon, for a fixed tenure, a position called an office where he or she exercises in his or her own right some of the attributes of sovereign he or she serves for benefit of public.
    First, if these jurors did not know that they were public officials, then they should not have sat on the jury and made the decisions they did.

    Second, it was as public officials, instead of mere citizens, that they were both empowered and protected for the acts that they performed. Consider the National Guardsmen who killed four students at Kent State in 1970. The guardsmen acted as members of the government, not as mere citizens, and thus were protected from any personal wrongdoing.

    Third, former jurors have no obligation to publicly announce or discuss their experiences or decisions while they served as jurors, and they have no obligation to stand up to the scrutiny of the public.

    Fourth, any public statement by a former juror is open to scrutiny. Consider, for example, if one of the former jurors said that she could never have found Zimmerman guilty because she had become infatuated with him.

    Lastly, beyond protecting jurors from any public pressure, they should feel duty-borne to strive toward the highest justice possible, which might not agree with public sentiment.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    The following article does make a very good point.

    The Quiet Racism in the Zimmerman Trial
    by Steven Mazie
    July 16, 2013, 9:18 AM

    The Quiet Racism in the Zimmerman Trial | Praxis | Big Think
    What garbage.

    Juror B-37 sounded sincere when she disavowed any racial overtones in the alleged crime, trial and jury deliberations. But the claim is dubious. Given the realities of race in the United States, and given the racial identities of the two people involved in this deadly altercation, there are resounding racial implications in each stage of this killing and its aftermath.
    So what the author is saying here is that, even if there is no evidence of profiling, there must be profiling because of the racial identities of the people involved. Profile much?
    The point he made was that had they been able to bring up the racial profiling arguments, the jury might have come to a different conclusion. However it wasn't allowed. Next point is the jury make up. Again, there was no black jurors, so the black perspective was not part of the jury. Did that provide an advantage to the defendant? I'd have to say yes it did, but that's what good attorneys do for their clients.

    What makes this case a very high profile case nationally? It's because an unarmed teenager was shot to death on the street by an armed individual who decided he was justified in doing so. After the incident happened the cops let the man go home, like he had every right to kill an unarmed man. That didn't set very well with most US citizens, so the cops finally bowed to pressure and arrested him. I never had a feeling the prosecutors were committed to winning this case from the start and their poor performance kind of supports that feeling.
    If that is all the case is about, why is race relevant?
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Unarmed being used to undermine the beating the mans head into the pavement- right?
    So if I pick a fight with you, and you start winning by banging my head on the ground, I have a good excuse to shoot your ass dead and get away with it- right?
    There was no evidence that Zimmerman picked a fight with Martin. When Martin approached him he said "Do you have a problem?" And Zimmerman said "No.:" How is that picking a fight. It sounds to me as if he is backing down from a person who is intimidating him.
    Harold14370 likes this.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    The point he made was that had they been able to bring up the racial profiling arguments, the jury might have come to a different conclusion.
    That's because there is no such crime as racial profiling, and it is irrelevant to the case.
    However it wasn't allowed. Next point is the jury make up. Again, there was no black jurors, so the black perspective was not part of the jury. Did that provide an advantage to the defendant? I'd have to say yes it did, but that's what good attorneys do for their clients.
    So you think that the color of a person's skin determines their "perspective"? You are doing some racial profiling of your own. Furthermore, you think this "perspective" is of some sort of significance just because one of the participants is black? You are jumping to the conclusion of racial motivation based on no evidence other than the tone of people's skin.
    What makes this case a very high profile case nationally? It's because an unarmed teenager was shot to death on the street by an armed individual who decided he was justified in doing so. After the incident happened the cops let the man go home, like he had every right to kill an unarmed man.
    He did have a right, if he was acting in self defense, and the evidence showed he was.
    That didn't set very well with most US citizens, so the cops finally bowed to pressure and arrested him.
    The cops bowed to pressure. This fact alone is sickening. It's a lynch mob mentality. The public were also basing their conclusions on a pack of lies. The picture of 12? year old in that Hollister t-shirt. A lie. The call to the police doctored by NBC to make Zimmerman look like a racist. I am appalled by the entire affair.
    I never had a feeling the prosecutors were committed to winning this case from the start and their poor performance kind of supports that feeling.
    I never had a feeling the prosecutors had any evidence. Do you think they had evidence that was not presented? Or, do you think they should have hidden even more exculpatory evidence than they did?
    Last edited by Harold14370; July 18th, 2013 at 04:40 AM.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Black's Law Dictionary —
    Public official. A person who, upon being issued a commission, taking required oath, enters upon, for a fixed tenure, a position called an office where he or she exercises in his or her own right some of the attributes of sovereign he or she serves for benefit of public.
    First, if these jurors did not know that they were public officials, then they should not have sat on the jury and made the decisions they did.
    You haven't been paying attention. When you are called for jury duty, you get a summons. It is not supposed to be optional.
    Second, it was as public officials, instead of mere citizens, that they were both empowered and protected for the acts that they performed. Consider the National Guardsmen who killed four students at Kent State in 1970. The guardsmen acted as members of the government, not as mere citizens, and thus were protected from any personal wrongdoing.
    More pointless rambling, jrmonroe style. How does this have a bearing on the jurors' statement?
    Third, former jurors have no obligation to publicly announce or discuss their experiences or decisions while they served as jurors, and they have no obligation to stand up to the scrutiny of the public.
    Correct.
    Fourth, any public statement by a former juror is open to scrutiny. Consider, for example, if one of the former jurors said that she could never have found Zimmerman guilty because she had become infatuated with him.
    But the 4 jurors you are commenting on did not make any public statement, other than that they did not want any publicity. For some reason, you appeared to disagree with that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I really thought he'd get at least manslaughter. I was personally surprised by the verdict. However, that being said, did they have enough evidence to support any kind of conviction? I didn't watch the trial.
    Interesting. You didn't watch the trial, but you thought he'd be convicted. That probably shows how biased the news reporting was and how poorly they were reporting the evidence from the trial.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    1. Black's Law Dictionary —
    Public official. A person who, upon being issued a commission, taking required oath, enters upon, for a fixed tenure, a position called an office where he or she exercises in his or her own right some of the attributes of sovereign he or she serves for benefit of public.
    First, if these jurors did not know that they were public officials, then they should not have sat on the jury and made the decisions they did.
    1. You haven't been paying attention. When you are called for jury duty, you get a summons. It is not supposed to be optional.
    2. Second, it was as public officials, instead of mere citizens, that they were both empowered and protected for the acts that they performed. Consider the National Guardsmen who killed four students at Kent State in 1970. The guardsmen acted as members of the government, not as mere citizens, and thus were protected from any personal wrongdoing.
    2. More pointless rambling, jrmonroe style. How does this have a bearing on the jurors' statement?
    3. Third, former jurors have no obligation to publicly announce or discuss their experiences or decisions while they served as jurors, and they have no obligation to stand up to the scrutiny of the public.
    3 . Correct.
    4. Fourth, any public statement by a former juror is open to scrutiny. Consider, for example, if one of the former jurors said that she could never have found Zimmerman guilty because she had become infatuated with him.
    4. But the 4 jurors you are commenting on did not make any public statement, other than that they did not want any publicity. For some reason, you appeared to disagree with that.
    1. When you get drafted, it's not optional either. Besides, we're not talking about optional or not, we're talking about being a temporary part of the government.

    2. No rambling. The law protects a juror's actions, who are members of the court. As the judge (who tries the law) isn't a mere citizen, jurors (who try the facts) are also not mere citizens. Otherwise, they could be sued as mere citizens.

    3. Hey, we agree!

    4. They claimed they were not public officials, which prompted our latest exchange of posts that began with my Post #203. Any public statement made by anyone is open to public scrutiny, a right that falls under the First Amendment.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    1. When you get drafted, it's not optional either. Besides, we're not talking about optional or not, we're talking about being a temporary part of the government.
    Why did you say they shouldn't have sat on the jury and made the decision they made. then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Anyone else expecting the anti-gun ghouls to come scurrying out of the woodwork attacking "stand your ground"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    The point he made was that had they been able to bring up the racial profiling arguments, the jury might have come to a different conclusion.
    That's because there is no such crime as racial profiling, and it is irrelevant to the case.
    I never said racial profiling was a crime, but it is something people do and it would have possibly influenced what happened. Now we will never know because it was disallowed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    However it wasn't allowed. Next point is the jury make up. Again, there was no black jurors, so the black perspective was not part of the jury. Did that provide an advantage to the defendant? I'd have to say yes it did, but that's what good attorneys do for their clients.
    So you think that the color of a person's skin determines their "perspective"? You are doing some racial profiling of your own. Furthermore, you think this "perspective" is of some sort of significance just because one of the participants is black? You are jumping to the conclusion of racial motivation based on no evidence other than the tone of people's skin.
    No, what I am doing is talking about this idea as it was presented in the article. He looked at a sampling of about 100 other cases where having at least one black person on the jury and there was a big difference in the number of convictions of black defendants.

    In this case we didn't have a black defendant, however the dead black person in this case can't speak for himself. The tone you are presenting is that the defendant's story is true and correct. I think it could be, but I also know a lot of very good lawyers are spinning it for their client.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    What makes this case a very high profile case nationally? It's because an unarmed teenager was shot to death on the street by an armed individual who decided he was justified in doing so. After the incident happened the cops let the man go home, like he had every right to kill an unarmed man.
    He did have a right, if he was acting in self defense, and the evidence showed he was.
    Again, no witnesses to say otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    That didn't set very well with most US citizens, so the cops finally bowed to pressure and arrested him.
    The cops bowed to pressure. This fact alone is sickening. It's a lynch mob mentality. The public were also basing their conclusions on a pack of lies. The picture of 12? year old in that Hollister t-shirt. A lie. The call to the police doctored by NBC to make Zimmerman look like a racist. I am appalled by the entire affair.
    If you are a cop and have an unarmed shot to death person. At the very least they should have took Zimmerman to the station for in house questioning while the investigation was being conducted. Even a moderately intelligent person could see this case was going to go national.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    I never had a feeling the prosecutors were committed to winning this case from the start and their poor performance kind of supports that feeling.
    I never had a feeling the prosecutors had any evidence. Do you think they had evidence that was not presented? Or, do you think they should have hidden even more exculpatory evidence than they did?
    I don't know, maybe they didn't do their jobs very diligently. All I'm trying to say is, they shouldn't have left any room for doubt.
    Last edited by Bad Robot; July 18th, 2013 at 11:17 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #235  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Anyone else expecting the anti-gun ghouls to come scurrying out of the woodwork attacking "stand your ground"?
    Calling people who support stricter gun laws 'anti-gun' is like calling people who support a woman's right to choose 'anti-life'.

    While I don't think Zimmerman did anything legally wrong, I do think his poor choices were part of the resulting death of Martin. I would like to think that this case could provide insight into decision-making for others who think to take Zimmerman's role as neighborhood watchdog, but knowing the way society seems to work, I think it will instead embolden both sides of the issue (those who think Martin was killed in self defense and those who think Zimmerman is a murderer).

    Regardless, the whole thing was just a circus. The only thing I got from it was that Americans still care too much about race when it comes to crime.
    Neverfly and Bad Robot like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #236  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    The tone you are presenting is that the defendant's story is true and correct. I think it could be, but I also know a lot of very good lawyers are spinning it for their client.
    A defendant is supposed to be presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE doubt. If you are on the presumption that he is lying, then you are presuming guilt until he is proven innocent. That bassackwards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Again, no witnesses to say otherwise.
    except for the ones who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    I don't know, maybe they didn't do their jobs very diligently. All I'm trying to say is, they shouldn't have left any room for doubt.
    Without completely fabricating evidence they probably couldn't. They tried that with OJ Simpson. It didn't work out so well for them. And now due to all the tampering of evidence that took place in that trial we will never know for sure if OJ did it or not, but you can't convict someone on false evidence, especially in a high profile case. And since race keeps getting made into an issue, that was a black man accused of killing a white woman, and he was acquitted in spite of the legitimate evidence actually presented. Maybe this time they decided to stick to the facts.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #237  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    The point he made was that had they been able to bring up the racial profiling arguments, the jury might have come to a different conclusion.
    That's because there is no such crime as racial profiling, and it is irrelevant to the case.
    I never said racial profiling was a crime, but it is something people do and it would have possibly influenced what happened. Now we will never know because it was disallowed.
    What exactly do you think should have been allowed? All of Zimmerman's statements to the police were put into evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    However it wasn't allowed. Next point is the jury make up. Again, there was no black jurors, so the black perspective was not part of the jury. Did that provide an advantage to the defendant? I'd have to say yes it did, but that's what good attorneys do for their clients.
    So you think that the color of a person's skin determines their "perspective"? You are doing some racial profiling of your own. Furthermore, you think this "perspective" is of some sort of significance just because one of the participants is black? You are jumping to the conclusion of racial motivation based on no evidence other than the tone of people's skin.
    No, what I am doing is talking about this idea as it was presented in the article. He looked at a sampling of about 100 other cases where having at least one black person on the jury and there was a big difference in the number of convictions of black defendants.
    Exactly, and it's racial profiling. If there were a sampling of crimes committed, and most of the perpetrators are black, then suspecting someone who is black would be racial profiling. Same thing.
    In this case we didn't have a black defendant, however the dead black person in this case can't speak for himself. The tone you are presenting is that the defendant's story is true and correct. I think it could be, but I also know a lot of very good lawyers are spinning it for their client.
    Why do you mention race? Again, you are jumping to conclusions based on the race of the persons involved.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    What makes this case a very high profile case nationally? It's because an unarmed teenager was shot to death on the street by an armed individual who decided he was justified in doing so. After the incident happened the cops let the man go home, like he had every right to kill an unarmed man.
    He did have a right, if he was acting in self defense, and the evidence showed he was.
    Again, no witnesses to say otherwise.
    There was an eyewitness who saw Trayvon beating on George. Didn't you follow the trial?
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    That didn't set very well with most US citizens, so the cops finally bowed to pressure and arrested him.
    The cops bowed to pressure. This fact alone is sickening. It's a lynch mob mentality. The public were also basing their conclusions on a pack of lies. The picture of 12? year old in that Hollister t-shirt. A lie. The call to the police doctored by NBC to make Zimmerman look like a racist. I am appalled by the entire affair.
    If you are a cop and have an unarmed shot to death person. At the very least they should have took Zimmerman to the station for in house questioning while the investigation was being conducted. Even a moderately intelligent person could see this case was going to go national.
    They took him in and questioned him for 5 hours. Do you just swallow the propaganda without question? You can't just arrest and hold somebody without probable cause. They never did have probable cause, but arrested him anyway. Going national has nothing to do with it, or it shouldn't if the prosecution has any ethics.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    I never had a feeling the prosecutors were committed to winning this case from the start and their poor performance kind of supports that feeling.
    I never had a feeling the prosecutors had any evidence. Do you think they had evidence that was not presented? Or, do you think they should have hidden even more exculpatory evidence than they did?
    I don't know, maybe they didn't do their jobs very diligently. All I'm trying to say is, they shouldn't have left any room for doubt.
    How do they remove room for doubt if they don't have the evidence? Did you want them to manufacture evidence?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #238  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    The following article does make a very good point.

    The Quiet Racism in the Zimmerman Trial
    by Steven Mazie
    July 16, 2013, 9:18 AM

    The Quiet Racism in the Zimmerman Trial | Praxis | Big Think
    What garbage.

    Juror B-37 sounded sincere when she disavowed any racial overtones in the alleged crime, trial and jury deliberations. But the claim is dubious. Given the realities of race in the United States, and given the racial identities of the two people involved in this deadly altercation, there are resounding racial implications in each stage of this killing and its aftermath.
    So what the author is saying here is that, even if there is no evidence of profiling, there must be profiling because of the racial identities of the people involved. Profile much?
    It was readable for the first few paragraphs until that part.

    "But the claim is dubious. Given the realities of race in the United States"

    What realities of race? The author did nothing to establish that there is any "reality of race". The only reality is that some people do, in fact, have different skin tones.

    The "reality" that people discriminate on the basis of race is getting pretty close to disappearing. Just some paranoid people insist that it must still be there, because if it weren't then they would have nothing to fight about, and very likely be out of a job if their primary form of employment is leading that crusade.

    That's the problem with crusades. Eventually you win. Then you have to find another job. Some people just can't make that transition.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #239  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    The tone you are presenting is that the defendant's story is true and correct. I think it could be, but I also know a lot of very good lawyers are spinning it for their client.
    A defendant is supposed to be presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE doubt. If you are on the presumption that he is lying, then you are presuming guilt until he is proven innocent. That bassackwards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Again, no witnesses to say otherwise.
    except for the ones who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    I don't know, maybe they didn't do their jobs very diligently. All I'm trying to say is, they shouldn't have left any room for doubt.
    Without completely fabricating evidence they probably couldn't. They tried that with OJ Simpson. It didn't work out so well for them. And now due to all the tampering of evidence that took place in that trial we will never know for sure if OJ did it or not, but you can't convict someone on false evidence, especially in a high profile case. And since race keeps getting made into an issue, that was a black man accused of killing a white woman, and he was acquitted in spite of the legitimate evidence actually presented. Maybe this time they decided to stick to the facts.
    Maybe, but I'm not trying to say the jury was wrong. I am saying the state of Florida might need to rethink the way they handle this type of situation. Most of the rest of the states do, do it differently. I'm pretty sure if Zimmerman had any idea what he was going to have to go through, he would have done things differently and a man wouldn't be dead now. But isn't hindsight wonderful?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #240  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    The tone you are presenting is that the defendant's story is true and correct. I think it could be, but I also know a lot of very good lawyers are spinning it for their client.
    A defendant is supposed to be presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE doubt. If you are on the presumption that he is lying, then you are presuming guilt until he is proven innocent. That bassackwards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Again, no witnesses to say otherwise.
    except for the ones who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    I don't know, maybe they didn't do their jobs very diligently. All I'm trying to say is, they shouldn't have left any room for doubt.
    Without completely fabricating evidence they probably couldn't. They tried that with OJ Simpson. It didn't work out so well for them. And now due to all the tampering of evidence that took place in that trial we will never know for sure if OJ did it or not, but you can't convict someone on false evidence, especially in a high profile case. And since race keeps getting made into an issue, that was a black man accused of killing a white woman, and he was acquitted in spite of the legitimate evidence actually presented. Maybe this time they decided to stick to the facts.
    Maybe, but I'm not trying to say the jury was wrong. I am saying the state of Florida might need to rethink the way they handle this type of situation. Most of the rest of the states do, do it differently. I'm pretty sure if Zimmerman had any idea what he was going to have to go through, he would have done things differently and a man wouldn't be dead now. But isn't hindsight wonderful?
    I don't understand what you are saying. Do you think they should handle situations like this differently when the suspect and the victim are of different races? What do the other states do differently in regards to what particular element of the incident?
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #241  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    The only point this really raised that interests me is the line between attacker and victim.

    If I am being followed by someone and I choose to confront them and find they are acting suspiciously, I question my next actions. If I see that they have a gun and I might be in danger, I'm probably not going to run. I can't outrun a bullet. Depending upon how they perceive my actions, a conflict could easily arise.

    At what point am I considered the aggressor? At what point can they legally kill me?

    In a moment like that, I don't know if I would have the wherewithall to ask, "Have they broken the law? Am I entitled to self defense? What will a jury make of this?"
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #242  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    The only point this really raised that interests me is the line between attacker and victim.

    If I am being followed by someone and I choose to confront them and find they are acting suspiciously, I question my next actions. If I see that they have a gun and I might be in danger, I'm probably not going to run. I can't outrun a bullet. Depending upon how they perceive my actions, a conflict could easily arise.

    At what point am I considered the aggressor? At what point can they legally kill me?

    In a moment like that, I don't know if I would have the wherewithall to ask, "Have they broken the law? Am I entitled to self defense? What will a jury make of this?"

    If you knew they had a gun, then as you've mentioned you'd probably run. Most people would. How likely do you think it is that Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun?


    On the other hand if you don't know they have a gun and you physically assault them just for following you, then probably the moment they're entitled to pull a gun and kill you is the moment you assault them. In Zimmerman's case, he appears to have waited until he could see that Martin was assaulting him with deadly intent, which I'd say is more than he needed to do. Physically assaulting an armed person should be a good way to get killed.

    It's dumb to go around assaulting people. Just like it's dumb to stand near the edge of a cliff, or it's dumb to drive in a car without wearing your seat belt. Maybe someday we'll invent a society where being stupid can't get you killed, but in the meantime we just have to accept that some people are going to do stupid things and die from it.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #243  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If you knew they had a gun, then as you've mentioned you'd probably run. Most people would. How likely do you think it is that Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun?
    I wouldn't. I've trained in disarming my attacker, not outrunning them.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    On the other hand if you don't know you have a gun and you physically assault them just for following you
    What if our words become heated and they are reaching for something? At what point am I allowed to feel threatened? Do I have to wait until they draw? Point it at me? Fire?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    then probably the moment they're entitled to pull a gun and kill you is the moment you assault them.
    This is what I find dubious. If my perception is that I am justifiably defending myself against a possible threat, at what point am I no longer the intended victim? Can someone initiate a conflict with me (follow me, question me, intimidate me) and kill me without repercussion even if I am unable to present that I perceived hostile intentions?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    In Zimmerman's case, he appears to have waited until he could see that Martin was assaulting him with deadly intent, which I'd say is more than he needed to do. Physically assaulting an armed person should be a good way to get killed.
    I want to make it clear that I am not defending Martin's actions or questioning the outcome of the case. I am simply addressing some concerns I feel after hearing the verdict.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It's dumb to go around assaulting people. Just like it's dumb to stand near the edge of a cliff, or it's dumb to drive in a car without wearing your seat belt. Maybe someday we'll invent a society where being stupid can't get you killed, but in the meantime we just have to accept that some people are going to do stupid things and die from it.
    You may say it is dumb, but I will not hesitate to defend myself against a perceived threat. I could also argue that it is dumb to go around flexing authority you do not have and approaching people who are not violating any laws. This is all working under the assumption that Trayvon broke no law until he threw a punch.
    Neverfly likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #244  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    This is all working under the assumption that Trayvon broke no law until he threw a punch.
    I believe that you just nailed the real reason people are so divided over this case. Many have tried to play the race card.
    But here, it shows we can agree on the particulars and disagree at the same time.

    Because in the end, both can be seen as probably feeling threatened or defensive.
    Did Martin slug the guy because he felt stalked, pressured and threatened by a stranger?

    In the end, I agree with the verdict because we cannot just convict people unless it's shown beyond all reasonable doubt that they are guilty. This means that sometimes, a guy who is not so innocent gets to walk.
    It is far better than a guy that is innocent being sent to prison.

    I believe that Zimmerman was feeling confrontational when he believed that he was in the right and feeling defensive when he was on the ground.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #245  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    That's pretty much what I thought the whole time.

    Two idiot alpha males come into contact. The one with the gun usually wins.
    seagypsy, Neverfly and Bad Robot like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #246  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    1. When you get drafted, it's not optional either. Besides, we're not talking about optional or not, we're talking about being a temporary part of the government.
    Why did you say they shouldn't have sat on the jury and made the decision they made. then?
    If they thought they were merely private citizens with the power to decide but without the protection/immunity from accountability, then that is probably the worst kind of pressure from others.

    As I insinuated, just as the judge makes decisions and must not account, or be held accountable, for their actions, so jurors make decisions and must not account, or be held accountable, for their actions. Because they are protected under the law as temporary members of the justice system. Imagine, every time a party won an appeal because the judge made a judicial error (a common cause of appeals, for example, is improper instructions to the jury), and the judge is then held personally accountable for his/her judicial errors. No one would want to be a judge.

    Imagine no protection/immunity for judges or jurors from being held accountable for their actions. First of all, a trial could continue indefinitely because the jurors, thus accused of making an error, would then stand trial. And then, what would happen to the jurors who sat on this second trial? Did they err in their decision-making? If accused of errors, they would stand trial. Ad infinitum. And secondly, most people would absolutely refuse to serve as a juror if they knew they would be required to account for their actions and errors.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #247  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    1. When you get drafted, it's not optional either. Besides, we're not talking about optional or not, we're talking about being a temporary part of the government.
    Why did you say they shouldn't have sat on the jury and made the decision they made. then?
    If they thought they were merely private citizens with the power to decide but without the protection/immunity from accountability, then that is probably the worst kind of pressure from others.

    As I insinuated, just as the judge makes decisions and must not account, or be held accountable, for their actions, so jurors make decisions and must not account, or be held accountable, for their actions. Because they are protected under the law as temporary members of the justice system. Imagine, every time a party won an appeal because the judge made a judicial error (a common cause of appeals, for example, is improper instructions to the jury), and the judge is then held personally accountable for his/her judicial errors. No one would want to be a judge.

    Imagine no protection/immunity for judges or jurors from being held accountable for their actions. First of all, a trial could continue indefinitely because the jurors, thus accused of making an error, would then stand trial. And then, what would happen to the jurors who sat on this second trial? Did they err in their decision-making? If accused of errors, they would stand trial. Ad infinitum. And secondly, most people would absolutely refuse to serve as a juror if they knew they would be required to account for their actions and errors.
    Oh, okay. Just another jrmonroe-ism then.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #248  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If you knew they had a gun, then as you've mentioned you'd probably run. Most people would. How likely do you think it is that Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun?
    I wouldn't. I've trained in disarming my attacker, not outrunning them.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    On the other hand if you don't know you have a gun and you physically assault them just for following you
    What if our words become heated and they are reaching for something? At what point am I allowed to feel threatened? Do I have to wait until they draw? Point it at me? Fire?
    Police have to make that decision all the time.

    I'd work with the idea that reaching for something during a heated exchange is rather like standing at the edge of a cliff and leaning over, or driving without your seat belt. Or running with scissors.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    then probably the moment they're entitled to pull a gun and kill you is the moment you assault them.
    This is what I find dubious. If my perception is that I am justifiably defending myself against a possible threat, at what point am I no longer the intended victim? Can someone initiate a conflict with me (follow me, question me, intimidate me) and kill me without repercussion even if I am unable to present that I perceived hostile intentions?
    I don't really understand "initiate a conflict". If they insult your mother, then insult their mother back. If they call you a racial slur, call them something. That's all fine. Whoever first goes physical is the aggressor. There is a freedom of speech in the USA, not a freedom of punching.

    You can't say "The devil made me do it" about stuff like that. It's not their fault if you can't take an insult. It's yours. If you punch them, then it's your fault you punched them.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It's dumb to go around assaulting people. Just like it's dumb to stand near the edge of a cliff, or it's dumb to drive in a car without wearing your seat belt. Maybe someday we'll invent a society where being stupid can't get you killed, but in the meantime we just have to accept that some people are going to do stupid things and die from it.
    You may say it is dumb, but I will not hesitate to defend myself against a perceived threat. I could also argue that it is dumb to go around flexing authority you do not have and approaching people who are not violating any laws. This is all working under the assumption that Trayvon broke no law until he threw a punch.
    However, we also have no reason to assume Zimmerman did those things. The only point where he's known to have gone over his bounds was following Martin, and his intention was clearly to lead the police officer to where Martin was.

    I can't see any other reason why he would bother himself to tell the dispatcher his phone number and ask to have the officer call him. He repeatedly asked if an officer was on the way, and how soon that officer could get there. Clearly it was his intention to leave the confrontational stuff up to a law enforcement officer.

    But if he didn't follow Martin, then most likely the officer would have shown up but been unable to detain him because he wouldn't know where Martin was. Do you know how frustrating it is to have the police show up and just tell you there's nothing they can do? I don't blame Zimmerman for wanting to not give them an excuse.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #249  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I really thought he'd get at least manslaughter. I was personally surprised by the verdict. However, that being said, did they have enough evidence to support any kind of conviction? I didn't watch the trial.
    Interesting. You didn't watch the trial, but you thought he'd be convicted. That probably shows how biased the news reporting was and how poorly they were reporting the evidence from the trial.
    I did not think he would be convicted of murder one......I DID think he would be convicted of manslaughter, based on what I HAD READ!!! I really do not have time to sit in front of a tele and watch a trial.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #250  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I really thought he'd get at least manslaughter. I was personally surprised by the verdict. However, that being said, did they have enough evidence to support any kind of conviction? I didn't watch the trial.
    Interesting. You didn't watch the trial, but you thought he'd be convicted. That probably shows how biased the news reporting was and how poorly they were reporting the evidence from the trial.
    I did not think he would be convicted of murder one......I DID think he would be convicted of manslaughter, based on what I HAD READ!!! I really do not have time to sit in front of a tele and watch a trial.
    I thought he would be convicted of Murder 2, as a kangaroo court due to Politics and public racial pressure/riot threat and even jurors being threatened.

    Although I am pleased that does not seem to have happened, I do hope no one else gets hurt later on over this case. Enough damage is already done and one funeral should always be better than two funerals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #251  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I really thought he'd get at least manslaughter. I was personally surprised by the verdict. However, that being said, did they have enough evidence to support any kind of conviction? I didn't watch the trial.
    Interesting. You didn't watch the trial, but you thought he'd be convicted. That probably shows how biased the news reporting was and how poorly they were reporting the evidence from the trial.
    I did not think he would be convicted of murder one......I DID think he would be convicted of manslaughter, based on what I HAD READ!!! I really do not have time to sit in front of a tele and watch a trial.
    I thought he would be convicted of Murder 2, as a kangaroo court due to Politics and public racial pressure/riot threat and even jurors being threatened.

    Although I am pleased that does not seem to have happened, I do hope no one else gets hurt later on over this case. Enough damage is already done and one funeral should always be better than two funerals.
    The press always blows EVERYTHING Out of proportion! Can we find justice anymore? Then again, I still think OJ was guilty!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #252  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Then again, I still think OJ was guilty!
    So do I. I believe it more now, than I did back then, though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #253  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Then again, I still think OJ was guilty!
    So do I. I believe it more now, than I did back then, though.
    Why more now than then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #254  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Then again, I still think OJ was guilty!
    So do I. I believe it more now, than I did back then, though.
    Why more now than then?
    Media spin. In the passing time, I've seen more evidence than I had watching the news on T.V. back then.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #255  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Then again, I still think OJ was guilty!
    So do I. I believe it more now, than I did back then, though.
    Why more now than then?
    Media spin. In the passing time, I've seen more evidence than I had watching the news on T.V. back then.
    I really really really hate to say it, but again I think it's the race card being pulled. I don't care what race or creed you are. You do something so horrific, you should not get away with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #256  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Then again, I still think OJ was guilty!
    So do I. I believe it more now, than I did back then, though.
    Why more now than then?
    Media spin. In the passing time, I've seen more evidence than I had watching the news on T.V. back then.
    I really really really hate to say it, but again I think it's the race card being pulled. I don't care what race or creed you are. You do something so horrific, you should not get away with it.
    Two of them: Loved and popular celebrity and race card pulled.
    The irony is... O.J.'s life still went down the tubes after all that- and guess where he is now?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #257  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    The OJ not-guilty verdict depended upon a conspiracy theory by which the police were supposed to have planted the DNA evidence on OJ. The jury had to pretty much disregard the evidence to arrive at their verdict. They were willing to do this because one of the police had once said the N-word.

    On the other hand, the evidence in the Zimmerman trial mostly pointed to the fact that Zimmerman was defending himself. The prosecution had to dream up unlikely scenarios by which Z could have been the aggressor, such as Martin screaming for help while on top of Z, punching him MMA style, breaking his nose and putting lumps on his head.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #258  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    "If it does not fit
    You must acquit"

    Ever wonder if OJ brutalized his hand to make it swell up before the famous attempt to pull the glove on?
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #259  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    "If it does not fit
    You must acquit"

    Ever wonder if OJ brutalized his hand to make it swell up before the famous attempt to pull the glove on?
    The glove had some tears in the lining, but if somebody doesn't want a glove to go on their hand, it's probably not going on. It was a dumb move by prosecutors to ask OJ to put on the glove.
    OJ Simpson's Attorney Tampered With Glove: Ex-Prosecutor
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #260  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I don't really understand "initiate a conflict". If they insult your mother, then insult their mother back. If they call you a racial slur, call them something. That's all fine. Whoever first goes physical is the aggressor. There is a freedom of speech in the USA, not a freedom of punching.
    By initiate, I am referring to the fact that Martin was not violating any laws. It was Zimmerman who started following him. If I were in Martin's shoes, this is where I would consider a normal situation becoming potentially dangerous. Now, I wasn't there. I don't know what the environment was like. But if someone I don't know is following me and I don't have insight as to their intent, I'm going to immediately assume that they are considering actions against me. What other recourse do I have in order to protect myself?

    Here's where it gets gray for me. If someone approaches me and I feel as if I am in danger, at what point am I allowed to take action against them? If my belief is that this person has a weapon and intends to harm me, there is no chance I am waiting to find out. I will move against them.

    I don't know Martin's intent. He could have easily just been acting like a punk and turned on Zimmerman because he didn't like someone following him. For all I know, he could have felt in danger and responded with a force he thought was appropriate. I am only interested in the latter and I don't attack people because I want to be macho.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #261  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Following someone is also not against the law. Otherwise paparazzi would be out of business. Did anyone catch what the distance was that Zimmerman was keeping between himself and Martin? Distance of the follow would make a difference to me in determining how much of a threat I would perceive someone to be and determine whether or not they were a threat.

    Also Martin did manage to run and lose Zimmerman, at that point, Martin would have reasonably eliminated the immediate threat. If Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle and Martin circled back to confront him, then he was no longer trying to avoid danger, which he had already eliminated by throwing Zimmerman off. He should have just gotten home at that point. But he decided to confront and assault Zimmerman. By circling around and confronting him and assaulting, he became the aggressor and the instigator because he has successfully thwarted Zimmerman's attempts to follow him.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #262  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Following someone is also not against the law.
    While I understand this, I also question what is considered sufficient provokation to react. If someone is following me because we're going to the same place, fine. If someone is following me while on the phone with another someone having a conversation about following me, I consider that potentially dangerous.

    My line of questioning isn't directly related to the case, rather it's just some legality that interested me.

    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Also Martin did manage to run and lose Zimmerman, at that point, Martin would have reasonably eliminated the immediate threat. If Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle and Martin circled back to confront him, then he was no longer trying to avoid danger, which he had already eliminated by throwing Zimmerman off. He should have just gotten home at that point.
    Which is why I don't disagree with the ruling. Zimmerman never should have followed Martin and Martin never should have gone back to confront him (going by what allegedly happened).
    babe likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #263  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Here's where it gets gray for me. If someone approaches me and I feel as if I am in danger, at what point am I allowed to take action against them? If my belief is that this person has a weapon and intends to harm me, there is no chance I am waiting to find out. I will move against them.
    I don't see much to support the "approach" part of this. Yes, that's what Rachel says happened, but she was just reporting what Trayvon was telling her. She also said he was "by" the house he was staying at, but he ended up about 100 yards away, in George's direction. There's about 4 minutes between when George says "shit, he's running" to the fight. Trayvon could easily have gone say half a mile in that time if he wanted to (running a leisurely 8-minute mile), but instead ended up pretty close to where he started running.

    So, it looks like Trayvon either went to the house and doubled back, or else he stayed in the area, hiding in the shadows or behind a hedge. I guess you could imagine a scenario where Trayvon decides to come out of hiding, or George spots him and approaches. But it didn't happen like Rachel said it happened, or like he was telling Rachel it happened.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #264  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Then again, I still think OJ was guilty!
    So do I. I believe it more now, than I did back then, though.
    Why more now than then?
    Media spin. In the passing time, I've seen more evidence than I had watching the news on T.V. back then.
    I really really really hate to say it, but again I think it's the race card being pulled. I don't care what race or creed you are. You do something so horrific, you should not get away with it.
    Two of them: Loved and popular celebrity and race card pulled.
    The irony is... O.J.'s life still went down the tubes after all that- and guess where he is now?
    Where he should be.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #265  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    282
    I think Zimmerman and Martin both acted irresponsibly. But you don't charge a dead man with a crime, so only Zimmerman got arrested. I think people lose sight of that, and somehow feel Zimmerman must be the only guilty one because he's the one who got arrested and put on trial.
    Flick Montana and Neverfly like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #266  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by danhanegan View Post
    I think Zimmerman and Martin both acted irresponsibly. But you don't charge a dead man with a crime, so only Zimmerman got arrested. I think people lose sight of that, and somehow feel Zimmerman must be the only guilty one because he's the one who got arrested and put on trial.
    It's always an advantage when the other guy can't testify against you. Also, I never like when a defendant doesn't take the stand in their own defense. I like to see how they respond to the tough questions.

    Obama gets into the act.
    Obama enters Martin debate with personal remarks, questions 'stand-your-ground' | Fox News
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #267  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by danhanegan View Post
    I think Zimmerman and Martin both acted irresponsibly. But you don't charge a dead man with a crime, so only Zimmerman got arrested. I think people lose sight of that, and somehow feel Zimmerman must be the only guilty one because he's the one who got arrested and put on trial.
    It's always an advantage when the other guy can't testify against you. Also, I never like when a defendant doesn't take the stand in their own defense. I like to see how they respond to the tough questions.
    Too bad. The 5th amendment is part of our Bill of Rights.
    Obama is a twit. Stand your ground had NOTHING to do with the Zimmerman trial. It was straight self defense. It looks like he is saying it's legal for people to shoot anybody that's following them. This jackass is going to get somebody killed.
    seagypsy and babe like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #268  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by danhanegan View Post
    I think Zimmerman and Martin both acted irresponsibly. But you don't charge a dead man with a crime, so only Zimmerman got arrested. I think people lose sight of that, and somehow feel Zimmerman must be the only guilty one because he's the one who got arrested and put on trial.
    It's always an advantage when the other guy can't testify against you. Also, I never like when a defendant doesn't take the stand in their own defense. I like to see how they respond to the tough questions.
    Too bad. The 5th amendment is part of our Bill of Rights.
    Obama is a twit. Stand your ground had NOTHING to do with the Zimmerman trial. It was straight self defense. It looks like he is saying it's legal for people to shoot anybody that's following them. This jackass is going to get somebody killed.
    I agree. You have this kind of a situation you wish to DIFUSE it as much as possible, not light a freaking match!
    Harold14370 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #269  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by danhanegan View Post
    I think Zimmerman and Martin both acted irresponsibly. But you don't charge a dead man with a crime, so only Zimmerman got arrested. I think people lose sight of that, and somehow feel Zimmerman must be the only guilty one because he's the one who got arrested and put on trial.
    It's always an advantage when the other guy can't testify against you. Also, I never like when a defendant doesn't take the stand in their own defense. I like to see how they respond to the tough questions.
    Too bad. The 5th amendment is part of our Bill of Rights.
    Obama is a twit. Stand your ground had NOTHING to do with the Zimmerman trial. It was straight self defense. It looks like he is saying it's legal for people to shoot anybody that's following them. This jackass is going to get somebody killed.
    I agree. You have this kind of a situation you wish to DIFUSE it as much as possible, not light a freaking match!
    Sorry but I didn't see any lit match in Obama's comments. If anything he's keeping things from getting out of control. However I have to wonder why only FOX News had this coverage?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #270  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by danhanegan View Post
    I think Zimmerman and Martin both acted irresponsibly. But you don't charge a dead man with a crime, so only Zimmerman got arrested. I think people lose sight of that, and somehow feel Zimmerman must be the only guilty one because he's the one who got arrested and put on trial.
    It's always an advantage when the other guy can't testify against you. Also, I never like when a defendant doesn't take the stand in their own defense. I like to see how they respond to the tough questions.
    Too bad. The 5th amendment is part of our Bill of Rights.
    Obama is a twit. Stand your ground had NOTHING to do with the Zimmerman trial. It was straight self defense. It looks like he is saying it's legal for people to shoot anybody that's following them. This jackass is going to get somebody killed.
    I agree. You have this kind of a situation you wish to DIFUSE it as much as possible, not light a freaking match!
    Sorry but I didn't see any lit match in Obama's comments. If anything he's keeping things from getting out of control. However I have to wonder why only FOX News had this coverage?
    I found his speech in several places. I did not listen to it on FOX news. *chuckle* I don't watch FOX NEWS.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #271  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by danhanegan View Post
    I think Zimmerman and Martin both acted irresponsibly. But you don't charge a dead man with a crime, so only Zimmerman got arrested. I think people lose sight of that, and somehow feel Zimmerman must be the only guilty one because he's the one who got arrested and put on trial.
    Yes, there is that and there is no evidence that Martin threatened Zimmerman's life. No life threatening injuries, and no evidence of a battery beyond a broken nose.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #272  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Yes, there is that and there is no evidence that Martin threatened Zimmerman's life. No life threatening injuries, and no evidence of a battery beyond a broken nose.
    You keep manipulating the wording in order to provide your own spin.

    To say life threatening injuries are required for a person to feel endangered is absurd- as there would be no point in defending a mortally wounded person. You make it sound as though a person should not take action to defend their life unless they are killed.

    The point is whether or not the injuries sustained inflicted the Fear of loss of life and banging someones head against the pavement will most certainly inspire such fear.

    I found such spin very absurd the first time you posted it. That you repeated it is absolutely mind-boggling.

    In addition, to claim there is no evidence of battery aside from a broken nose is in direct and clear contradiction with readily available evidence that shows your claim to most certainly be false.
    Participating on a Science Forum- you really should know better than to present claims so easily refuted.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/vince...stimony-2013-7
    Harold14370 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #273  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Since the trial is over, and this is the United States... Shouldn't we now be talking about his weight gain?
    I mean, srsly, after his arrest, the guy swolled up like a balloon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #274  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Since the trial is over, and this is the United States... Shouldn't we now be talking about his weight gain?
    I mean, srsly, after his arrest, the guy swolled up like a balloon.
    Guilt?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #275  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Sorry but I didn't see any lit match in Obama's comments. If anything he's keeping things from getting out of control. However I have to wonder why only FOX News had this coverage?
    What are you talking about? It was covered by all the news networks. Just do a google search. How can you make such an obviously incorrect statement?
    Yes, he lit a match. He disrespected the jury's decision, which undermines the law and also justifies mob violence. He's using the death of Trayvon Martin to push a gun control agenda using an argument which had nothing to do with the actual trial, misrepresenting both the trial evidence and the stand-your-ground laws.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #276  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I don't really understand "initiate a conflict". If they insult your mother, then insult their mother back. If they call you a racial slur, call them something. That's all fine. Whoever first goes physical is the aggressor. There is a freedom of speech in the USA, not a freedom of punching.
    By initiate, I am referring to the fact that Martin was not violating any laws. It was Zimmerman who started following him. If I were in Martin's shoes, this is where I would consider a normal situation becoming potentially dangerous. Now, I wasn't there. I don't know what the environment was like. But if someone I don't know is following me and I don't have insight as to their intent, I'm going to immediately assume that they are considering actions against me. What other recourse do I have in order to protect myself?

    Here's where it gets gray for me. If someone approaches me and I feel as if I am in danger, at what point am I allowed to take action against them? If my belief is that this person has a weapon and intends to harm me, there is no chance I am waiting to find out. I will move against them.

    I don't know Martin's intent. He could have easily just been acting like a punk and turned on Zimmerman because he didn't like someone following him. For all I know, he could have felt in danger and responded with a force he thought was appropriate. I am only interested in the latter and I don't attack people because I want to be macho.
    It's an interesting scenario, but it isn't really the one we have evidence for. Martin approached Zimmerman's vehicle and checked him out, while Zimmerman was on the phone with the police. There's a good chance he could tell by body language, etc, that Zimmerman was on the phone with the police or someone like the police.

    Typically a person who follows you after they've just called the police isn't planning to hurt you directly. Just doesn't want to lose sight of you. If you call the police and then lose sight of the suspect, the officer will show up, take your report, then pat you on the head and leave, and probably nothing will get done.

    Martin was probably not defending himself from Zimmerman. He was probably attempting to avoid getting arrested. He hadn't done anything wrong (until he attacked Zimmerman), but not having done anything wrong doesn't necessarily mean you won't get arrested.

    Also, if he's staying at his girlfriend's father's house, there's a good chance he's already lost a lot of credibility with his own parents, and getting arrested wouldn't help his living situation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Yes, there is that and there is no evidence that Martin threatened Zimmerman's life. No life threatening injuries, and no evidence of a battery beyond a broken nose.
    You keep manipulating the wording in order to provide your own spin.

    To say life threatening injuries are required for a person to feel endangered is absurd- as there would be no point in defending a mortally wounded person. You make it sound as though a person should not take action to defend their life unless they are killed.

    The point is whether or not the injuries sustained inflicted the Fear of loss of life and banging someones head against the pavement will most certainly inspire such fear.

    I found such spin very absurd the first time you posted it. That you repeated it is absolutely mind-boggling.

    In addition, to claim there is no evidence of battery aside from a broken nose is in direct and clear contradiction with readily available evidence that shows your claim to most certainly be false.
    Participating on a Science Forum- you really should know better than to present claims so easily refuted.
    Vincent Di Maio's George Zimmerman Testimony - Business Insider

    Yeah. And I want to add that getting your head slammed into the pavement is like playing Russian Roulette. If the first two times you hit the ground you haven't seriously damaged anything that's just luck, that's like pulling the trigger on the revolver and finding the first two cylinders were empty.

    Should you let the guy keep spinning and firing?

    The third, fourth, or fifth time is going to be the lethal one, after you've become dazed and your neck muscles have relaxed. That's when they can get a good solid impact going.
    Last edited by kojax; July 20th, 2013 at 02:21 PM.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #277  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Yes, there is that and there is no evidence that Martin threatened Zimmerman's life. No life threatening injuries, and no evidence of a battery beyond a broken nose.
    You keep manipulating the wording in order to provide your own spin.

    To say life threatening injuries are required for a person to feel endangered is absurd- as there would be no point in defending a mortally wounded person. You make it sound as though a person should not take action to defend their life unless they are killed.

    The point is whether or not the injuries sustained inflicted the Fear of loss of life and banging someones head against the pavement will most certainly inspire such fear.

    I found such spin very absurd the first time you posted it. That you repeated it is absolutely mind-boggling.

    In addition, to claim there is no evidence of battery aside from a broken nose is in direct and clear contradiction with readily available evidence that shows your claim to most certainly be false.
    Participating on a Science Forum- you really should know better than to present claims so easily refuted.
    Vincent Di Maio's George Zimmerman Testimony - Business Insider
    Feeling endangered isn't the legal standard for using lethal force in self defense. What is, is the evidence that supports such a claim. Your source makes no statement on DNA evidence.
    "Di Maio, a renowned expert on gunshot wounds, told jurors Tuesday he saw evidence of at least six impacts on Zimmerman's head. He also said those blows were likely the result of severe force, backing up Zimmerman's claims he killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in self-defense."
    Where these gun shot wound impacts? No. So why would an expert in GSW opinion matter? Did you read your own quote?

    There is no DNA evidence on Martin's hands, sleeves, and under his finger nails which corroborate with Zimmerman's claims of choking and grabbing his head and slamming it on the cement.
    Still waiting for you to easily refute that.
    Last edited by MrMojo1; July 20th, 2013 at 02:41 PM. Reason: grammar
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #278  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Part of the reason I'm so adamant about the lethality of what Martin was doing is because I did that to a kid in grade school once. Fortunately we weren't on pavement (I had at least that much sense.) I only stopped because the kid started crying, but then he kept crying for a long time afterward, a lot longer than I thought he would.

    The first two hits were not the hardest. They got progressively harder as he began to resist less and less.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #279  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Kojax, I know nothing of your school yard fight. I don't know the amount of force you used in your blows. I've seen many school yard and street fights and force of blows delivered can vary. Typically, fatigue sets during an extended battle. Fighters tire-out and their punches are less forceful.


    Objectively, would you have thought it was legally justifiable self-defense if the person you were beating, drew a pistol, fired, and then killed you?
    If that person explained that they thought their life was being threatened, would it be legally justifiable?
    Last edited by MrMojo1; July 20th, 2013 at 03:02 PM. Reason: site is having database errors-not saving correctly
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #280  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Feeling endangered isn't the legal standard for using lethal force in self defense. What is, is the evidence that supports such a claim. Your source makes no statement on DNA evidence.
    What is the legal definition in Florida? Care to show it?
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Where these gun shot wound impacts? No. So why would an expert in GSW opinion matter? Did you read your own quote?
    A medical examiner may specialize in a particular facet but still cover a broad range of injuries- in fact, they would be hard to be relied on as an expert if they did not know the cause of various injuries and the results of them. After-all, how could a medical examiner be able to recognize, say blunt force trauma if they cannot recognize impact force trauma in order to distinguish the two?
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    There is no DNA evidence on Martin's hands, sleeves, and under his finger nails which corroborate with Zimmerman's claims of choking and grabbing his head and slamming it on the cement.
    Still waiting for you to easily refute that.
    Here's the thing: It's not up to me to refute your speculations, but up to you to show evidence to support them.

    That said, there are a couple factors here: the clothing was improperly bagged by the police, bagged still wet and this can degrade DNA samples.

    More importantly, grabbing at an object is certainly no guarantee that your DNA will be left on the object. The presence of DNA can confirm that the person grabbed at the object- but the absence of it does not confirm that they didn't.
    It only confirms that their DNA was not FOUND on it.
    You are, again, manipulating the wording as if to imply that a lack of Found DNA proves that he never reached for the weapon. There was also a lack of soda cans found near the scene- this does not "prove" that Martin consumed no soda pop that day. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. A lack of evidence does not support a conclusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #281  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    It is to bad that Zimmerman just didn't follow the instructions the dispatcher told him which was to remain in his car until police arrived.
    How many times do we have to cover this same point? Z was already out of his car when the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that." He was never told to remain in his car. The dispatcher had no authority to tell him to do anything. There is no proof that he did continue to follow. He stated that he was returning to his vehicle when he was attacked. This has never been disproven
    Martin was a racist. What we do know is that when Martin seen Zimmerman he did not see a human being, according to martin, Zimmerman was a "Cracker". If zimmerman was not a "cracker" (hispanic male in this case), Martin would not have attacked Zimmerman. The racist, Martin, just did not count on Zimmerman being armed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #282  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Feeling endangered isn't the legal standard for using lethal force in self defense. What is, is the evidence that supports such a claim. Your source makes no statement on DNA evidence.
    What is the legal definition in Florida? Care to show it?
    776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

    776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

    784.045 Aggravated battery.—
    (1)(a) A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:
    1. Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; or
    2. Uses a deadly weapon.
    (b) A person commits aggravated battery if the person who was the victim of the battery was pregnant at the time of the offense and the offender knew or should have known that the victim was pregnant.
    (2) Whoever commits aggravated battery shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.


    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Where these gun shot wound impacts? No. So why would an expert in GSW opinion matter? Did you read your own quote?
    A medical examiner may specialize in a particular facet but still cover a broad range of injuries- in fact, they would be hard to be relied on as an expert if they did not know the cause of various injuries and the results of them. After-all, how could a medical examiner be able to recognize, say blunt force trauma if they cannot recognize impact force trauma in order to distinguish the two?
    So you have no evidence to easily refute the medical examiner's testimonial evidence. Now, you seem to imply that medical examiner's are not sufficiently trained to identify wounds. If so, where are you drawing this knowledge from?
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    There is no DNA evidence on Martin's hands, sleeves, and under his finger nails which corroborate with Zimmerman's claims of choking and grabbing his head and slamming it on the cement.
    Still waiting for you to easily refute that.
    Here's the thing: It's not up to me to refute your speculations, but up to you to show evidence to support them.
    Here is actually the thing:
    You can't easily refute that the lack of evidence of Martin choking and grabbing then slamming Zimmerman's head on the cement which goes against Zimmerman's claims. Without this evidence there is a reasonable doubt about the life-threatening claims of Zimmerman's use of lethal force.

    2012 Florida Statutes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #283  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    duplicate post
    Last edited by MrMojo1; July 20th, 2013 at 03:52 PM. Reason: post deleted:duplicate
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #284  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post

    776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
    So, in other words, it's just more of your denial of clear evidence and manipulation, again.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Where these gun shot wound impacts? No. So why would an expert in GSW opinion matter? Did you read your own quote?
    A medical examiner may specialize in a particular facet but still cover a broad range of injuries- in fact, they would be hard to be relied on as an expert if they did not know the cause of various injuries and the results of them. After-all, how could a medical examiner be able to recognize, say blunt force trauma if they cannot recognize impact force trauma in order to distinguish the two?
    So you have no evidence to easily refute the medical examiner's testimonial evidence. Now, you seem to imply that medical examiner's are not sufficiently trained to identify wounds. If so, where are you drawing this knowledge from?
    You have no clue what was just said, do you? Reading your response demonstrates that you just got completely turned around and confused.
    You complained about a gunshot wound expert called on to testify in his capacity as medical examiner. I pointed out that having a specialty does not mean he knows nothing about other wounds.
    Repeat: The onus is not on me to prove you wrong.
    I never implied in any manner whatsoever that the medical examiners are not sufficiently trained- I did not elude to it, hint at it nor imply it. In fact, I said the exact opposite since YOU implied it by complaining about the specialty of the medical examiner in the first place.
    I pointed out- quite clearly, that their training and recognition of wounds covers a broad range.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Here's the thing: It's not up to me to refute your speculations, but up to you to show evidence to support them.
    Here is actually the thing:
    No, I had it right- the onus is not on me to prove you wrong. The onus is on you to provide evidence to support your claims and you showing a lack of evidence does not support your speculative conclusion.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Without this evidence there is a reasonable doubt about the life-threatening claims of Zimmerman's use of lethal force.
    No, this relies upon your denial of evidence earlier- such as claiming that he only had an injured nose- which was a false claim.
    Last edited by Neverfly; July 20th, 2013 at 04:41 PM.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #285  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    According to U.S. Amry Capt. Alexis Francisco Carter, who also teaches at the State College on the topic and is more familiar with the laws there than you are:

    On cross-examination, defense attorney Don West questioned Carter about self-defense law as he taught it. The questioning was part of an effort to show the jury how the defense’s theory of self-defense was supported. Zimmerman has said he was repeatedly hit by Martin, but the prosecution counters that his injuries were minor, implying that Zimmerman was not being accurate.

    Carter testified that injuries aren't required for a valid self-defense claim, but that they can support the premise that a person had a “reasonable fear” of harm or death. A situation can turn deadly very quickly, he said. “Things can change in a matter of moments.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #286  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    1. Martin's body was lying in the rain about 2 1/2 hours before it was bagged up and sent to the morgue. It's not hard to imagine DNA getting washed off.
    2. Even without DNA, we can conclude with a high degree of certainty that Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head on the concrete. There isn't any other credible way that the wounds could have been produced. The best Mojo could come up with was he slipped and hit his head on the concrete, or he bashed his own head on the concrete, when everybody was looking out their windows watching. To quote one witness (in a different context): "That's retarded. Sir."
    3. There is no reason to expect Martin's DNA on the gun. According to Zimmerman's reenactment the following day, Martin reached for the gun, but Zimmerman pinned his arm against his body then reached the gun himself. He never said Martin grabbed hold of the gun.
    4. If there is reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was acting in self defense, then the verdict must be not guilty, according to the jury instructions. So, by stating that there is reasonable doubt, Mojo is agreeing with the verdict.
    5. If Martin was reaching for the gun while threatening Zimmerman's life, that would be sufficient reason for Z to fear for his life, no matter the severity of the head wounds. This is a very credible scenario, given Martin's racial hate speech directed against Z, and previous thuggish behavior.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #287  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Sorry but I didn't see any lit match in Obama's comments. If anything he's keeping things from getting out of control. However I have to wonder why only FOX News had this coverage?
    What are you talking about? It was covered by all the news networks. Just do a google search. How can you make such an obviously incorrect statement?
    Yes, he lit a match. He disrespected the jury's decision, which undermines the law and also justifies mob violence. He's using the death of Trayvon Martin to push a gun control agenda using an argument which had nothing to do with the actual trial, misrepresenting both the trial evidence and the stand-your-ground laws.
    I absolutely agree. The jury reached their verdict, and I certainly did not see the President at the trial listening to all the evidence. He should have refrained.
    sculptor and Neverfly like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #288  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I definitely agree with this part here:

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    He was getting his head beaten into the pavement. He's got the wounds to show it. I doubt, highly, that he beat his own head into the pavement.
    According to all witnesses, including Zimmerman, no shots were fired until he ended up on the ground with Martin on top of him and after he had sustained several injuries.
    That should pretty much decide the whole case.
    What if Martin was standing his ground? What if Martin was afraid of the stalker who had passed and inspected him three times, arming himself with a concealed weapon and exiting the truck, following Martin on foot.
    Apparently Martin had a reason to be afraid and stand his ground. Why not run? He had a right to be there without anyone invading his space.

    As long as Zimmerman didn't throw the first punch, and we have evidence of that, and didn't verbally threaten to attack Martin, then absolutely nothing else about this case matters in the slightest.

    I like this other thing you said too.
    Here's the thing, if you pursue a suspicious person in your neighborhood, they don't get to assault you anymore than you get to assault them. A lot of those claiming Zimmermans guilt seem to ignore that. Sure, Zimmerman should have shown restraint. So should Martin have. But Martin did not show restraint. He assaulted a stranger and got himself shot. That is just as much a part of the real world as the blame we can lay at Zimmermans feet..
    If Zimmerman didn't physically attack Martin before Martin attacked him, nor threaten to, then he showed all the restraint the law has any business expecting from him.
    Even if he called out and ordered Martin to explain what he was doing in "this neighborhood"?
    I am reasonably convinced Martin did not just turn around and attacked Zimmerman without provocation.

    I'd hate to think I was legally at fault for someone violently attacking me just because I followed them for a few blocks. What if they're just being paranoid and I was simply headed to the same destination? Should I have to deal with their paranoia, just to stay alive? What kind of society would require that?

    However, people who are contemplating committing a crime often are paranoid.
    But Zimmerman was not JUST going in the same direction as Martin. He was stalking Martin, the real thing that gets other people arrested.

    I am sorry, I must disagree. Zimmerman was the causal agent with intent to invade someone's space. Legally he had no authority to take the actions he did. In fact he was advised by the police to stay in his truck. He broke all the rules. Arming himself was act of aggression, with intent to use it if necessary. He should be held "responsible" for killing an unarmed person with a gun, regardless of the final moment of decision making, he had already prepared himself.

    Was Martin prepared for what happened?
    Last edited by Write4U; July 21st, 2013 at 02:54 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #289  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I definitely agree with this part here:

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    He was getting his head beaten into the pavement. He's got the wounds to show it. I doubt, highly, that he beat his own head into the pavement.
    According to all witnesses, including Zimmerman, no shots were fired until he ended up on the ground with Martin on top of him and after he had sustained several injuries.
    That should pretty much decide the whole case.
    What if Martin was standing his ground? What if Martin was afraid of the stalker who had passed and inspected him three times, arming himself with a concealed weapon and exiting the truck, following Martin on foot.
    Apparently Martin had a reason to be afraid and stand his ground. Why not run? He had a right to be there without anyone invading his space.

    As long as Zimmerman didn't throw the first punch, and we have evidence of that, and didn't verbally threaten to attack Martin, then absolutely nothing else about this case matters in the slightest.

    I like this other thing you said too.
    Here's the thing, if you pursue a suspicious person in your neighborhood, they don't get to assault you anymore than you get to assault them. A lot of those claiming Zimmermans guilt seem to ignore that. Sure, Zimmerman should have shown restraint. So should Martin have. But Martin did not show restraint. He assaulted a stranger and got himself shot. That is just as much a part of the real world as the blame we can lay at Zimmermans feet..
    If Zimmerman didn't physically attack Martin before Martin attacked him, nor threaten to, then he showed all the restraint the law has any business expecting from him.
    Even if he called out and ordered Martin to explain what he was doing in "this neighborhood"?
    I am reasonably convinced Martin did not just turn around and attacked Zimmerman without provocation.

    I'd hate to think I was legally at fault for someone violently attacking me just because I followed them for a few blocks. What if they're just being paranoid and I was simply headed to the same destination? Should I have to deal with their paranoia, just to stay alive? What kind of society would require that?

    However, people who are contemplating committing a crime often are paranoid.
    But Zimmerman was not JUST going in the same direction as Martin. He was stalking Martin, the real thing that gets other people arrested.

    I am sorry, I must disagree. Zimmerman was the causal agent with intent to invade someone's space. Legally he had no authority to take the actions he did. In fact he was advised by the police to stay in his truck. He broke all the rules. Arming himself was act of aggression, with intent to use it if necessary. He should be held "responsible" for killing an unarmed person with a gun, regardless of the final moment of decision making, he had already prepared himself.

    Was Martin prepared for what happened?
    So are you saying pre-meditated?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #290  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I am sorry, I must disagree. Zimmerman was the causal agent with intent to invade someone's space. Legally he had no authority to take the actions he did. In fact he was advised by the police to stay in his truck. He broke all the rules, and he should be held "responsible" for killing an unarmed person with a gun.
    You do not seem to know all the legalities involved.
    He broke no rules doing anything he did. The dispatcher advised that Zimmerman remain in his vehicle so that what happened would be less likely to have happened- but it was not the LAW that Zimmerman stay in his vehicle nor was there any rule that he had to.
    Legally, a U.S. Citizen can arrest, detain and even get a warrant for another citizen. Since we tend to have a well staffed police force in most places, such occurrences are rare. But legally- it is an option.
    In the old days, it was not unusual for a local towns sheriff to "deputize" other citizens for law enforcement.

    Zimmerman was not acting outside of the law or as a lawless vigilante. I say that he was overly zealous in his desire to remove the criminal element from his neighborhood- but that is still not breaking the law.

    Martin also broke no rules or laws that we know of- excluding the end result of him straddling Zimmerman and striking him and striking his head on the ground.
    That being the case, he should have had no reason to assault an approaching stranger. He had a cell phone. Did he dial 9-11?
    No.
    Did he head straight home?
    No.
    He did talk to someone on his phone, but it wasn't authoritative help- it was a friend. A person who felt threatened would have called for back-up (As Zimmerman did immediately), for help, not to chat with his girl.
    So while Zimmerman made a series of morally questionable choices, Martin made a series of Bad Choices.

    About the law... Let's say I'm strolling casually along in San Diego and I observe you drive by without your seatbelt on.
    You parallel park up the road and as I reach where you parked, you are exiting your vehicle- By LAW I am permitted to walk up to you, put a hand on your shoulder (Yes, I can put my hands on you) and place you under citizens arrest and detain you for the charge of driving without your seatbelt on. No one ever does it... But I CAN by law.
    It is a Provision of the Peace Misdemeanor.
    Edit To Add: A better example would be a shoplifter. Any other shopper or the owner may arrest and detain an individual just under the suspicion of theft.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #291  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I definitely agree with this part here:

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    He was getting his head beaten into the pavement. He's got the wounds to show it. I doubt, highly, that he beat his own head into the pavement.
    According to all witnesses, including Zimmerman, no shots were fired until he ended up on the ground with Martin on top of him and after he had sustained several injuries.
    That should pretty much decide the whole case.
    What if Martin was standing his ground? What if Martin was afraid of the stalker who had passed and inspected him three times, arming himself with a concealed weapon and exiting the truck, following Martin on foot.
    Apparently Martin had a reason to be afraid and stand his ground. Why not run? He had a right to be there without anyone invading his space.

    As long as Zimmerman didn't throw the first punch, and we have evidence of that, and didn't verbally threaten to attack Martin, then absolutely nothing else about this case matters in the slightest.

    I like this other thing you said too.
    Here's the thing, if you pursue a suspicious person in your neighborhood, they don't get to assault you anymore than you get to assault them. A lot of those claiming Zimmermans guilt seem to ignore that. Sure, Zimmerman should have shown restraint. So should Martin have. But Martin did not show restraint. He assaulted a stranger and got himself shot. That is just as much a part of the real world as the blame we can lay at Zimmermans feet..
    If Zimmerman didn't physically attack Martin before Martin attacked him, nor threaten to, then he showed all the restraint the law has any business expecting from him.
    Even if he called out and ordered Martin to explain what he was doing in "this neighborhood"?
    I am reasonably convinced Martin did not just turn around and attacked Zimmerman without provocation.

    I'd hate to think I was legally at fault for someone violently attacking me just because I followed them for a few blocks. What if they're just being paranoid and I was simply headed to the same destination? Should I have to deal with their paranoia, just to stay alive? What kind of society would require that?

    However, people who are contemplating committing a crime often are paranoid.
    But Zimmerman was not JUST going in the same direction as Martin. He was stalking Martin, the real thing that gets other people arrested.

    I am sorry, I must disagree. Zimmerman was the causal agent with intent to invade someone's space. Legally he had no authority to take the actions he did. In fact he was advised by the police to stay in his truck. He broke all the rules. Arming himself was act of aggression, with intent to use it if necessary. He should be held "responsible" for killing an unarmed person with a gun, regardless of the final moment of decision making, he had already prepared himself.

    Was Martin prepared for what happened?
    So are you saying pre-meditated?
    Perhaps a presumed "license to kill" ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #292  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I am sorry, I must disagree. Zimmerman was the causal agent with intent to invade someone's space. Legally he had no authority to take the actions he did. In fact he was advised by the police to stay in his truck. He broke all the rules, and he should be held "responsible" for killing an unarmed person with a gun.
    You do not seem to know all the legalities involved.
    He broke no rules doing anything he did. The dispatcher advised that Zimmerman remain in his vehicle so that what happened would be less likely to have happened- but it was not the LAW that Zimmerman stay in his vehicle nor was there any rule that he had to.
    Legally, a U.S. Citizen can arrest, detain and even get a warrant for another citizen. Since we tend to have a well staffed police force in most places, such occurrences are rare. But legally- it is an option.
    In the old days, it was not unusual for a local towns sheriff to "deputize" other citizens for law enforcement.

    Zimmerman was not acting outside of the law or as a lawless vigilante. I say that he was overly zealous in his desire to remove the criminal element from his neighborhood- but that is still not breaking the law.

    Martin also broke no rules or laws that we know of- excluding the end result of him straddling Zimmerman and striking him and striking his head on the ground.
    That being the case, he should have had no reason to assault an approaching stranger. He had a cell phone. Did he dial 9-11?
    No.
    Did he head straight home?
    No.
    He did talk to someone on his phone, but it wasn't authoritative help- it was a friend. A person who felt threatened would have called for back-up (As Zimmerman did immediately), for help, not to chat with his girl.
    So while Zimmerman made a series of morally questionable choices, Martin made a series of Bad Choices.

    About the law... Let's say I'm strolling casually along in San Diego and I observe you drive by without your seatbelt on.
    You parallel park up the road and as I reach where you parked, you are exiting your vehicle- By LAW I am permitted to walk up to you, put a hand on your shoulder (Yes, I can put my hands on you) and place you under citizens arrest and detain you for the charge of driving without your seatbelt on. No one ever does it... But I CAN by law.
    It is a Provision of the Peace Misdemeanor.
    Edit To Add: A better example would be a shoplifter. Any other shopper or the owner may arrest and detain an individual just under the suspicion of theft.
    I know the legal arguments. As instructed the jury may not have had a choice but the one they made.

    I know that a well presented civil suit would probably result in a verdict against Zimmerman.

    There is inescapable fact. Zimmerman WAS stalking Martin. Whatever Martin did was defensive (stand your ground) in nature.
    No Zimmerman, no dead Martin.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #293  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I definitely agree with this part here:

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    He was getting his head beaten into the pavement. He's got the wounds to show it. I doubt, highly, that he beat his own head into the pavement.
    According to all witnesses, including Zimmerman, no shots were fired until he ended up on the ground with Martin on top of him and after he had sustained several injuries.
    That should pretty much decide the whole case.


    What if Martin was standing his ground? What if Martin was afraid of the stalker who had passed and inspected him three times, arming himself with a concealed weapon and exiting the truck, following Martin on foot.
    Apparently Martin had a reason to be afraid and stand his ground. Why not run? He had a right to be there without anyone invading his space.

    As long as Zimmerman didn't throw the first punch, and we have evidence of that, and didn't verbally threaten to attack Martin, then absolutely nothing else about this case matters in the slightest.

    I like this other thing you said too.
    Here's the thing, if you pursue a suspicious person in your neighborhood, they don't get to assault you anymore than you get to assault them. A lot of those claiming Zimmermans guilt seem to ignore that. Sure, Zimmerman should have shown restraint. So should Martin have. But Martin did not show restraint. He assaulted a stranger and got himself shot. That is just as much a part of the real world as the blame we can lay at Zimmermans feet..
    If Zimmerman didn't physically attack Martin before Martin attacked him, nor threaten to, then he showed all the restraint the law has any business expecting from him.
    Even if he called out and ordered Martin to explain what he was doing in "this neighborhood"?
    I am reasonably convinced Martin did not just turn around and attacked Zimmerman without provocation.

    I'd hate to think I was legally at fault for someone violently attacking me just because I followed them for a few blocks. What if they're just being paranoid and I was simply headed to the same destination? Should I have to deal with their paranoia, just to stay alive? What kind of society would require that?

    However, people who are contemplating committing a crime often are paranoid.
    But Zimmerman was not JUST going in the same direction as Martin. He was stalking Martin, the real thing that gets other people arrested.

    I am sorry, I must disagree. Zimmerman was the causal agent with intent to invade someone's space. Legally he had no authority to take the actions he did. In fact he was advised by the police to stay in his truck. He broke all the rules. Arming himself was act of aggression, with intent to use it if necessary. He should be held "responsible" for killing an unarmed person with a gun, regardless of the final moment of decision making, he had already prepared himself.

    Was Martin prepared for what happened?
    So are you saying pre-meditated?
    Perhaps a presumed "license to kill" ?


    I see. So you think it in a sense, "gave him permission"?

    I was very surprised he didn't at least get manslaughter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #294  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I am sorry, I must disagree. Zimmerman was the causal agent with intent to invade someone's space. Legally he had no authority to take the actions he did. In fact he was advised by the police to stay in his truck. He broke all the rules, and he should be held "responsible" for killing an unarmed person with a gun.
    You do not seem to know all the legalities involved.
    He broke no rules doing anything he did. The dispatcher advised that Zimmerman remain in his vehicle so that what happened would be less likely to have happened- but it was not the LAW that Zimmerman stay in his vehicle nor was there any rule that he had to.
    Legally, a U.S. Citizen can arrest, detain and even get a warrant for another citizen. Since we tend to have a well staffed police force in most places, such occurrences are rare. But legally- it is an option.
    In the old days, it was not unusual for a local towns sheriff to "deputize" other citizens for law enforcement.

    Zimmerman was not acting outside of the law or as a lawless vigilante. I say that he was overly zealous in his desire to remove the criminal element from his neighborhood- but that is still not breaking the law.

    Martin also broke no rules or laws that we know of- excluding the end result of him straddling Zimmerman and striking him and striking his head on the ground.
    That being the case, he should have had no reason to assault an approaching stranger. He had a cell phone. Did he dial 9-11?
    No.
    Did he head straight home?
    No.
    He did talk to someone on his phone, but it wasn't authoritative help- it was a friend. A person who felt threatened would have called for back-up (As Zimmerman did immediately), for help, not to chat with his girl.
    So while Zimmerman made a series of morally questionable choices, Martin made a series of Bad Choices.

    About the law... Let's say I'm strolling casually along in San Diego and I observe you drive by without your seatbelt on.
    You parallel park up the road and as I reach where you parked, you are exiting your vehicle- By LAW I am permitted to walk up to you, put a hand on your shoulder (Yes, I can put my hands on you) and place you under citizens arrest and detain you for the charge of driving without your seatbelt on. No one ever does it... But I CAN by law.
    It is a Provision of the Peace Misdemeanor.
    Edit To Add: A better example would be a shoplifter. Any other shopper or the owner may arrest and detain an individual just under the suspicion of theft.
    I know the legal arguments. As instructed the jury may not have had a choice but the one they made.

    I know that a well presented civil suit would probably result in a verdict against Zimmerman.
    Do you see that happening?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #295  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    What would be the point other than a public statement about gun owners' right to carry concealed weapons in public, without expressed "license to kill" or an implied "take license to kill"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #296  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    What would be the point other than a public statement about gun owners' right to carry concealed weapons in public, without expressed "license to kill" or an implied "take license to kill"?
    Think about O.J. Simpson. They took it to civil court and won.

    I think it would be more for the family's sake "that justice was done", than anything else. That is my humble opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #297  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    What would be the point other than a public statement about gun owners' right to carry concealed weapons in public, without expressed "license to kill" or an implied "take license to kill"?
    Think about O.J. Simpson. They took it to civil court and won.

    I think it would be more for the family's sake "that justice was done", than anything else. That is my humble opinion.
    I agree, but O J was able to pay punitive damages, Zimmerman is not.

    But it might also result in the civil re-examination of perhaps too liberal gun laws permitting such "unfortunate circumstances" to occur in the first place.
    Last edited by Write4U; July 21st, 2013 at 04:49 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #298  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post

    What if Martin was standing his ground? What if Martin was afraid of the stalker who had passed and inspected him three times, arming himself with a concealed weapon and exiting the truck, following Martin on foot.
    Apparently Martin had a reason to be afraid and stand his ground. Why not run? He had a right to be there without anyone invading his space.
    It is incorrect to say that Martin was "standing his ground." The stand-your-ground law only applies when a person is reacting to a life threatening situation. There was no threat to Martin's life, because Zimmerman had not pulled his gun, nor thrown any punches. There is some evidence that Martin went back to the place he was staying, then circled back. Rachel said he was "by" the house at one point. That's not standing your ground.
    Are you actually defending the stand-your-ground law here, or just using upside down logic?

    Even if he called out and ordered Martin to explain what he was doing in "this neighborhood"?
    I am reasonably convinced Martin did not just turn around and attacked Zimmerman without provocation.
    You're sure about that, are you? Why? Don't just throw out assertions without any argument to back them up.
    But Zimmerman was not JUST going in the same direction as Martin. He was stalking Martin, the real thing that gets other people arrested.
    Please cite the Florida statute under which Zimmerman could be arrested for stalking.
    I am sorry, I must disagree. Zimmerman was the causal agent with intent to invade someone's space. Legally he had no authority to take the actions he did.
    What law was he violating?
    In fact he was advised by the police to stay in his truck.
    This is about the fourth time I've had to correct somebody about this. He was already out of his truck. He was not advised to stay in his truck, or go back, but rather not to follow Martin. After Zimmerman received this advice, he did quit following Martin and went looking for a house number, then headed back toward his truck. There is no evidence contradicting this.
    He broke all the rules. Arming himself was act of aggression, with intent to use it if necessary. He should be held "responsible" for killing an unarmed person with a gun, regardless of the final moment of decision making, he had already prepared himself.
    Many people have concealed carry permits, and often it does save lives. It does not break the rules.

    I know the legal arguments. As instructed the jury may not have had a choice but the one they made.

    I know that a well presented civil suit would probably result in a verdict against Zimmerman.

    There is inescapable fact. Zimmerman WAS stalking Martin. Whatever Martin did was defensive (stand your ground) in nature.
    No Zimmerman, no dead Martin.
    Many people "know" things that are simply not true. There isn't proof beyond reasonable doubt, or even a preponderance of evidence, that Zimmerman did anything wrong. The preponderance of evidence supports the story Zimmerman told from day 1, after waiving his Miranda rights.
    Last edited by Harold14370; July 21st, 2013 at 08:09 AM.
    seagypsy and Neverfly like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #299  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Following people is not against the law. Otherwise paparazzi would not exist. There is no law protecting a person's "personal space". You cannot touch someone and as long as you don't, you are in the clear unless a specific court order has been issued to you as an individual to keep a specific distance from someone. In other words, a restraining order. If there is no restraining order issued, then a person has every right to go where you go so long as they do not touch you and do not follow you onto your private real property. as long as you are in public you can be followed. You can be photographed, you can be verbally addressed. As long as they are not threatening you when they speak to you, or being verbally abusive, and not touching you, you have no grounds to press charges or to assault them.
    Harold14370 likes this.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #300  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post

    What if Martin was standing his ground? What if Martin was afraid of the stalker who had passed and inspected him three times, arming himself with a concealed weapon and exiting the truck, following Martin on foot.
    Apparently Martin had a reason to be afraid and stand his ground. Why not run? He had a right to be there without anyone invading his space.
    It is incorrect to say that Martin was "standing his ground." The stand-your-ground law only applies when a person is reacting to a life threatening situation. There was no threat to Martin's life, because Zimmerman had not pulled his gun, nor thrown any punches. There is some evidence that Martin went back to the place he was staying, then circled back. Rachel said he was "by" the house at one point. That's not standing your ground.
    Are you actually defending the stand-your-ground law here, or just using upside down logic?

    Even if he called out and ordered Martin to explain what he was doing in "this neighborhood"?
    I am reasonably convinced Martin did not just turn around and attacked Zimmerman without provocation.
    You're sure about that, are you? Why? Don't just throw out assertions without any argument to back them up.
    But Zimmerman was not JUST going in the same direction as Martin. He was stalking Martin, the real thing that gets other people arrested.
    Please cite the Florida statute under which Zimmerman could be arrested for stalking.
    I am sorry, I must disagree. Zimmerman was the causal agent with intent to invade someone's space. Legally he had no authority to take the actions he did.
    What law was he violating?
    In fact he was advised by the police to stay in his truck.
    This is about the fourth time I've had to correct somebody about this. He was already out of his truck. He was not advised to stay in his truck, or go back, but rather not to follow Martin. After Zimmerman received this advice, he did quit following Martin and went looking for a house number, then headed back toward his truck. There is no evidence contradicting this.
    He broke all the rules. Arming himself was act of aggression, with intent to use it if necessary. He should be held "responsible" for killing an unarmed person with a gun, regardless of the final moment of decision making, he had already prepared himself.
    Many people have concealed carry permits, and often it does save lives. It does not break the rules.

    I know the legal arguments. As instructed the jury may not have had a choice but the one they made.

    I know that a well presented civil suit would probably result in a verdict against Zimmerman.

    There is inescapable fact. Zimmerman WAS stalking Martin. Whatever Martin did was defensive (stand your ground) in nature.
    No Zimmerman, no dead Martin.
    Many people "know" things that are simply not true. There isn't proof beyond reasonable doubt, or even a preponderance of evidence, that Zimmerman did anything wrong. The preponderance of evidence supports the story Zimmerman told from day 1, after waiving his Miranda rights.
    I believe the word "stalking" is very appropriate here. Martin confirmed that he felt he was being stalked in his phone call.

    [quote]Stalking is unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them. The word stalking is used, with some differing meanings, in psychology and psychiatry and also in some legal jurisdictions as a term for a criminal offense.
    According to a 2002 report by the National Center for Victims of Crime, "Virtually any unwanted contact between two people [that intends] to directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking"[1] although in practice the legal standard is usually somewhat stricter.[/quote]

    ... stalking is a criminal activity consisting of a series of actions that are designed to threaten but, taken individually, might constitute legal behavior
    Imagine Zimmerman (clean shaven head), walking home from the grocery store with a bag of skittles, being followed by a truck driven by a black guy with a hoody. The black guy arms himself with a concealed gun and gets out of the truck (facts). In the following "unknown" sequence of events, the black guy with the hoody and the gun kills Zimmerman and then claims "self defense". Do your really think this would fly?

    Profile.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Trial
    By Cogito Ergo Sum in forum In the News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 5th, 2014, 03:52 PM
  2. trial and error
    By parag29081973 in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 26th, 2013, 04:39 AM
  3. spike lee,zimmerman black panthers
    By Holmes in forum In the News
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: April 5th, 2012, 04:52 PM
  4. How Do You Do a Trial When You Don't Have $$$$$ to Spend?
    By Chester in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: May 25th, 2011, 06:16 PM
  5. Scientology in French trial.
    By Cat1981(England) in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 13th, 2008, 03:15 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •