User Tag List

First 789101119 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 473

  1. #81
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    I'm not sure of the specific legal concepts behind what this would be described as, but I'm concluding after some research that Zimmerman was negligent in his behavior. I don't have enough information to know what happened after.

    If Martin felt he was being attacked, he had a right to defend himself.

    However, you are legally limited to defend yourself within limits. If you knock someone down and subdue them, fine, but you can't beat their head apart unless there is present danger.

    It's unclear what happened or if that present danger was there. Yes, Zimmerman had a weapon, but it's not clear (based on extended periods of him yelling "help help") if he was trying to get away or actually fight. If you hold someone in place to beat them while they are trying to get away, that's no longer self defense.

    The whole thing stinks.
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

  2. #82
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,042

    Default

    I'm done posting in this thread for this evening, but I found an excellent quote that explains why Zimmerman should be acquitted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan
    First they came for the assholes, then they came for the Jews. Then they came for soda pop manufacturers. I think some stuff might have happened between all that, but honestly, history should be more like some of my movies, and just get straight to the juicy bits. I don't even remember that other stuff. Another thing the screenwriters of history could remember from my movies is to put in more roles for chimps. People don't realize this, but they can actually do stuff other than throw poop around.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  3. #83
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    I actually haven't looked at the evidence closely to determine whether or not I think Zimmerman had the requisite intent to find him guilty of murder or manslaughter.

    I actually hate these big public trials and will be glad when it's over whatever the result.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  4. #84
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    Man reacts to news about Zimmerman trial:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxVKFE8rk9E
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  5. #85
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    You didn't do anything illegal.
    No, no. You're skipping ahead. The phrase guilty of was meant in a legal sense. You have to explain how following someone police told you not to follow and then shooting them did doesn't make it into the realm of illegal. Surely it is obvious that the benefit of the doubt is on the dead guy and not the killer.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    What was the origin of the sense of threat?
    Followed by stranger in the dark. That's certainly threatening enough to at least confront the situation. Once it goes into confrontation mode, a whole of shit can happen. Sorry if I missed the details on this, but did it become apparent to Martin at some point that Zimmerman had a gun, and if so, when? It seems there are some odd details about when exactly Zimmerman got his gun out and how he pulled it off.

    Which is the thing. This situation is confusing. You have to make a lot of assumptions to conclude anything. If you decide not to make any assumption at all, I'm afraid the situation goes to the dead, unarmed victim pretty much by default. So you have to rely on a ton of assumptions to make your case.

    While we don't know exactly what happened during the confrontation, it is not difficult to imagine how a reasonable sense of threat might have escalated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    What exactly are you arguing?

    What elements of the crime does that scenario prove?

    Whether or not Martin had a right to defend himself has zero to do with whether or not Zimmerman committed murder.

    This isn't pre-school. "He started it" doesn't resolve the matter.
    I'm not sure if Zimmerman committed murder, but if he isn't even tagged with manslaughter, something is wrong. The evidence that he committed manslaughter is the near absolute certainty that he shot and killed someone. Murder is a possibility. Basically, I'm asking how any details of that story do anything to keep Zimmerman from being guilty.

    I'm also a little confused, because it sort of sounds like you're saying that Martin's right to defend himself has no relevance to the ruling, but Zimmerman's right to defend himself does. Did I get that wrong?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  6. #86
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    No, no. You're skipping ahead. The phrase guilty of was meant in a legal sense. You have to explain how following someone police told you not to follow and then shooting them did doesn't make it into the realm of illegal. Surely it is obvious that the benefit of the doubt is on the dead guy and not the killer.



    Followed by stranger in the dark. That's certainly threatening enough to at least confront the situation. Once it goes into confrontation mode, a whole of shit can happen. Sorry if I missed the details on this, but did it become apparent to Martin at some point that Zimmerman had a gun, and if so, when? It seems there are some odd details about when exactly Zimmerman got his gun out and how he pulled it off.

    Which is the thing. This situation is confusing. You have to make a lot of assumptions to conclude anything. If you decide not to make any assumption at all, I'm afraid the situation goes to the dead, unarmed victim pretty much by default. So you have to rely on a ton of assumptions to make your case.

    While we don't know exactly what happened during the confrontation, it is not difficult to imagine how a reasonable sense of threat might have escalated.



    I'm not sure if Zimmerman committed murder, but if he isn't even tagged with manslaughter, something is wrong. The evidence that he committed manslaughter is the near absolute certainty that he shot and killed someone. Murder is a possibility. Basically, I'm asking how any details of that story do anything to keep Zimmerman from being guilty.

    I'm also a little confused, because it sort of sounds like you're saying that Martin's right to defend himself has no relevance to the ruling, but Zimmerman's right to defend himself does. Did I get that wrong?
    If Z believed that Trayvon was trying to kill him, then self-defense was the proper response.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  7. #87
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    No, no. You're skipping ahead. The phrase guilty of was meant in a legal sense. You have to explain how following someone police told you not to follow and then shooting them did doesn't make it into the realm of illegal. Surely it is obvious that the benefit of the doubt is on the dead guy and not the killer.
    Zimmerman did not initiate the physical confrontation. Zimmerman was reasonably in fear for his life or GBH.

    Did it in 17 words.


    Followed by stranger in the dark. That's certainly threatening enough to at least confront the situation. Once it goes into confrontation mode, a whole of shit can happen. Sorry if I missed the details on this, but did it become apparent to Martin at some point that Zimmerman had a gun, and if so, when? It seems there are some odd details about when exactly Zimmerman got his gun out and how he pulled it off.
    So there was no legal justification for the use of force by Martin.

    The argument goes, if you buy into Martin going for Zimmerman's gun, that Martin felt the gun with his leg while straddling GZ. That's the only argument I've heard thus far regarding Martin's knowledge of the weapon.

    Which is the thing. This situation is confusing. You have to make a lot of assumptions to conclude anything. If you decide not to make any assumption at all, I'm afraid the situation goes to the dead, unarmed victim pretty much by default. So you have to rely on a ton of assumptions to make your case.
    Welcome to law.

    Innocent until proven guilty, so the "situation doesn't go to anyone by default".

    While we don't know exactly what happened during the confrontation, it is not difficult to imagine how a reasonable sense of threat might have escalated.
    You're right, having your neighborhood burglarized that many times in the past year would heighten a reasonable persons suspicions.

    I'm not sure if Zimmerman committed murder, but if he isn't even tagged with manslaughter, something is wrong. The evidence that he committed manslaughter is the near absolute certainty that he shot and killed someone. Murder is a possibility.
    So you can show that Zimmerman wasn't justified in his use of deadly force?

    Very well let's hear it.

    Basically, I'm asking how any details of that story do anything to keep Zimmerman from being guilty.
    Because a) that state hasn't shown Zimmerman to have been the aggressor in the physical altercation, and the forensic pathologist has agreed (which I have found quite convincing) and b) it has been convincingly argued that Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life.

    Here is an excerpt from a Legal Insurrection piece that contains the gist of the Forensic Pathologists testimony.

    Dr. Vincent Di Maio, Forensic Pathologist

    It seemed to take the entire first hour of Dr. Di Maio’s testimony simply to work though his background and credentials. He has spent on the order of 40 years working as a forensic pathologist, having personally conducted some 9,000 autopsies and overseen tens of thousands more. Defense attorney stepped through these qualifications in his usual deliberative manner.

    In addition to his work conducting autopsies, Dr. Di Maio had also served in the military in a capacity in which he was able to study terminal ballistics and gun shot wounds. He stepped through the process by which a gun fires a cartridge, focusing particularly on the matter ejected from the muzzle, including the hot expanding gases, the bullet, and unburned gun powder.
    Zimmerman’s Muzzle Not Pressed Into Martin’s Body

    He noted that the autopsy report noted a 2″ x 2″ area of gun powder tattooing (from unburnt gun powder) around the gun shot wound on Trayvon Martin’s chest. He was able to determine from this that them muzzle of the Mr. Zimmerman’s Kel-Tech PF9 had been between 2″ and 4″ from Mr. Martin’s chest. He was also able to definitely exclude the State’s claim that the muzzle of the gun had been pressed against Martin’s chest, because in that case the unburnt gun powder would have ended up in the wound rather than on Mr. Martin’s skin.
    ME Bao’s Collection and Preservation of Evidence Disastrously Flawed

    West also had Dr. Di Maio testify as to matters of evidence collection and preservation, particularly the wet clothes that had been stored in plastic bags (thus degrading any DNA that might have otherwise been detectable), the failure to bag Trayvon Martin’s hands in order to properly preserve any evidence there (such as Mr. Zimmerman’s DNA on Martin’s knuckles), and the fact that the photos taken by Medical Examiner Bao were only taken after Martin’s body had already been washed. This undercuts a variety of State claims, including that the lack of Zimmerman’s DNA on Martin’s hands suggests that Martin did not, in fact beat Zimmerman around the head. In essence, this line of questioning should have destroyed whatever little remaining confidence the jury might have still held in the testimony of Dr. Bao.
    Martin Would Have Been Able to Pull Hands Under Body After Shooting

    Dr. Di Maio further testified as to how long Mr. Martin might have been able to have controlled movements considering the injuries caused to his heart by Mr. Zimmerman’s bullet, indicating a minimum period of 10 to 15 seconds. This would have been more than enough time for Martin to pull his hands in under his body. This undercuts the State’s argument that Zimmerman must be lying when he said he moved Martin’s hands away from his body.
    Injuries to Zimmerman’s Head Were Potentially Life Threatening

    Further testimony from Dr. Di Maio emphasized the life-threatening danger of blows to the head. He noted that intracranial bleeding is hidden, and often does not cause death until some hours after the injury that caused it. He also noted that axonal injury can occur even besides bleeding, causing brain damage. This undermines the State’s arguments that the blows to Zimmermans’ head were inconsequential and could not h ave represented the reasonable threat of death or grave bodily harm necessary to justify Zimmerman’s use of deadly force in self-defense.

  8. #88
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I'm not sure if Zimmerman committed murder, but if he isn't even tagged with manslaughter, something is wrong. The evidence that he committed manslaughter is the near absolute certainty that he shot and killed someone.
    Wrong because stand your ground is still a defense if his intent and the circumstances meet the requirements of the statute. Those things are not certain as best I can tell.


    I'm also a little confused, because it sort of sounds like you're saying that Martin's right to defend himself has no relevance to the ruling, but Zimmerman's right to defend himself does. Did I get that wrong?
    Right. Martin is not on trial here and whether his actions were justifiable is irrelevant.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  9. #89
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Cops tell you not to pursue someone. You do anyway, with a gun. Unarmed person you pursue physically confronts you out of a sense of threat. Fight starts. You shoot the person you shouldn't have been pursuing, and they die as a result. You are not guilty of anything because...?
    You are operating a convenience store, a robber comes in with a gun; you manage to shoot him instead, and then, in the heat of a moment you never asked to be put in, while every survival instinct in your body is urging you to make absolutely sure you have put a permanent end to the threat, you give in to that moment of weakness and shoot the robber dead while he's wounded on the floor. You are guilty of murder or manslaughter because....?

    At most, Zimmerman is guilty of something along the lines of reckless endangerment, not murder or manslaughter; Martin had legitimate reason to feel threatened, and Zimmerman had legitimate reason to believe he was at risk of death or grievous bodily harm (and before that he had legitimate reason to believe the police would not arrive in time to protect the neighborhood). Sometimes, tragic misunderstandings just happen, and there is no way to prevent them through statutory law without creating even worse situational tragedies or injustices.

    Edit: in case there's any misunderstanding, I do believe the convenience store owner should have been charged with manslaughter, albeit with a reduced sentence for extenuating circumstances. My point was you can't say the robber could become a victim after instigating such an incident through criminal activity, but Zimmerman could not become a victim after instigating an incident through arguably stupid, but perfectly legal, activity.

  10. #90
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Cops tell you not to pursue someone. You do anyway, with a gun. Unarmed person you pursue physically confronts you out of a sense of threat. Fight starts. You shoot the person you shouldn't have been pursuing, and they die as a result. You are not guilty of anything because...?
    Cops did not tell Z not to pursue Trayvon.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

Similar Threads

  1. New York is going to be destroyed by fire
    By draon9 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-24-2016, 10:38 AM
  2. Looks like we are going to Syria
    By The Great One in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 09-19-2013, 10:31 AM
  3. It's looking like we might be able to break up the malicious super-banks after all!
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-22-2009, 09:30 AM
  4. So it's going to be 75 degrees on Christmas
    By swordpath in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-22-2008, 01:44 AM
  5. Obama is going to face international crisis PROMISES Biden
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 10-22-2008, 04:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO