|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. |
Its FOX so it might be bullshit,
I wish people would understand that Fox News and local FOX affiliate stations are not connected to each other except by having "FOX" in their name. That's the case for the vast majority of FOX affiliate stations.
A few of them are owned directly or indirectly by News Corp. - and even then it isn't Fox News that is making editorial decisions for those affiliates. Fox News doesn't decide what stories local news investigates or reports and what information or slant is put into those stories - but most of them have no connection. It just makes you look dumb when you say "It's FOX so it might be bullshit."
|
On March 25 2012 06:04 DeepElemBlues wrote:I wish people would understand that Fox News and local FOX affiliate stations are not connected to each other except by having "FOX" in their name. That's the case for the vast majority of FOX affiliate stations, a few of them are owned directly or indirectly by News Corp., but most of them have no connection. It just makes you look dumb when you say "It's FOX so it might be bullshit."
I apologise for not being american.
We dont get FOX here so the only exposure we have is when stories get linked, and often they are BS (which is sometimes why i get shown them). Im sure you can understand me not having an intricate knowledge of how an american media company operates.
|
Well, they used to have a law that justified burning witches, too. Laws can be fundamentally unjust and let's not forget this one was passed by one of the dumbest people alive, Jebediah "weapons industry" Bush himself.
In my mind, if Zimmerman gets hunted down and shot, it will be a far less drastic response to his slaying of a minor compared to ending an unarmed person's life because they are beating you up. I don't want it to happen, but it's absolutely closer to objective justice than his so-called "self defense". 168 unarmed people shot in self defense? Wow.
What I find disturbing is that apparently the same people who are defending Zimmerman are somehow appalled by the Panthers' action. Haven't you heard of the difference between legal and legitimate? The SYG law is nothing but legalized murder and should be immediately revoked or hell will break loose sooner or later. The situation where a civilian can stalk and shoot an unarmed teenager (I don't care if Martin was beating him up, what the fuck? People get into fights all the time) and somehow has done nothing illegal, as in less legal than smoking a joint at home, is stranger than fiction.
|
On March 25 2012 06:12 Kickboxer wrote:
Well, they used to have a law that justified burning witches, too. Laws can be fundamentally unjust and let's not forget this one was passed by one of the dumbest people alive, Jebediah "weapons industry" Bush himself.
In my mind, if Zimmerman gets hunted down and shot, it will be a far less drastic response to his slaying of a minor compared to ending an unarmed person's life because they are beating you up. I don't want it to happen, but it's absolutely closer to objective justice than his so-called "self defense". 168 unarmed people shot in self defense? Wow.
What I find disturbing is that apparently the same people who are defending Zimmerman are somehow appalled by the Panthers' action. Haven't you heard of the difference between legal and legitimate? The SYG law is nothing but legalized murder and should be immediately revoked or hell will break loose sooner or later. The situation where a civilian can stalk and shoot an unarmed teenager (I don't care if Martin was beating him up, what the fuck? People get into fights all the time) and somehow has done nothing illegal, as in less legal than smoking a joint at home, is stranger than fiction.
governors dont pass laws.
yes, lets kill everyone accused of a crime. the judicial process is expensive and tedious.
yes, lets take the law into our own hands. when we dont agree with the laws, we make our own. thats how a perfect democracy works.
thanks for your contributions. =D
|
Oh, but shooting a person because you "feel threatened" is the right thing to do?
Can you realize the fundamental chasm between a fistfight and the end of human life? If they do, they won't kill him because he is accused of anything, they will do it because he killed a teen.
I don't think you read my post too well.
|
On March 25 2012 06:23 Kickboxer wrote:
Oh, but shooting a person because you "feel threatened" is the right thing to do?
Can you realize the fundamental chasm between a fistfight and the end of human life? If they do, they won't kill him because he is accused of anything, they will do it because he killed a teen.
I don't think you read my post too well.
no, i dont think so. but this case is obviously not that simple. you cant reduce it to "zimmerman felt threatened."
yes, not all fistfights lead to serious injury or death. however, when you are on the ground getting pummeled in your face (assuming John's statements are true), i can see how i would fear for my life or serious injury. in movies when you get hit in your head, you jump back up and do backflips, etc. etc. in real life, you go to the emergency room.
i read your post, and i think its ill informed.
|
On March 25 2012 06:15 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 06:12 Kickboxer wrote:
Well, they used to have a law that justified burning witches, too. Laws can be fundamentally unjust and let's not forget this one was passed by one of the dumbest people alive, Jebediah "weapons industry" Bush himself.
In my mind, if Zimmerman gets hunted down and shot, it will be a far less drastic response to his slaying of a minor compared to ending an unarmed person's life because they are beating you up. I don't want it to happen, but it's absolutely closer to objective justice than his so-called "self defense". 168 unarmed people shot in self defense? Wow.
What I find disturbing is that apparently the same people who are defending Zimmerman are somehow appalled by the Panthers' action. Haven't you heard of the difference between legal and legitimate? The SYG law is nothing but legalized murder and should be immediately revoked or hell will break loose sooner or later. The situation where a civilian can stalk and shoot an unarmed teenager (I don't care if Martin was beating him up, what the fuck? People get into fights all the time) and somehow has done nothing illegal, as in less legal than smoking a joint at home, is stranger than fiction. governors dont pass laws. yes, lets kill everyone accused of a crime. the judicial process is expensive and tedious. yes, lets take the law into our own hands. when we dont agree with the laws, we make our own. thats how a perfect democracy works. thanks for your contributions. =D
The funny thing is the Sanford police department (and the DA) did exactly what you are making fun of.
They decided the judicial process was too expensive and didn't charge zimmerman even though he admitted to shooting Martin. They literally find a guy with a bloody nose and smoking gun standing over a dead boy half his size. He goes "i felt threatened it was self defense" The cops go "HOKAY!" and let him go. Let's let all murderers free as long as they "felt threatened."
That is a breach of protocol at the least and obstruction of justice at the most (combined with the apparent attempt to cover the incident up, leads me to lean towards obstruction of justice)
The Sanford Police department took the law into their own hands and judged Zimmerman to be innocent. They did not give Martin's family due process which they are constitutionally entitled to. Its no wonder the DA asked to be relived of the case and the Police Chief resigned.
I mean you use hyperbole in your example, I just have to point to what has fucking occurred in Florida over the past 7 years as a result of this absurd Stand your ground law.
|
On March 25 2012 06:28 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 06:23 Kickboxer wrote:
Oh, but shooting a person because you "feel threatened" is the right thing to do?
Can you realize the fundamental chasm between a fistfight and the end of human life? If they do, they won't kill him because he is accused of anything, they will do it because he killed a teen.
I don't think you read my post too well. no, i dont think so. but this case is obviously not that simple. you cant reduce it to "zimmerman felt threatened." yes, not all fistfights lead to serious injury or death. however, when you are on the ground getting pummeled in your face (assuming John's statements are true), i can see how i would fear for my life or serious injury. in movies when you get hit in your head, you jump back up and do backflips, etc. etc. in real life, you go to the emergency room. i read your post, and i think its ill informed.
The point is the wording of the Stand your ground law essentially reduces the justifiable homicide defense to:
1. Did you feel threatened? if yes, deadly force is justified.
And "john" the unidentified witness who backs up the PD claims is a hoax imo until he balls up and has his name and face released. The 911 calls from the other neighbors seem quite contradictory to this anonymous man's statements.
Either way 240 lb man with a gun some how ends up on his back getting pummeled by an unarmed 140 lb boy, who he chased after. I just don't see it dude. Like a collegiate wrestler would have a hard time taking down someone who has 100 lbs on him. Furthermore Martin was on the phone until approx 1 min before the police arrived. Like I'm sorry I simply don't buy his defense, and I am absolutely appalled that the Sanford PD and DA attempted to prevent that flimsy ,at best, defense from ever being heard in a courtroom
|
On March 25 2012 06:47 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 06:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 06:23 Kickboxer wrote:
Oh, but shooting a person because you "feel threatened" is the right thing to do?
Can you realize the fundamental chasm between a fistfight and the end of human life? If they do, they won't kill him because he is accused of anything, they will do it because he killed a teen.
I don't think you read my post too well. no, i dont think so. but this case is obviously not that simple. you cant reduce it to "zimmerman felt threatened." yes, not all fistfights lead to serious injury or death. however, when you are on the ground getting pummeled in your face (assuming John's statements are true), i can see how i would fear for my life or serious injury. in movies when you get hit in your head, you jump back up and do backflips, etc. etc. in real life, you go to the emergency room. i read your post, and i think its ill informed. The point is the wording of the Stand your ground law essentially reduces the justifiable homicide defense to: 1. Did you feel threatened? if yes, deadly force is justified. And "john" the unidentified witness who backs up the PD claims is a hoax imo until he balls up and has his name and face released. The 911 calls from the other neighbors seem quite contradictory to this anonymous man's statements. Either way 240 lb man with a gun some how ends up on his back getting pummeled by an unarmed 140 lb boy, who he chased after. I just don't see it dude. Like a collegiate wrestler would have a hard time taking down someone who has 100 lbs on him. Furthermore Martin was on the phone until approx 1 min before the police arrived. Like I'm sorry I simply don't buy his defense, and I am absolutely appalled that the Sanford PD and DA attempted to prevent that flimsy ,at best, defense from ever being heard in a courtroom
that is not what the stand your ground law means, and i dont even think the stand your ground law applies in this case. also, your description is not how self defense law works in general.
lots of people have tried not to get involved, which isnt surprising. it is apparently taboo to support zimmerman in any way. austin refused to release his full name (13 year old boy). the girlfriend didnt want to get involved as well (young child as well). in california, it is a crime to release the names of witnesses and their information.
i think there are considerable issues with his self defense claim, and would love to see it tried in court. but im not going to dismiss his defense entirely without knowing what he has to say about it, and what the witnesses will say in court under oath.
|
he's guilty nothing more about it the fact that he went out of his way to chase down this kid is rediculous. u might as well say that chick who killed her baby is innocent too then huh? whats that my baby has been missing for 2 weeks and i haven't called the cops yet? hmmm i think i should now. if u believe he's innocent then ur retarded and i think the family should stalk this guy and murder his ass to get even then say it was self defense cuz he was white they were black and they felt threatened by him
User was warned for this post
|
On March 25 2012 06:41 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 06:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 06:12 Kickboxer wrote:
Well, they used to have a law that justified burning witches, too. Laws can be fundamentally unjust and let's not forget this one was passed by one of the dumbest people alive, Jebediah "weapons industry" Bush himself.
In my mind, if Zimmerman gets hunted down and shot, it will be a far less drastic response to his slaying of a minor compared to ending an unarmed person's life because they are beating you up. I don't want it to happen, but it's absolutely closer to objective justice than his so-called "self defense". 168 unarmed people shot in self defense? Wow.
What I find disturbing is that apparently the same people who are defending Zimmerman are somehow appalled by the Panthers' action. Haven't you heard of the difference between legal and legitimate? The SYG law is nothing but legalized murder and should be immediately revoked or hell will break loose sooner or later. The situation where a civilian can stalk and shoot an unarmed teenager (I don't care if Martin was beating him up, what the fuck? People get into fights all the time) and somehow has done nothing illegal, as in less legal than smoking a joint at home, is stranger than fiction. governors dont pass laws. yes, lets kill everyone accused of a crime. the judicial process is expensive and tedious. yes, lets take the law into our own hands. when we dont agree with the laws, we make our own. thats how a perfect democracy works. thanks for your contributions. =D The funny thing is the Sanford police department (and the DA) did exactly what you are making fun of. They decided the judicial process was too expensive and didn't charge zimmerman even though he admitted to shooting Martin. They literally find a guy with a bloody nose and smoking gun standing over a dead boy half his size. He goes "i felt threatened it was self defense" The cops go "HOKAY!" and let him go. Let's let all murderers free as long as they "felt threatened." That is a breach of protocol at the least and obstruction of justice at the most (combined with the apparent attempt to cover the incident up, leads me to lean towards obstruction of justice) The Sanford Police department took the law into their own hands and judged Zimmerman to be innocent. They did not give Martin's family due process which they are constitutionally entitled to. Its no wonder the DA asked to be relived of the case and the Police Chief resigned. I mean you use hyperbole in your example, I just have to point to what has fucking occurred in Florida over the past 7 years as a result of this absurd Stand your ground law.
they decided there wasnt enough evidence to charge him of a crime based on constitutional principles (i.e., probable cause). i disagree with that decision, but i dont know all the facts. you keep oversimplifying all the issues.
sigh, another person using due process incorrectly. are you the person i corrected earlier in this thread?
edit: it wasnt you. it was someone else. zimmerman is entitled to due process, not the family. see my previous post.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322664¤tpage=70#1384
|
On March 25 2012 06:53 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 06:47 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 06:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 06:23 Kickboxer wrote:
Oh, but shooting a person because you "feel threatened" is the right thing to do?
Can you realize the fundamental chasm between a fistfight and the end of human life? If they do, they won't kill him because he is accused of anything, they will do it because he killed a teen.
I don't think you read my post too well. no, i dont think so. but this case is obviously not that simple. you cant reduce it to "zimmerman felt threatened." yes, not all fistfights lead to serious injury or death. however, when you are on the ground getting pummeled in your face (assuming John's statements are true), i can see how i would fear for my life or serious injury. in movies when you get hit in your head, you jump back up and do backflips, etc. etc. in real life, you go to the emergency room. i read your post, and i think its ill informed. The point is the wording of the Stand your ground law essentially reduces the justifiable homicide defense to: 1. Did you feel threatened? if yes, deadly force is justified. And "john" the unidentified witness who backs up the PD claims is a hoax imo until he balls up and has his name and face released. The 911 calls from the other neighbors seem quite contradictory to this anonymous man's statements. Either way 240 lb man with a gun some how ends up on his back getting pummeled by an unarmed 140 lb boy, who he chased after. I just don't see it dude. Like a collegiate wrestler would have a hard time taking down someone who has 100 lbs on him. Furthermore Martin was on the phone until approx 1 min before the police arrived. Like I'm sorry I simply don't buy his defense, and I am absolutely appalled that the Sanford PD and DA attempted to prevent that flimsy ,at best, defense from ever being heard in a courtroom that is not what the stand your ground law means, and i dont even think the stand your ground law applies in this case. also, your description is not how self defense law works in general. lots of people have tried not to get involved, which isnt surprising. it is apparently taboo to support zimmerman in any way. austin refused to release his full name (13 year old boy). the girlfriend didnt want to get involved as well (young child as well). in california, it is a crime to release the names of witnesses and their information. i think there are considerable issues with his self defense claim, and would love to see it tried in court. but im not going to dismiss his defense entirely without knowing what he has to say about it, and what the witnesses will say in court under oath.
Even if it is protected under the US laws (what he did) I really think these people need to go to jail. This shit happens too often and people can just do it with no consequence. In Texas the man shot the two kids burglarizing his neighbors house. He was not in danger and they were not home. All he had to do was let the police do their job, but now both kids are dead. In FLA several times people have shot people who have roamed on their property with fishing boats and some had died. There really needs to be a change in the rules of self defense. One you must actually be threatened meaning if a drunk guy passes out or a fisherman loses his way you cannot just do what you want and you can in no fashion provoke a confrontation by chasing the person down. Stupid that these guys get a license to kill people who are no actual threat to themselves.
|
On March 25 2012 07:03 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 06:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 06:47 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 06:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 06:23 Kickboxer wrote:
Oh, but shooting a person because you "feel threatened" is the right thing to do?
Can you realize the fundamental chasm between a fistfight and the end of human life? If they do, they won't kill him because he is accused of anything, they will do it because he killed a teen.
I don't think you read my post too well. no, i dont think so. but this case is obviously not that simple. you cant reduce it to "zimmerman felt threatened." yes, not all fistfights lead to serious injury or death. however, when you are on the ground getting pummeled in your face (assuming John's statements are true), i can see how i would fear for my life or serious injury. in movies when you get hit in your head, you jump back up and do backflips, etc. etc. in real life, you go to the emergency room. i read your post, and i think its ill informed. The point is the wording of the Stand your ground law essentially reduces the justifiable homicide defense to: 1. Did you feel threatened? if yes, deadly force is justified. And "john" the unidentified witness who backs up the PD claims is a hoax imo until he balls up and has his name and face released. The 911 calls from the other neighbors seem quite contradictory to this anonymous man's statements. Either way 240 lb man with a gun some how ends up on his back getting pummeled by an unarmed 140 lb boy, who he chased after. I just don't see it dude. Like a collegiate wrestler would have a hard time taking down someone who has 100 lbs on him. Furthermore Martin was on the phone until approx 1 min before the police arrived. Like I'm sorry I simply don't buy his defense, and I am absolutely appalled that the Sanford PD and DA attempted to prevent that flimsy ,at best, defense from ever being heard in a courtroom that is not what the stand your ground law means, and i dont even think the stand your ground law applies in this case. also, your description is not how self defense law works in general. lots of people have tried not to get involved, which isnt surprising. it is apparently taboo to support zimmerman in any way. austin refused to release his full name (13 year old boy). the girlfriend didnt want to get involved as well (young child as well). in california, it is a crime to release the names of witnesses and their information. i think there are considerable issues with his self defense claim, and would love to see it tried in court. but im not going to dismiss his defense entirely without knowing what he has to say about it, and what the witnesses will say in court under oath. Even if it is protected under the US laws (what he did) I really think these people need to go to jail. This shit happens too often and people can just do it with no consequence. In Texas the man shot the two kids burglarizing his neighbors house. He was not in danger and they were not home. All he had to do was let the police do their job, but now both kids are dead. In FLA several times people have shot people who have roamed on their property with fishing boats and some had died. There really needs to be a change in the rules of self defense. One you must actually be threatened meaning if a drunk guy passes out or a fisherman loses his way you cannot just do what you want and you can in no fashion provoke a confrontation by chasing the person down. Stupid that these guys get a license to kill people who are no actual threat to themselves.
if its "protected under the US laws," then that means they committed no crime. why would we send people to jail if they didn't break the law? you also seem to misunderstand the law, you do have to have a reasonable, imminent fear of bodily injury/death to act. feeling threatened is not enough.
what you (and other people should do) is write your representatives, tell them you dont agree with these kinds of laws, and demand that they change them. that is how government works. it wont matter though, because this is a state thing, and Florida decided they want this kind of law.
|
Allow me to go off topic a bit. I was perhaps in some 5 "street fights" during the course of my life. I'd say that's an average number for your random middle class guy who likes to go out every weekend and prefers to "stand his ground" when confronted. Most of it happened when I was young and foolish. Once, I was assaulted and beat up very badly by 5 people which put me in hospital for three weeks.
Apart from a broken tooth, a broken hand, a couple fractured ribs which healed perfectly well and a sexy scar on my temple there isn't a mark left on my body. I'm sure my history of "violence" or its consequences is nothing extraordinary, probably even on the calmer end of the spectrum for an outgoing kid.
Under the SYG law and were guns legal here, I would either have been dead or a murderer by now. No one thinks about consequences when they are drunk and get in a fight, and getting in a fight over women or random mishaps is all too easy. To me, SYG sounds like the definition of "an eye for an eye", except it's "your life for my pride". Just because it's in effect doesn't mean it is any less barbaric than something that's not, like putting a bounty on a killer's head for example.
While I can understand the need or desire of some people to carry a firearm in a place as dangerous as the US, I'm getting more shocked over this law the more I think about it. Having justice on your side when shooting or stabbing someone in a one-on-one fistfight seems downright macabre.
How many of you honestly believe Zimmerman would have been seriously injured had he not shot the kid? The worst outcome I can personally envision is a broken nose and a few chipped teeth.
|
On March 25 2012 07:11 Kickboxer wrote:
Allow me to go off topic a bit. I was perhaps in some 5 "street fights" during the course of my life. I'd say that's an average number for your random middle class guy who likes to go out every weekend and prefers to "stand his ground" when confronted. Most of it happened when I was young and foolish. Once, I was assaulted and beat up very badly by 5 people which put me in hospital for three weeks.
Apart from a broken tooth, a broken hand, a couple fractured ribs which healed perfectly well and a sexy scar on my temple there isn't a mark left on my body. I'm sure my history of "violence" or its consequences is nothing extraordinary, probably even on the calmer end of the spectrum for an outgoing kid.
Under the SYG law and were guns legal here, I would either have been dead or a murderer by now. No one thinks about consequences when they are drunk and get in a fight, and getting in a fight over women or random mishaps is all too easy. To me, SYG sounds like the definition of "an eye for an eye", except it's "your life for my pride". Just because it's in effect doesn't mean it is any less barbaric than something that's not, like putting a bounty on a killer's head for example.
While I can understand the need or desire of some people to carry a firearm in a place as dangerous as the US, I'm getting more shocked over this law the more I think about it. Having justice on your side when shooting or stabbing someone in a one-on-one fistfight seems downright macabre.
How many of you honestly believe Zimmerman would have been seriously injured had he not shot the kid? The worst outcome I can personally envision is a broken nose and a few chipped teeth.
what do you think the stand your ground law actually does? because im still not sure we are on the same page as to what this law does.
|
On March 25 2012 06:56 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 06:41 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 06:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 06:12 Kickboxer wrote:
Well, they used to have a law that justified burning witches, too. Laws can be fundamentally unjust and let's not forget this one was passed by one of the dumbest people alive, Jebediah "weapons industry" Bush himself.
In my mind, if Zimmerman gets hunted down and shot, it will be a far less drastic response to his slaying of a minor compared to ending an unarmed person's life because they are beating you up. I don't want it to happen, but it's absolutely closer to objective justice than his so-called "self defense". 168 unarmed people shot in self defense? Wow.
What I find disturbing is that apparently the same people who are defending Zimmerman are somehow appalled by the Panthers' action. Haven't you heard of the difference between legal and legitimate? The SYG law is nothing but legalized murder and should be immediately revoked or hell will break loose sooner or later. The situation where a civilian can stalk and shoot an unarmed teenager (I don't care if Martin was beating him up, what the fuck? People get into fights all the time) and somehow has done nothing illegal, as in less legal than smoking a joint at home, is stranger than fiction. governors dont pass laws. yes, lets kill everyone accused of a crime. the judicial process is expensive and tedious. yes, lets take the law into our own hands. when we dont agree with the laws, we make our own. thats how a perfect democracy works. thanks for your contributions. =D The funny thing is the Sanford police department (and the DA) did exactly what you are making fun of. They decided the judicial process was too expensive and didn't charge zimmerman even though he admitted to shooting Martin. They literally find a guy with a bloody nose and smoking gun standing over a dead boy half his size. He goes "i felt threatened it was self defense" The cops go "HOKAY!" and let him go. Let's let all murderers free as long as they "felt threatened." That is a breach of protocol at the least and obstruction of justice at the most (combined with the apparent attempt to cover the incident up, leads me to lean towards obstruction of justice) The Sanford Police department took the law into their own hands and judged Zimmerman to be innocent. They did not give Martin's family due process which they are constitutionally entitled to. Its no wonder the DA asked to be relived of the case and the Police Chief resigned. I mean you use hyperbole in your example, I just have to point to what has fucking occurred in Florida over the past 7 years as a result of this absurd Stand your ground law. they decided there wasnt enough evidence to charge him of a crime based on constitutional principles (i.e., probable cause). i disagree with that decision, but i dont know all the facts. you keep oversimplifying all the issues. sigh, another person using due process incorrectly. are you the person i corrected earlier in this thread? edit: it wasnt you. it was someone else. zimmerman is entitled to due process, not the family. see my previous post. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322664¤tpage=70#1384
Can the dead body not count as probable cause? There have been cases of people being killed and the killer injuring themselves afterwards to make it look legitimate. It's clear that a homicide was committed, whether legitimate or not. I don't know much about how trials are conducted, but somehow it seems to me it should be for the trial to prove whether or not the homicide was murder or self-defense rather than the police on the scene. It's up to the police to gather evidence, it would be the family of the deceased to actually bring charges. Since you have experience in the legal field, could you explain it a little more thoroughly please? Is it just simply that the investigation may have still been ongoing and charges were not formally made yet but could possibly still have been done in the future before all of this blew up in the media?
|
The law lets you kill somebody if you "feel" you are in danger of being seriously hurt, which is completely arbitrary.
Zimmerman, for example, was in no such danger objectively although he might have felt like it.
From what I understand, you're not obliged to run away even when you can. Also, your "assailant" does not need to have any kind of weapon. I put assailant in quotation marks because if you harass someone's girl and then spill beer in that person's face when he asks you to go away, which happened to me for example, you absolutely deserve to get punched in the face.
|
On March 25 2012 07:21 Kickboxer wrote:
The law lets you kill somebody if you "feel" you are in danger of being seriously hurt, which is completely arbitrary.
Zimmerman, for example, was in no such danger objectively although he might have felt like it.
From what I understand, you're not obliged to run away even when you can. Also, your "assailant" does not need to have any kind of weapon. I put assailant in quotation marks because if you harass someone's girl and then spill beer in that person's face when he asks you to go away, which happened to me for example, you absolutely deserve to get punched in the face.
That's not the law, you are misunderstanding it, which is understandable considering how so many other people are misrepresenting it.
|
On March 25 2012 06:56 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 06:41 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 06:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 06:12 Kickboxer wrote:
Well, they used to have a law that justified burning witches, too. Laws can be fundamentally unjust and let's not forget this one was passed by one of the dumbest people alive, Jebediah "weapons industry" Bush himself.
In my mind, if Zimmerman gets hunted down and shot, it will be a far less drastic response to his slaying of a minor compared to ending an unarmed person's life because they are beating you up. I don't want it to happen, but it's absolutely closer to objective justice than his so-called "self defense". 168 unarmed people shot in self defense? Wow.
What I find disturbing is that apparently the same people who are defending Zimmerman are somehow appalled by the Panthers' action. Haven't you heard of the difference between legal and legitimate? The SYG law is nothing but legalized murder and should be immediately revoked or hell will break loose sooner or later. The situation where a civilian can stalk and shoot an unarmed teenager (I don't care if Martin was beating him up, what the fuck? People get into fights all the time) and somehow has done nothing illegal, as in less legal than smoking a joint at home, is stranger than fiction. governors dont pass laws. yes, lets kill everyone accused of a crime. the judicial process is expensive and tedious. yes, lets take the law into our own hands. when we dont agree with the laws, we make our own. thats how a perfect democracy works. thanks for your contributions. =D The funny thing is the Sanford police department (and the DA) did exactly what you are making fun of. They decided the judicial process was too expensive and didn't charge zimmerman even though he admitted to shooting Martin. They literally find a guy with a bloody nose and smoking gun standing over a dead boy half his size. He goes "i felt threatened it was self defense" The cops go "HOKAY!" and let him go. Let's let all murderers free as long as they "felt threatened." That is a breach of protocol at the least and obstruction of justice at the most (combined with the apparent attempt to cover the incident up, leads me to lean towards obstruction of justice) The Sanford Police department took the law into their own hands and judged Zimmerman to be innocent. They did not give Martin's family due process which they are constitutionally entitled to. Its no wonder the DA asked to be relived of the case and the Police Chief resigned. I mean you use hyperbole in your example, I just have to point to what has fucking occurred in Florida over the past 7 years as a result of this absurd Stand your ground law. they decided there wasnt enough evidence to charge him of a crime based on constitutional principles (i.e., probable cause). i disagree with that decision, but i dont know all the facts. you keep oversimplifying all the issues. sigh, another person using due process incorrectly. are you the person i corrected earlier in this thread? edit: it wasnt you. it was someone else. zimmerman is entitled to due process, not the family. see my previous post. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322664¤tpage=70#1384
Have you actually read the SYG law? It does actually say that deadly force is justified if you feel threatened. You are allowed to "stand your ground." That is the wording and intent of the law
And there is no decision to arrest Zimmerman. If the Police have probable cause to believe you committed a crime you are arrested. Zimmerman was found near the dead body, bloody, with a gun. The police do not decide if a homicide is justified. To prove justifiable homicide you have to 1st admit to the crime, which Zimmerman did, and then you have to prove that your defense is sound. The burden is on the defendant to demonstrate he acted in self defense.
When I said due process was violated I meant that Zimmerman was not required to prove his defense in a court of law. Instead no charges were filed and he was allowed to go free. Again, A justifiable homicide is still a homicide and the accused has to be arrested if there is probable cause he committed the crime. It is up to a jury of his peers to determine if his defense is sound.
Imo, trying to sweep this case under the rug by not charging Zimmerman is a breach of due process, and as an extension obstruction of justice. I think the fact that the Police chief resigned and the DA transferred the case support my assertion that due process was violated.
Just because due process was violated in Zimmerman's favor doesn't mean it wasn't violated.
|
I'm still not sure how Trayvon is the "assailant" and Zimmerman the "right to defender".
Some witness testimony that Zimmerman was losing the fight, doesn't mean he was the one being "assailed". The only testimony that Zimmerman didn't provoke the fight is from Zimmerman himself, and frankly, it flies a bit against common sense. Even if Trayvon did throw the first punch, he's a high schooler being followed by a stranger. I just don't see how anyone can really think Zimmerman was innocently defending himself, which is how some people seem to be trying to frame it.
If I see a high school kid in town, and follow him around for no sensible reason, making the kid paranoid, I'm basically provoking him.
But that's alright, because I got a gun, so it doesn't matter what stupid shit I do to start a fight, I'll take some punches and then shoot to kill. Easy peasy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
