|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. |
On March 26 2012 16:29 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 16:27 Zaqwe wrote:
How could he be a vigilante when he phones police?
He became a vigilante when he chose to take matters in his own hands instead of waiting for the police. Wow, that was easy. Edit: Vigilante is too badass a word. He became Paul Blartt, Incompetent Protector of the Neighborhood.
Observing and reporting to police is not vigilantism.
|
On March 26 2012 16:29 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 16:27 Zaqwe wrote:
How could he be a vigilante when he phones police?
He became a vigilante when he chose to take matters in his own hands instead of waiting for the police. Wow, that was easy. Edit: Vigilante is too badass a word. He became Paul Blartt, Incompetent Protector of the Neighborhood.
im glad you see everything in black and white, but its not really that simple. the DOJ is involved now and the White House is paying attention. don't you think that they would have the guy arrested immediately if they thought it was so simple?
|
On March 26 2012 16:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 15:21 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 26 2012 14:21 Zaqwe wrote:On March 26 2012 14:11 krowe wrote:
The phone calls are there as evidence, he was being followed and so it was the shooter's fault for chasing him when he had no right to suspect anything... i think he should be arrested! You don't have to suspect someone of anything to follow them. It's perfectly legal unless you have a restraining order. For example paparazzi and private investigators follow people all the time. No, you can't tackle paparazzi to the ground and beat them in the face legally. What your saying isn't 100% True (its not always "legal" for you to follow someone without a restraining order). It doesn't have to get to a court order before it becomes illegal. And if you look at my argument that it was negligent homicide, because Zimmerman knew when he left his truck he was entering into a potentially dangerous situation (He called the police, he admitted he thought Trayvon was a suspicious character (with no evidence), he was even warned that he did not need to put himself in a potentially dangerous situation), he even made sure he had a gun on him (or certainly didn't make sure he did not have his weapon, I wonder why). So he put himself into a situation where deadly force would probably be needed if what he thought was true. Thats pretty irresponsible when your not a Police Officer. And thats why I think it was negligent homicide (which pretty much means he broke the law when he decided to follow him with a gun on him, then it escalated for whatever reasons). glad i posted the jury instructions. makes it easier to find shit. =D negligence is not enough. In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death. you have to show "culpable negligence." Show nested quote +I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Thank you, I saw that before. I think you could argue he was culpable as well though. He often called the police and investigated crimes he knew were dangerous, he once stopped someone stealing a TV! He was a watchman who wanted to have a gun and had a concealed weapon permit. Its reasonable to say he was putting himself in situations where he knew he would need a gun hidden on him to be "safe". When he investigated Trayvon, Tray was guilty of nothing. Zimmerman still thought he was a criminal and didn't think enough about his safety to leave his gun, even though he knew cops were on the way. He thought he was doing the right thing and in the end should no respect to Trayvon's life (by all accounts innocent*). He didn't respect Trayvons rights. And I will stress again, he knew he was putting himself in dangerous situations, and kept his gun on him to investigate an innocent person with a can of Tea and a bag of Skittles. Seems pretty gross and flagrant to me.
So people are only allowed to carry weapons in situations they know for certain are safe and they won't have to use them? Why carry a weapon at all then?
Hmm this situtation could be dangerous. Let me just disarm myself to make sure I can't protect myself if needed...
|
On March 26 2012 16:27 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote:I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. i think its going to be a hard sell to say that his action of leaving the truck and following him went past mere negligence. Sounds fairly subjective. What you quoted very much describes vigilante justice in my opinion. What is "gross and flagrant"? Does disregarding the advice of a 911 operator fall under this? Seems hard to quantify. How could he be a vigilante when he phones police? Whenever it comes to a contentious issue suddenly nobody seems to understand English. Stop throwing around loaded words that don't apply to the facts at hand.
He phoned police and decided to take matters into his own hands anyway, despite the 911 operator's advice.
Vigilante: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante
A vigilante is a private individual who legally or illegally punishes an alleged lawbreaker, or participates in a group which metes out extralegal punishment to an alleged lawbreaker.
How does this not apply exactly?
I guess the question is, is this type of behaviour seen as being "recklessness"?
|
On March 26 2012 16:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 15:21 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 26 2012 14:21 Zaqwe wrote:On March 26 2012 14:11 krowe wrote:
The phone calls are there as evidence, he was being followed and so it was the shooter's fault for chasing him when he had no right to suspect anything... i think he should be arrested! You don't have to suspect someone of anything to follow them. It's perfectly legal unless you have a restraining order. For example paparazzi and private investigators follow people all the time. No, you can't tackle paparazzi to the ground and beat them in the face legally. What your saying isn't 100% True (its not always "legal" for you to follow someone without a restraining order). It doesn't have to get to a court order before it becomes illegal. And if you look at my argument that it was negligent homicide, because Zimmerman knew when he left his truck he was entering into a potentially dangerous situation (He called the police, he admitted he thought Trayvon was a suspicious character (with no evidence), he was even warned that he did not need to put himself in a potentially dangerous situation), he even made sure he had a gun on him (or certainly didn't make sure he did not have his weapon, I wonder why). So he put himself into a situation where deadly force would probably be needed if what he thought was true. Thats pretty irresponsible when your not a Police Officer. And thats why I think it was negligent homicide (which pretty much means he broke the law when he decided to follow him with a gun on him, then it escalated for whatever reasons). glad i posted the jury instructions. makes it easier to find shit. =D negligence is not enough. In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death. you have to show "culpable negligence." Show nested quote +I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Thank you, I saw that before. I think you could argue he was culpable as well though. He often called the police and investigated crimes he knew were dangerous, he once stopped someone stealing a TV! He was a watchman who wanted to have a gun and had a concealed weapon permit. Its reasonable to say he was putting himself in situations where he knew he would need a gun hidden on him to be "safe". When he investigated Trayvon, Tray was guilty of nothing. Zimmerman still thought he was a criminal and didn't think enough about his safety to leave his gun, even though he knew cops were on the way. He thought he was doing the right thing and in the end should no respect to Trayvon's life (by all accounts innocent*). He didn't respect Trayvons rights. And I will stress again, he knew he was putting himself in dangerous situations, and kept his gun on him to investigate an innocent person with a can of Tea and a bag of Skittles. Seems pretty gross and flagrant to me.
to play devil's advocate (metaphorically), i would argue that the fact that he has done this dozens (or however many times) before and it has not resulted in a dangerous encounter means that he did not believe that this was a dangerous situation. we dont know his reasons for having a concealed permit or why he was carrying the gun. he could just as easily thought he looked cool with it on as much as thinking he would actually need it.
im sorry, but you dont know what happened after he confronted trayvon. so you dont know whether he respected his rights or not (whatever that means).
confronting someone in your gated neighborhood does not equal "dangerous situation" in my mind. reasonable minds may differ though.
|
On March 26 2012 16:42 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 16:27 Zaqwe wrote:On March 26 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote:I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. i think its going to be a hard sell to say that his action of leaving the truck and following him went past mere negligence. Sounds fairly subjective. What you quoted very much describes vigilante justice in my opinion. What is "gross and flagrant"? Does disregarding the advice of a 911 operator fall under this? Seems hard to quantify. How could he be a vigilante when he phones police? Whenever it comes to a contentious issue suddenly nobody seems to understand English. Stop throwing around loaded words that don't apply to the facts at hand. He phoned police and decided to take matters into his own hands anyway, despite the 911 operator's advice. Vigilante: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VigilanteShow nested quote +
A vigilante is a private individual who legally or illegally punishes an alleged lawbreaker, or participates in a group which metes out extralegal punishment to an alleged lawbreaker.
How does this not apply exactly? I guess the question is, is this type of behaviour seen as being "recklessness"?
How does it apply, exactly?
|
On March 26 2012 16:42 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 16:27 Zaqwe wrote:On March 26 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote:I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. i think its going to be a hard sell to say that his action of leaving the truck and following him went past mere negligence. Sounds fairly subjective. What you quoted very much describes vigilante justice in my opinion. What is "gross and flagrant"? Does disregarding the advice of a 911 operator fall under this? Seems hard to quantify. How could he be a vigilante when he phones police? Whenever it comes to a contentious issue suddenly nobody seems to understand English. Stop throwing around loaded words that don't apply to the facts at hand. He phoned police and decided to take matters into his own hands anyway, despite the 911 operator's advice. Vigilante: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VigilanteShow nested quote +
A vigilante is a private individual who legally or illegally punishes an alleged lawbreaker, or participates in a group which metes out extralegal punishment to an alleged lawbreaker.
How does this not apply exactly? I guess the question is, is this type of behaviour seen as being "recklessness"?
Questioning someone is not vigilantism, nor is defending yourself when they violently assault you.
|
On March 26 2012 16:41 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 16:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 26 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 15:21 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 26 2012 14:21 Zaqwe wrote:On March 26 2012 14:11 krowe wrote:
The phone calls are there as evidence, he was being followed and so it was the shooter's fault for chasing him when he had no right to suspect anything... i think he should be arrested! You don't have to suspect someone of anything to follow them. It's perfectly legal unless you have a restraining order. For example paparazzi and private investigators follow people all the time. No, you can't tackle paparazzi to the ground and beat them in the face legally. What your saying isn't 100% True (its not always "legal" for you to follow someone without a restraining order). It doesn't have to get to a court order before it becomes illegal. And if you look at my argument that it was negligent homicide, because Zimmerman knew when he left his truck he was entering into a potentially dangerous situation (He called the police, he admitted he thought Trayvon was a suspicious character (with no evidence), he was even warned that he did not need to put himself in a potentially dangerous situation), he even made sure he had a gun on him (or certainly didn't make sure he did not have his weapon, I wonder why). So he put himself into a situation where deadly force would probably be needed if what he thought was true. Thats pretty irresponsible when your not a Police Officer. And thats why I think it was negligent homicide (which pretty much means he broke the law when he decided to follow him with a gun on him, then it escalated for whatever reasons). glad i posted the jury instructions. makes it easier to find shit. =D negligence is not enough. In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death. you have to show "culpable negligence." I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Thank you, I saw that before. I think you could argue he was culpable as well though. He often called the police and investigated crimes he knew were dangerous, he once stopped someone stealing a TV! He was a watchman who wanted to have a gun and had a concealed weapon permit. Its reasonable to say he was putting himself in situations where he knew he would need a gun hidden on him to be "safe". When he investigated Trayvon, Tray was guilty of nothing. Zimmerman still thought he was a criminal and didn't think enough about his safety to leave his gun, even though he knew cops were on the way. He thought he was doing the right thing and in the end should no respect to Trayvon's life (by all accounts innocent*). He didn't respect Trayvons rights. And I will stress again, he knew he was putting himself in dangerous situations, and kept his gun on him to investigate an innocent person with a can of Tea and a bag of Skittles. Seems pretty gross and flagrant to me. So people are only allowed to carry weapons in situations they know for certain are safe and they won't have to use them? Why carry a weapon at all then? Hmm this situtation could be dangerous. Let me just disarm myself to make sure I can't protect myself if needed...
Wow can you read? He isn't a cop yet he consistantly puts himself in situations where he needs his gun or feels like he needs his gun. Yes lets keep him running around the streets. Do you know what the Police are? He has done it before and this time he did it to an innocent person and killed them, even on accident he deserves to be punished.
|
On March 26 2012 16:42 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 16:27 Zaqwe wrote:On March 26 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote:I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. i think its going to be a hard sell to say that his action of leaving the truck and following him went past mere negligence. Sounds fairly subjective. What you quoted very much describes vigilante justice in my opinion. What is "gross and flagrant"? Does disregarding the advice of a 911 operator fall under this? Seems hard to quantify. How could he be a vigilante when he phones police? Whenever it comes to a contentious issue suddenly nobody seems to understand English. Stop throwing around loaded words that don't apply to the facts at hand. He phoned police and decided to take matters into his own hands anyway, despite the 911 operator's advice. Vigilante: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VigilanteShow nested quote +
A vigilante is a private individual who legally or illegally punishes an alleged lawbreaker, or participates in a group which metes out extralegal punishment to an alleged lawbreaker.
How does this not apply exactly? I guess the question is, is this type of behaviour seen as being "recklessness"?
he wasnt punishing, he was investigating. thats the difference.
|
On March 26 2012 16:46 Wrongspeedy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 16:41 Zaqwe wrote:On March 26 2012 16:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 26 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 15:21 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 26 2012 14:21 Zaqwe wrote:On March 26 2012 14:11 krowe wrote:
The phone calls are there as evidence, he was being followed and so it was the shooter's fault for chasing him when he had no right to suspect anything... i think he should be arrested! You don't have to suspect someone of anything to follow them. It's perfectly legal unless you have a restraining order. For example paparazzi and private investigators follow people all the time. No, you can't tackle paparazzi to the ground and beat them in the face legally. What your saying isn't 100% True (its not always "legal" for you to follow someone without a restraining order). It doesn't have to get to a court order before it becomes illegal. And if you look at my argument that it was negligent homicide, because Zimmerman knew when he left his truck he was entering into a potentially dangerous situation (He called the police, he admitted he thought Trayvon was a suspicious character (with no evidence), he was even warned that he did not need to put himself in a potentially dangerous situation), he even made sure he had a gun on him (or certainly didn't make sure he did not have his weapon, I wonder why). So he put himself into a situation where deadly force would probably be needed if what he thought was true. Thats pretty irresponsible when your not a Police Officer. And thats why I think it was negligent homicide (which pretty much means he broke the law when he decided to follow him with a gun on him, then it escalated for whatever reasons). glad i posted the jury instructions. makes it easier to find shit. =D negligence is not enough. In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death. you have to show "culpable negligence." I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Thank you, I saw that before. I think you could argue he was culpable as well though. He often called the police and investigated crimes he knew were dangerous, he once stopped someone stealing a TV! He was a watchman who wanted to have a gun and had a concealed weapon permit. Its reasonable to say he was putting himself in situations where he knew he would need a gun hidden on him to be "safe". When he investigated Trayvon, Tray was guilty of nothing. Zimmerman still thought he was a criminal and didn't think enough about his safety to leave his gun, even though he knew cops were on the way. He thought he was doing the right thing and in the end should no respect to Trayvon's life (by all accounts innocent*). He didn't respect Trayvons rights. And I will stress again, he knew he was putting himself in dangerous situations, and kept his gun on him to investigate an innocent person with a can of Tea and a bag of Skittles. Seems pretty gross and flagrant to me. So people are only allowed to carry weapons in situations they know for certain are safe and they won't have to use them? Why carry a weapon at all then? Hmm this situtation could be dangerous. Let me just disarm myself to make sure I can't protect myself if needed... Wow can you read? He isn't a cop yet he consistantly puts himself in situations where he needs his gun or feels like he needs his gun. Yes lets keep him running around the streets. Do you know what the Police are? He has done it before and this time he did it to an innocent person and killed them, even on accident he deserves to be punished.
I don't see how him being a police officer or not has any bearing on his right to self defense.
|
On March 26 2012 16:44 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 16:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 26 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 15:21 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 26 2012 14:21 Zaqwe wrote:On March 26 2012 14:11 krowe wrote:
The phone calls are there as evidence, he was being followed and so it was the shooter's fault for chasing him when he had no right to suspect anything... i think he should be arrested! You don't have to suspect someone of anything to follow them. It's perfectly legal unless you have a restraining order. For example paparazzi and private investigators follow people all the time. No, you can't tackle paparazzi to the ground and beat them in the face legally. What your saying isn't 100% True (its not always "legal" for you to follow someone without a restraining order). It doesn't have to get to a court order before it becomes illegal. And if you look at my argument that it was negligent homicide, because Zimmerman knew when he left his truck he was entering into a potentially dangerous situation (He called the police, he admitted he thought Trayvon was a suspicious character (with no evidence), he was even warned that he did not need to put himself in a potentially dangerous situation), he even made sure he had a gun on him (or certainly didn't make sure he did not have his weapon, I wonder why). So he put himself into a situation where deadly force would probably be needed if what he thought was true. Thats pretty irresponsible when your not a Police Officer. And thats why I think it was negligent homicide (which pretty much means he broke the law when he decided to follow him with a gun on him, then it escalated for whatever reasons). glad i posted the jury instructions. makes it easier to find shit. =D negligence is not enough. In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death. you have to show "culpable negligence." I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Thank you, I saw that before. I think you could argue he was culpable as well though. He often called the police and investigated crimes he knew were dangerous, he once stopped someone stealing a TV! He was a watchman who wanted to have a gun and had a concealed weapon permit. Its reasonable to say he was putting himself in situations where he knew he would need a gun hidden on him to be "safe". When he investigated Trayvon, Tray was guilty of nothing. Zimmerman still thought he was a criminal and didn't think enough about his safety to leave his gun, even though he knew cops were on the way. He thought he was doing the right thing and in the end should no respect to Trayvon's life (by all accounts innocent*). He didn't respect Trayvons rights. And I will stress again, he knew he was putting himself in dangerous situations, and kept his gun on him to investigate an innocent person with a can of Tea and a bag of Skittles. Seems pretty gross and flagrant to me. to play devil's advocate (metaphorically), i would argue that the fact that he has done this dozens (or however many times) before and it has not resulted in a dangerous encounter means that he did not believe that this was a dangerous situation. we dont know his reasons for having a concealed permit or why he was carrying the gun. he could just as easily thought he looked cool with it on as much as thinking he would actually need it. im sorry, but you dont know what happened after he confronted trayvon. so you dont know whether he respected his rights or not (whatever that means). confronting someone in your gated neighborhood does not equal "dangerous situation" in my mind. reasonable minds may differ though.
I really appreciate the counter arguement but it seems flimsy ; )
Nobody will know what happened that started the fight except George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman is his own weakest eye witness.
I think your right and the jury will be really important.
|
On March 26 2012 16:47 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 16:46 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 26 2012 16:41 Zaqwe wrote:On March 26 2012 16:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 26 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 15:21 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 26 2012 14:21 Zaqwe wrote:On March 26 2012 14:11 krowe wrote:
The phone calls are there as evidence, he was being followed and so it was the shooter's fault for chasing him when he had no right to suspect anything... i think he should be arrested! You don't have to suspect someone of anything to follow them. It's perfectly legal unless you have a restraining order. For example paparazzi and private investigators follow people all the time. No, you can't tackle paparazzi to the ground and beat them in the face legally. What your saying isn't 100% True (its not always "legal" for you to follow someone without a restraining order). It doesn't have to get to a court order before it becomes illegal. And if you look at my argument that it was negligent homicide, because Zimmerman knew when he left his truck he was entering into a potentially dangerous situation (He called the police, he admitted he thought Trayvon was a suspicious character (with no evidence), he was even warned that he did not need to put himself in a potentially dangerous situation), he even made sure he had a gun on him (or certainly didn't make sure he did not have his weapon, I wonder why). So he put himself into a situation where deadly force would probably be needed if what he thought was true. Thats pretty irresponsible when your not a Police Officer. And thats why I think it was negligent homicide (which pretty much means he broke the law when he decided to follow him with a gun on him, then it escalated for whatever reasons). glad i posted the jury instructions. makes it easier to find shit. =D negligence is not enough. In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death. you have to show "culpable negligence." I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Thank you, I saw that before. I think you could argue he was culpable as well though. He often called the police and investigated crimes he knew were dangerous, he once stopped someone stealing a TV! He was a watchman who wanted to have a gun and had a concealed weapon permit. Its reasonable to say he was putting himself in situations where he knew he would need a gun hidden on him to be "safe". When he investigated Trayvon, Tray was guilty of nothing. Zimmerman still thought he was a criminal and didn't think enough about his safety to leave his gun, even though he knew cops were on the way. He thought he was doing the right thing and in the end should no respect to Trayvon's life (by all accounts innocent*). He didn't respect Trayvons rights. And I will stress again, he knew he was putting himself in dangerous situations, and kept his gun on him to investigate an innocent person with a can of Tea and a bag of Skittles. Seems pretty gross and flagrant to me. So people are only allowed to carry weapons in situations they know for certain are safe and they won't have to use them? Why carry a weapon at all then? Hmm this situtation could be dangerous. Let me just disarm myself to make sure I can't protect myself if needed... Wow can you read? He isn't a cop yet he consistantly puts himself in situations where he needs his gun or feels like he needs his gun. Yes lets keep him running around the streets. Do you know what the Police are? He has done it before and this time he did it to an innocent person and killed them, even on accident he deserves to be punished. I don't see how him being a police officer or not has any bearing on his right to self defense.
He imposed his self defense on to others more than once? As a watchman? You do know thats exactly what cops get paid to do?
Edit: He wasn't defending himself at the grocery store (maybe he was but things didn't get too rough there). Or on the way home from buying some Tea and Skittles.
On March 26 2012 16:27 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote:I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. i think its going to be a hard sell to say that his action of leaving the truck and following him went past mere negligence. Sounds fairly subjective. What you quoted very much describes vigilante justice in my opinion. What is "gross and flagrant"? Does disregarding the advice of a 911 operator fall under this? Seems hard to quantify. How could he be a vigilante when he phones police? Whenever it comes to a contentious issue suddenly nobody seems to understand English. Stop throwing around loaded words that don't apply to the facts at hand.
And they will call him "The Police-Watchman". Everywhere he goes! AN EYE FOR DANGER! Look! A crime, dial 911. Then proceded to do whatever I want herp derp, then watch when the cops show up
|
On March 26 2012 16:36 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 16:27 Defacer wrote:On March 26 2012 16:21 Zaqwe wrote:On March 26 2012 16:07 Defacer wrote:
Open question: if someone was following you for seemingly no reason, would you feel threatened?
Let's imagine what would happen if a young black man was following a women in his car. The woman walks faster, but the man gets out of his car and chases her. Would it not be understandable if the woman panicked and maced him in the face?
This whole case just has me wondering: what constitutes an 'imminent' threat, and how we perceive a threat differently based on gender and sex.
I will wholly admit that as a minority, if a strange White(ish) man was following me, it would make me nervous (it's happened to me, actually). I don't know if I would feel my life was in imminent danger, but I would do everything to evade the person, and if that didn't work, confront them head on.
Maybe that's the disconnect, and why some people on this board are more empathetic to Zimmerman than others. If your White, does the idea of a White male following you make you less nervous than, say, a young black male?
The woman has a cellphone on her. She phones police. She also avoids going around through a dark pathway behind two buildings instead of staying in the street lights. Wow, that was easy. Trayvon did neither of those. So because Trayvon reacted to a threat poorly, it justifies his death? That by choosing to fight the person following him (of course we can't be sure who instigated the fight, but I'll play along) that somehow, he should be faulted for being shot. You routinely come up with these hypothetical ways of how one should behave in a life and death situation -- as if that automatically exonerates the man that shot him. It's getting silly. Nothing Trayvon did indicates he thought Zimmerman was a threat at all. On the contrary, his actions demonstrate a casual attitude towards Zimmerman following him. When his girlfriend told him to run he refused, he traveled between two buildings instead of staying on well lit streets, he stayed on the phone with her instead of phoning police, and most importantly he stopped to pummel Zimmerman in the head instead of fleeing.
Hrmmmmmph. I think that fact that Trayvon felt the need to fight IS the evidence that proves he felt threatened.
You seem to forget Trayvon didn't even know Zimmerman existed until Zimmerman followed him.
The woman has a cellphone on her. She phones police. She also avoids going around through a dark pathway behind two buildings instead of staying in the street lights.
I hope that you're not one of those people that blame women for making bad decisions when they get raped, either. Because I'm sure there are women that have been raped that felt like they were in a situation where their only option was to fight instead of run.
Anyway, the original question was if someone was following you for seemingly no reason, would you feel threatened?
I'm not asking because I feel because it makes Zimmerman or Trayvon more or less responsible for what happened. I'm asking because this whole case is a reminder of how our perception of threat/danger is affected by race.
Zimmerman obviously thought Trayvon was a threat because he was Black. Is it unfair to suggest maybe Trayvon thought Zimmerman was a threat because he was White?
Sheesh. You can't have a normal conversation on this board anymore without people being argumentative dicks.
|
This case is a tragedy, no doubt. My concern, though, is that the way the media has covered this is going to come back to bite them, and many others.
By focusing entirely on the emotion of the case, ignoring the key and only EYE witness (John) despite what he had to say being on local news the day after the shooting, and therefore available to ALL of these national news agencies... they have drummed up a level of furvor at this point which will be really hard to defuse.
By only showing the pictures of Trayvon when he was 12, and looking like Emanuel Lewis as Webster (if anyone else is old enough to remember that), and either ignoring or not pursuing more recent pictures, the emotion and also the confusion (how could he view that child as suspicious?) have gone way beyond where they'd be at if the coverage had been more even-handed.
So I know that the way they've covered it is good for ratings, good for clicks on their websites... but it may not be good for the country because if when it's all said and done, the grand jury, special task forces, and every other measure that's been called in to appease the anger, come to the same conclusion that there is no basis for prosecution... that self-defense is a legitimate claim here... then there could very well be riots or at the very least incidents tied to that. If that does happen, will not the sites and stations that ignored John's testimony, made no effort to present alternate views of the event, or to control the emotion in their coverage, will not they have blood on their hands if people die or are seriously injured in those riots/incidents? I feel that they may.
|
On March 26 2012 16:38 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 16:29 Defacer wrote:On March 26 2012 16:27 Zaqwe wrote:
How could he be a vigilante when he phones police?
He became a vigilante when he chose to take matters in his own hands instead of waiting for the police. Wow, that was easy. Edit: Vigilante is too badass a word. He became Paul Blartt, Incompetent Protector of the Neighborhood. Observing and reporting to police is not vigilantism.
Come on. He may not be a vigilante, but if what he did is considered 'observing and reporting' he fucking sucked at it.
|
On March 26 2012 16:46 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 16:42 screamingpalm wrote:On March 26 2012 16:27 Zaqwe wrote:On March 26 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote:I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. i think its going to be a hard sell to say that his action of leaving the truck and following him went past mere negligence. Sounds fairly subjective. What you quoted very much describes vigilante justice in my opinion. What is "gross and flagrant"? Does disregarding the advice of a 911 operator fall under this? Seems hard to quantify. How could he be a vigilante when he phones police? Whenever it comes to a contentious issue suddenly nobody seems to understand English. Stop throwing around loaded words that don't apply to the facts at hand. He phoned police and decided to take matters into his own hands anyway, despite the 911 operator's advice. Vigilante: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante
A vigilante is a private individual who legally or illegally punishes an alleged lawbreaker, or participates in a group which metes out extralegal punishment to an alleged lawbreaker.
How does this not apply exactly? I guess the question is, is this type of behaviour seen as being "recklessness"? he wasnt punishing, he was investigating. thats the difference.
And let's say his "investigating" found that Martin really was up to no good? Then what? You think he would just leave it at that and walk away?
My issue with all this is that his job should have ended with that 911 call. Maybe he acted within his rights, but I feel like some responsibility falls upon him for not heeding the advice of the 911 operator and allowed the police to do their job.
|
On March 26 2012 17:03 Defacer wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 26 2012 16:36 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 16:27 Defacer wrote:On March 26 2012 16:21 Zaqwe wrote:On March 26 2012 16:07 Defacer wrote:
Open question: if someone was following you for seemingly no reason, would you feel threatened?
Let's imagine what would happen if a young black man was following a women in his car. The woman walks faster, but the man gets out of his car and chases her. Would it not be understandable if the woman panicked and maced him in the face?
This whole case just has me wondering: what constitutes an 'imminent' threat, and how we perceive a threat differently based on gender and sex.
I will wholly admit that as a minority, if a strange White(ish) man was following me, it would make me nervous (it's happened to me, actually). I don't know if I would feel my life was in imminent danger, but I would do everything to evade the person, and if that didn't work, confront them head on.
Maybe that's the disconnect, and why some people on this board are more empathetic to Zimmerman than others. If your White, does the idea of a White male following you make you less nervous than, say, a young black male?
The woman has a cellphone on her. She phones police. She also avoids going around through a dark pathway behind two buildings instead of staying in the street lights. Wow, that was easy. Trayvon did neither of those. So because Trayvon reacted to a threat poorly, it justifies his death? That by choosing to fight the person following him (of course we can't be sure who instigated the fight, but I'll play along) that somehow, he should be faulted for being shot. You routinely come up with these hypothetical ways of how one should behave in a life and death situation -- as if that automatically exonerates the man that shot him. It's getting silly. Nothing Trayvon did indicates he thought Zimmerman was a threat at all. On the contrary, his actions demonstrate a casual attitude towards Zimmerman following him. When his girlfriend told him to run he refused, he traveled between two buildings instead of staying on well lit streets, he stayed on the phone with her instead of phoning police, and most importantly he stopped to pummel Zimmerman in the head instead of fleeing. Hrmmmmmph. I think that fact that Trayvon felt the need to fight IS the evidence that proves he felt threatened. You seem to forget Trayvon didn't even know Zimmerman existed until Zimmerman followed him.
The woman has a cellphone on her. She phones police. She also avoids going around through a dark pathway behind two buildings instead of staying in the street lights.
I hope that you're not one of those people that blame women for making bad decisions when they get raped, either. Because I'm sure there are women that have been raped that felt like they were in a situation where their only option was to fight instead of run. Anyway, the original question was if someone was following you for seemingly no reason, would you feel threatened?I'm not asking because I feel because it makes Zimmerman or Trayvon more or less responsible for what happened. I'm asking because this whole case is a reminder of how our perception of threat/danger is affected by race. Zimmerman obviously thought Trayvon was a threat because he was Black. Is it unfair to suggest maybe Trayvon thought Zimmerman was a threat because he was White? Sheesh. You can't have a normal conversation on this board anymore without people being argumentative dicks.
People commit assault and battery for a variety of reasons unrelated to fear. The actions of Trayvon prior to the confrontation show a lack of fear, as I already outlined.
You seem to be just trying to justify assault and battery but can't come up with any better excuse. Your excuse just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. If Trayvon was afraid, he wouldn't have gotten close enough to the source of his fear to make physical contact.
Also Zimmerman is not White. He a visible minority.
|
On March 26 2012 17:19 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 16:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 26 2012 16:42 screamingpalm wrote:On March 26 2012 16:27 Zaqwe wrote:On March 26 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote:I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. i think its going to be a hard sell to say that his action of leaving the truck and following him went past mere negligence. Sounds fairly subjective. What you quoted very much describes vigilante justice in my opinion. What is "gross and flagrant"? Does disregarding the advice of a 911 operator fall under this? Seems hard to quantify. How could he be a vigilante when he phones police? Whenever it comes to a contentious issue suddenly nobody seems to understand English. Stop throwing around loaded words that don't apply to the facts at hand. He phoned police and decided to take matters into his own hands anyway, despite the 911 operator's advice. Vigilante: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante
A vigilante is a private individual who legally or illegally punishes an alleged lawbreaker, or participates in a group which metes out extralegal punishment to an alleged lawbreaker.
How does this not apply exactly? I guess the question is, is this type of behaviour seen as being "recklessness"? he wasnt punishing, he was investigating. thats the difference. And let's say his "investigating" found that Martin really was up to no good? Then what? You think he would just leave it at that and walk away? My issue with all this is that his job should have ended with that 911 call. Maybe he acted within his rights, but I feel like some responsibility falls upon him for not heeding the advice of the 911 operator and allowed the police to do their job.
i dont know what he would have done. i doubt he would have meted out punishment though. probably do something stupid like pull a gun and hold the person at gunpoint.
i think he acted stupid, dont disagree with you there. however, his stupidity may not be enough for criminal liability.
|
On March 26 2012 17:06 Geosurface wrote:
This case is a tragedy, no doubt. My concern, though, is that the way the media has covered this is going to come back to bite them, and many others.
By focusing entirely on the emotion of the case, ignoring the key and only EYE witness (John) despite what he had to say being on local news the day after the shooting, and therefore available to ALL of these national news agencies... they have drummed up a level of furvor at this point which will be really hard to defuse.
By only showing the pictures of Trayvon when he was 12, and looking like Emanuel Lewis as Webster (if anyone else is old enough to remember that), and either ignoring or not pursuing more recent pictures, the emotion and also the confusion (how could he view that child as suspicious?) have gone way beyond where they'd be at if the coverage had been more even-handed.
So I know that the way they've covered it is good for ratings, good for clicks on their websites... but it may not be good for the country because if when it's all said and done, the grand jury, special task forces, and every other measure that's been called in to appease the anger, come to the same conclusion that there is no basis for prosecution... that self-defense is a legitimate claim here... then there could very well be riots or at the very least incidents tied to that. If that does happen, will not the sites and stations that ignored John's testimony, made no effort to present alternate views of the event, or to control the emotion in their coverage, will not they have blood on their hands if people die or are seriously injured in those riots/incidents? I feel that they may.
I agree completely and I cannot believe there aren't stricter laws on honesty in media in the USA.
|
On March 26 2012 16:39 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 16:29 Defacer wrote:On March 26 2012 16:27 Zaqwe wrote:
How could he be a vigilante when he phones police?
He became a vigilante when he chose to take matters in his own hands instead of waiting for the police. Wow, that was easy. Edit: Vigilante is too badass a word. He became Paul Blartt, Incompetent Protector of the Neighborhood. im glad you see everything in black and white, but its not really that simple. the DOJ is involved now and the White House is paying attention. don't you think that they would have the guy arrested immediately if they thought it was so simple?
I got a question, because you seem to know the ins-and-outs of the legal system better than most -- do you think there is anything he could be charged with, assuming that it is determined that he was defending himself?
Is he simply guilty of being an idiot? What kind of information would have to come to light for his idiocy to be considered illegal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
