|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On June 02 2013 03:22 Mazer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 02:34 Zaqwe wrote:On June 02 2013 02:26 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 02:25 Donger wrote:On June 02 2013 02:23 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 02:21 Donger wrote:On June 02 2013 02:14 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 01:43 Zaqwe wrote:On June 02 2013 01:12 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 00:54 Zaqwe wrote:
[quote]
Trayvon had over a minute after Zimmerman lost sight of him to do whatever he wanted. He didn't return home, he didn't dial 911, and he didn't go to a neighbor for help. Instead, he doubled back to confront Zimmerman. This is established by the timeline of events, the recorded phone call to police, and the location of the shooting, not Zimmerman's testimony.
Trayvon's actions certainly do not indicate fear.
People are resorting to ridiculous fantasy to avoid admitting that Trayvon was in the wrong when he decided to assault Zimmerman. You've gone from 'ambushed' to 'confronted' to 'assaulted' now. Which one is it and what is your proof? I don't see any contradiction between those terms. What Trayvon did falls under all three. The proof is the time from when Zimmerman loses sight of Trayvon on the phone call and the end of the call. Trayvon had over a minute to go home, which was a very short distance away. He has to have doubled back to have ended up at the location of the shooting. The autopsy also found no injuries on Trayvon. That shows it was just a one sided assault. Zimmerman was luckily able to save himself with his handgun, but until then had done no harm at all. No injuries on Trayvon doesn't prove Zimmerman didn't make an attempt against him first. And yes, there is a pretty stark difference in the meaning of those words. It's debatable who confronted who but to say one definitely assaulted or ambushed the other is a stretch. You think it's a stretch to say Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman? It's a possibility. Saying he definitely did so is a stretch. So you believe that Zimmerman may have inflicted his wounds upon himself? When did I say that? If Trayvon 'stood his ground' then it's not assault but self-defence. Since we don't know these details and I doubt it will ever become clear seeing as one guy is dead and the other is on trial, I really don't think anyone can definitely say 'x assaulted y first'. Trayvon ran away and then came back. He didn't stand his ground. My interpretation of what you're saying is: Martin coming back and asking 'what's your problem?' is proof that he had to have attacked Zimmerman. Is this correct? Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 02:54 Donger wrote:On June 02 2013 02:33 Mazer wrote:
I'm totally lost about what your point is.
Trayvon defending himself (hyptohetically speaking) is not assault even if he did inflict injuries on Zimmerman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault"An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm." or a definition by Google "Make a physical attack on." It doesn't matter if he was trying to defend him self. It's still assault. Are you arguing that there is no difference in defending one self from an assault and actually making the assault in the first place? Again, I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
You were asking for proof that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman.
*edit*
I do believe there is a difference between the two, the point I am trying to make that it is still assault.
|
On June 02 2013 03:22 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 02:54 Donger wrote:On June 02 2013 02:33 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 02:28 Donger wrote:On June 02 2013 02:26 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 02:25 Donger wrote:On June 02 2013 02:23 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 02:21 Donger wrote:On June 02 2013 02:14 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 01:43 Zaqwe wrote:
[quote]
I don't see any contradiction between those terms. What Trayvon did falls under all three.
The proof is the time from when Zimmerman loses sight of Trayvon on the phone call and the end of the call. Trayvon had over a minute to go home, which was a very short distance away. He has to have doubled back to have ended up at the location of the shooting.
The autopsy also found no injuries on Trayvon. That shows it was just a one sided assault. Zimmerman was luckily able to save himself with his handgun, but until then had done no harm at all. No injuries on Trayvon doesn't prove Zimmerman didn't make an attempt against him first. And yes, there is a pretty stark difference in the meaning of those words. It's debatable who confronted who but to say one definitely assaulted or ambushed the other is a stretch. You think it's a stretch to say Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman? It's a possibility. Saying he definitely did so is a stretch. So you believe that Zimmerman may have inflicted his wounds upon himself? When did I say that? If Trayvon 'stood his ground' then it's not assault but self-defence. I was discussing it based off the definition of assault and not the legal term. *edit* Based off of your edit it looks like you weren't either so my point still stands. You can definitely say that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman. I'm totally lost about what your point is. Trayvon defending himself (hyptohetically speaking) is not assault even if he did inflict injuries on Zimmerman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault"An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm." or a definition by Google "Make a physical attack on." It doesn't matter if he was trying to defend him self. It's still assault. I was in accord with you until this point. That is not true. Assaulting someone bares the connotation that the assault occurs before a possible reaction. The reaction being a defense against a previously occuring assault. What trayvonn did was assault though, the evidence clearly shows that he doubled back and that zimmerman did not take trayvonn to the ground, but it was the other way around. Though by this point, with the amount of withheld evidence, I can't truly say what we are missing, though from what we do have, we can say that Trayvonn did initiate the physical part, where as zimmerman initiated the verbal portion of the confrontation.
I am not talking about the connotation. As stated before I am talking about the literal meaning of the word.
|
On June 02 2013 02:25 Quexana wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 01:39 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On June 02 2013 00:01 Quexana wrote:On June 01 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 01 2013 22:53 Quexana wrote:
Anesthetic, do you think it's reasonable that Martin was in fear for his life? Obviously Trayvon wasn't afraid. He had the opportunity to go home but instead chose to double back and confront Zimmerman. Next time someone stares you down, follows you and chases you through your neighborhood, you should go home. That's the best thing. Let the stalker see where you live, where your family lives. That's smart.That's also if you believe 100% Zimmerman's account of what happened. Remember the details of his account have, shall we say "evolved" in the telling of it over time, also, he did lie to the court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked. So if you're willing to lie in court, how trustworthy are you? What percentage of Zimmerman's account should we believe, and which version of Zimmerman's account should we believe? Said with sarcasm but completely true. Go home, lock the fucking doors and call the cops. If I remember correctly somewhere the timeline was discussed. Trayvon had to have doubled back because Zimmerman couldn't find him for a couple of minutes and he was within hundreds of feet from the house he was staying at. IE: It doesn't take more than 2 minutes to walk 150~ feet. If he had gone home and called the police, the police would have likely told him to stay away from Zimmerman, then he would have the full right to go chasing after Zimmerman in the dark with a gun against the police's advice, because that's how it works right? The police tell you to stay away from someone and you then have the right to chase after them with a gun.
I hate when people walk into this thread and spout shit that's literally been debunked within a month after this case went mainstream. He was not ordered to not follow Trayvon. The exact words were "Okay, we don't need you to do that." Furthermore, even if he had been ordered to not follow him, he is not legally required to obey those instructions. He was doing nothing illegal by following and observing Trayvon.
That being said. No one is going to argue it was stupid that he followed him. No one is going to argue it was the smart thing to do. But what we are going to argue, and which is fact, is that the act of following Trayvon itself was not illegal no matter how you spin it.
Second thing. He legally owned the gun and had the right to carry it. The evidence that we seem to know indicates that Trayvon likely doubled back at some point and didn't go home and based on the autopsy and injuries sustained by both individuals we know that Zimmerman had head injuries among others indicating that Trayvon was on top of him. Trayvon had only a single gun shot wound to the chest with no other injuries. From this we can infer that Trayvon likely made the first hit, because if Zimmerman struck first Trayvon would of had other injuries.
Let's look at it from another stand point though. Let's say Trayvon just dodged Zimmerman's first punch then manged to get the better of Zimmerman. Even if Zimmerman had instigated the fight, if he had found himself in a situation where he felt his life was threatened he is allowed to use deadly force to protect himself if he had no reasonable means of escape.
So basically, people need to stop weighing this situation leading up to the fight and death of Trayvon and more so look at the fight itself and whether if you found yourself in Zimmerman's situation would you have felt your life reasonably threatened to the point where you used deadly force to defend yourself.
|
On June 02 2013 11:41 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 02:25 Quexana wrote:On June 02 2013 01:39 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On June 02 2013 00:01 Quexana wrote:On June 01 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 01 2013 22:53 Quexana wrote:
Anesthetic, do you think it's reasonable that Martin was in fear for his life? Obviously Trayvon wasn't afraid. He had the opportunity to go home but instead chose to double back and confront Zimmerman. Next time someone stares you down, follows you and chases you through your neighborhood, you should go home. That's the best thing. Let the stalker see where you live, where your family lives. That's smart.That's also if you believe 100% Zimmerman's account of what happened. Remember the details of his account have, shall we say "evolved" in the telling of it over time, also, he did lie to the court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked. So if you're willing to lie in court, how trustworthy are you? What percentage of Zimmerman's account should we believe, and which version of Zimmerman's account should we believe? Said with sarcasm but completely true. Go home, lock the fucking doors and call the cops. If I remember correctly somewhere the timeline was discussed. Trayvon had to have doubled back because Zimmerman couldn't find him for a couple of minutes and he was within hundreds of feet from the house he was staying at. IE: It doesn't take more than 2 minutes to walk 150~ feet. If he had gone home and called the police, the police would have likely told him to stay away from Zimmerman, then he would have the full right to go chasing after Zimmerman in the dark with a gun against the police's advice, because that's how it works right? The police tell you to stay away from someone and you then have the right to chase after them with a gun. I hate when people walk into this thread and spout shit that's literally been debunked within a month after this case went mainstream. He was not ordered to not follow Trayvon. The exact words were "Okay, we don't need you to do that." Furthermore, even if he had been ordered to not follow him, he is not legally required to obey those instructions. He was doing nothing illegal by following and observing Trayvon. That being said. No one is going to argue it was stupid that he followed him. No one is going to argue it was the smart thing to do. But what we are going to argue, and which is fact, is that the act of following Trayvon itself was not illegal no matter how you spin it. Second thing. He legally owned the gun and had the right to carry it. The evidence that we seem to know indicates that Trayvon likely doubled back at some point and didn't go home and based on the autopsy and injuries sustained by both individuals we know that Zimmerman had head injuries among others indicating that Trayvon was on top of him. Trayvon had only a single gun shot wound to the chest with no other injuries. From this we can infer that Trayvon likely made the first hit, because if Zimmerman struck first Trayvon would of had other injuries. Let's look at it from another stand point though. Let's say Trayvon just dodged Zimmerman's first punch then manged to get the better of Zimmerman. Even if Zimmerman had instigated the fight, if he had found himself in a situation where he felt his life was threatened he is allowed to use deadly force to protect himself if he had no reasonable means of escape. So basically, people need to stop weighing this situation leading up to the fight and death of Trayvon and more so look at the fight itself and whether if you found yourself in Zimmerman's situation would you have felt your life reasonably threatened to the point where you used deadly force to defend yourself.
So even if "I start a fight" and get beat down badly i can shot the guy.I don't think that's right.
|
On June 02 2013 11:41 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 02:25 Quexana wrote:On June 02 2013 01:39 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On June 02 2013 00:01 Quexana wrote:On June 01 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 01 2013 22:53 Quexana wrote:
Anesthetic, do you think it's reasonable that Martin was in fear for his life? Obviously Trayvon wasn't afraid. He had the opportunity to go home but instead chose to double back and confront Zimmerman. Next time someone stares you down, follows you and chases you through your neighborhood, you should go home. That's the best thing. Let the stalker see where you live, where your family lives. That's smart.That's also if you believe 100% Zimmerman's account of what happened. Remember the details of his account have, shall we say "evolved" in the telling of it over time, also, he did lie to the court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked. So if you're willing to lie in court, how trustworthy are you? What percentage of Zimmerman's account should we believe, and which version of Zimmerman's account should we believe? Said with sarcasm but completely true. Go home, lock the fucking doors and call the cops. If I remember correctly somewhere the timeline was discussed. Trayvon had to have doubled back because Zimmerman couldn't find him for a couple of minutes and he was within hundreds of feet from the house he was staying at. IE: It doesn't take more than 2 minutes to walk 150~ feet. If he had gone home and called the police, the police would have likely told him to stay away from Zimmerman, then he would have the full right to go chasing after Zimmerman in the dark with a gun against the police's advice, because that's how it works right? The police tell you to stay away from someone and you then have the right to chase after them with a gun. I hate when people walk into this thread and spout shit that's literally been debunked within a month after this case went mainstream. He was not ordered to not follow Trayvon. The exact words were "Okay, we don't need you to do that." Furthermore, even if he had been ordered to not follow him, he is not legally required to obey those instructions. He was doing nothing illegal by following and observing Trayvon. That being said. No one is going to argue it was stupid that he followed him. No one is going to argue it was the smart thing to do. But what we are going to argue, and which is fact, is that the act of following Trayvon itself was not illegal no matter how you spin it. Second thing. He legally owned the gun and had the right to carry it. The evidence that we seem to know indicates that Trayvon likely doubled back at some point and didn't go home and based on the autopsy and injuries sustained by both individuals we know that Zimmerman had head injuries among others indicating that Trayvon was on top of him. Trayvon had only a single gun shot wound to the chest with no other injuries. From this we can infer that Trayvon likely made the first hit, because if Zimmerman struck first Trayvon would of had other injuries. Let's look at it from another stand point though. Let's say Trayvon just dodged Zimmerman's first punch then manged to get the better of Zimmerman. Even if Zimmerman had instigated the fight, if he had found himself in a situation where he felt his life was threatened he is allowed to use deadly force to protect himself if he had no reasonable means of escape. So basically, people need to stop weighing this situation leading up to the fight and death of Trayvon and more so look at the fight itself and whether if you found yourself in Zimmerman's situation would you have felt your life reasonably threatened to the point where you used deadly force to defend yourself.
So, you're saying that I can start a fight, start losing that fight, and then kill said person and the worst I should get is an assault charge? I don't think that is how the law should work. As far as this case is concerned this is why citizens shouldn't be doing police type work. Even if he is in the right it doesn't matter because even cops get shit wrong, so why should he be able to walk around with a gun and take it into his own hands? These are situations for the police and yet anyone with a gun can make a decision that can be final. I'm not against having a gun, but the attitude that some people get with one. A couple cases like this one where the people were shot, but the police could and would have handled the situation in a way that would not have wound up with them killed.
|
On June 02 2013 11:52 trips wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 11:41 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On June 02 2013 02:25 Quexana wrote:On June 02 2013 01:39 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On June 02 2013 00:01 Quexana wrote:On June 01 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 01 2013 22:53 Quexana wrote:
Anesthetic, do you think it's reasonable that Martin was in fear for his life? Obviously Trayvon wasn't afraid. He had the opportunity to go home but instead chose to double back and confront Zimmerman. Next time someone stares you down, follows you and chases you through your neighborhood, you should go home. That's the best thing. Let the stalker see where you live, where your family lives. That's smart.That's also if you believe 100% Zimmerman's account of what happened. Remember the details of his account have, shall we say "evolved" in the telling of it over time, also, he did lie to the court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked. So if you're willing to lie in court, how trustworthy are you? What percentage of Zimmerman's account should we believe, and which version of Zimmerman's account should we believe? Said with sarcasm but completely true. Go home, lock the fucking doors and call the cops. If I remember correctly somewhere the timeline was discussed. Trayvon had to have doubled back because Zimmerman couldn't find him for a couple of minutes and he was within hundreds of feet from the house he was staying at. IE: It doesn't take more than 2 minutes to walk 150~ feet. If he had gone home and called the police, the police would have likely told him to stay away from Zimmerman, then he would have the full right to go chasing after Zimmerman in the dark with a gun against the police's advice, because that's how it works right? The police tell you to stay away from someone and you then have the right to chase after them with a gun. I hate when people walk into this thread and spout shit that's literally been debunked within a month after this case went mainstream. He was not ordered to not follow Trayvon. The exact words were "Okay, we don't need you to do that." Furthermore, even if he had been ordered to not follow him, he is not legally required to obey those instructions. He was doing nothing illegal by following and observing Trayvon. That being said. No one is going to argue it was stupid that he followed him. No one is going to argue it was the smart thing to do. But what we are going to argue, and which is fact, is that the act of following Trayvon itself was not illegal no matter how you spin it. Second thing. He legally owned the gun and had the right to carry it. The evidence that we seem to know indicates that Trayvon likely doubled back at some point and didn't go home and based on the autopsy and injuries sustained by both individuals we know that Zimmerman had head injuries among others indicating that Trayvon was on top of him. Trayvon had only a single gun shot wound to the chest with no other injuries. From this we can infer that Trayvon likely made the first hit, because if Zimmerman struck first Trayvon would of had other injuries. Let's look at it from another stand point though. Let's say Trayvon just dodged Zimmerman's first punch then manged to get the better of Zimmerman. Even if Zimmerman had instigated the fight, if he had found himself in a situation where he felt his life was threatened he is allowed to use deadly force to protect himself if he had no reasonable means of escape. So basically, people need to stop weighing this situation leading up to the fight and death of Trayvon and more so look at the fight itself and whether if you found yourself in Zimmerman's situation would you have felt your life reasonably threatened to the point where you used deadly force to defend yourself. So even if "I start a fight" and get beat down badly i can shot the guy.I don't think that's right.
Sorry, it took me a bit to track down the law.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Admittedly, I took a lot of classes based on NY law. So I did speak a bit without researching since laws do vary from state to state. But if you start a fight and then have no means of escape from the fight and exhaust all possible options, then you are allowed to use deadly force and can invoke self defense.
To give a situation. If hypothetically Zimmerman went to punch Trayvon, Trayvon dodged then threw Zimmerman on the ground and started violently beating him up and Zimmerman was not in a position to escape or defend himself, then Zimmerman would be justified in using physical force to stop Trayvon.
|
On June 02 2013 12:14 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 11:41 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On June 02 2013 02:25 Quexana wrote:On June 02 2013 01:39 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On June 02 2013 00:01 Quexana wrote:On June 01 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 01 2013 22:53 Quexana wrote:
Anesthetic, do you think it's reasonable that Martin was in fear for his life? Obviously Trayvon wasn't afraid. He had the opportunity to go home but instead chose to double back and confront Zimmerman. Next time someone stares you down, follows you and chases you through your neighborhood, you should go home. That's the best thing. Let the stalker see where you live, where your family lives. That's smart.That's also if you believe 100% Zimmerman's account of what happened. Remember the details of his account have, shall we say "evolved" in the telling of it over time, also, he did lie to the court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked. So if you're willing to lie in court, how trustworthy are you? What percentage of Zimmerman's account should we believe, and which version of Zimmerman's account should we believe? Said with sarcasm but completely true. Go home, lock the fucking doors and call the cops. If I remember correctly somewhere the timeline was discussed. Trayvon had to have doubled back because Zimmerman couldn't find him for a couple of minutes and he was within hundreds of feet from the house he was staying at. IE: It doesn't take more than 2 minutes to walk 150~ feet. If he had gone home and called the police, the police would have likely told him to stay away from Zimmerman, then he would have the full right to go chasing after Zimmerman in the dark with a gun against the police's advice, because that's how it works right? The police tell you to stay away from someone and you then have the right to chase after them with a gun. I hate when people walk into this thread and spout shit that's literally been debunked within a month after this case went mainstream. He was not ordered to not follow Trayvon. The exact words were "Okay, we don't need you to do that." Furthermore, even if he had been ordered to not follow him, he is not legally required to obey those instructions. He was doing nothing illegal by following and observing Trayvon. That being said. No one is going to argue it was stupid that he followed him. No one is going to argue it was the smart thing to do. But what we are going to argue, and which is fact, is that the act of following Trayvon itself was not illegal no matter how you spin it. Second thing. He legally owned the gun and had the right to carry it. The evidence that we seem to know indicates that Trayvon likely doubled back at some point and didn't go home and based on the autopsy and injuries sustained by both individuals we know that Zimmerman had head injuries among others indicating that Trayvon was on top of him. Trayvon had only a single gun shot wound to the chest with no other injuries. From this we can infer that Trayvon likely made the first hit, because if Zimmerman struck first Trayvon would of had other injuries. Let's look at it from another stand point though. Let's say Trayvon just dodged Zimmerman's first punch then manged to get the better of Zimmerman. Even if Zimmerman had instigated the fight, if he had found himself in a situation where he felt his life was threatened he is allowed to use deadly force to protect himself if he had no reasonable means of escape. So basically, people need to stop weighing this situation leading up to the fight and death of Trayvon and more so look at the fight itself and whether if you found yourself in Zimmerman's situation would you have felt your life reasonably threatened to the point where you used deadly force to defend yourself. So, you're saying that I can start a fight, start losing that fight, and then kill said person and the worst I should get is an assault charge? I don't think that is how the law should work. As far as this case is concerned this is why citizens shouldn't be doing police type work. Even if he is in the right it doesn't matter because even cops get shit wrong, so why should he be able to walk around with a gun and take it into his own hands? These are situations for the police and yet anyone with a gun can make a decision that can be final. I'm not against having a gun, but the attitude that some people get with one. A couple cases like this one where the people were shot, but the police could and would have handled the situation in a way that would not have wound up with them killed.
And no, I'm saying if you start a fight, that person responds with an obscene level of force that you cannot escape from and puts you in fear for your life, then its fairly reasonable that you respond with deadly force to stop the assault.
Just because you start something doesn't mean you the deserve to die, which is what you suggesting if you believe if you start a fight you have no right to defend yourself. Feasibly in your world I could punch some guy, he could mount me and start slamming my head into the ground and I should just accept that I deserve to die for throwing a punch instead of using any means to preserve my life from an unreasonable, inescapable response.
Also, not to be a dick or anything. But it really doesn't matter how you personally feel the law should work for this scenario. It works the way it does because our system ideally is supposed to value freedom, which is why the burden of proof is generally on the prosecution to such a heavy degree. In the case of uncertainty then a person should go free because as a society we need to place an immensely high value on personal freedom to protect from wrongful deprivation of liberty which in my mind is the single biggest tragedy.
|
And no, I'm saying if you start a fight, that person responds with an obscene level of force that you cannot escape from and puts you in fear for your life, then its fairly reasonable that you respond with deadly force to stop the assault.
Just because you start something doesn't mean you the deserve to die, which is what you suggesting if you believe if you start a fight you have no right to defend yourself. Feasibly in your world I could punch some guy, he could mount me and start slamming my head into the ground and I should just accept that I deserve to die for throwing a punch instead of using any means to preserve my life from an unreasonable, inescapable response.
Also, not to be a dick or anything. But it really doesn't matter how you personally feel the law should work for this scenario. It works the way it does because our system ideally is supposed to value freedom, which is why the burden of proof is generally on the prosecution to such a heavy degree. In the case of uncertainty then a person should go free because as a society we need to place an immensely high value on personal freedom to protect from wrongful deprivation of liberty which in my mind is the single biggest tragedy.
Very well put, just one question
If Martin had been carrying a gun or a knife that night, would he have been justified in killing Zimmerman after Zimmerman drew his gun? Even if Martin had started the fight, is the act of drawing a gun a reason for Martin to kill Zimmerman as a "means to preserve [Martins's] life from an unreasonable, inescapable response"?
|
What;s the latest update on this incident
|
On June 02 2013 21:07 Quexana wrote:Show nested quote +And no, I'm saying if you start a fight, that person responds with an obscene level of force that you cannot escape from and puts you in fear for your life, then its fairly reasonable that you respond with deadly force to stop the assault.
Just because you start something doesn't mean you the deserve to die, which is what you suggesting if you believe if you start a fight you have no right to defend yourself. Feasibly in your world I could punch some guy, he could mount me and start slamming my head into the ground and I should just accept that I deserve to die for throwing a punch instead of using any means to preserve my life from an unreasonable, inescapable response.
Also, not to be a dick or anything. But it really doesn't matter how you personally feel the law should work for this scenario. It works the way it does because our system ideally is supposed to value freedom, which is why the burden of proof is generally on the prosecution to such a heavy degree. In the case of uncertainty then a person should go free because as a society we need to place an immensely high value on personal freedom to protect from wrongful deprivation of liberty which in my mind is the single biggest tragedy. Very well put, just one question If Martin had been carrying a gun or a knife that night, would he have been justified in killing Zimmerman after Zimmerman drew his gun? Even if Martin had started the fight, is the act of drawing a gun a reason for Martin to kill Zimmerman as a "means to preserve [Martins's] life from an unreasonable, inescapable response"?
It would matter the context the gun was used in, but if they were fighting and the situation was reversed, then yeah Martin would be fine in using the knife/gun to defend himself. In some states you have a duty to retreat where if you can reasonably escape and you choose to stay and fight then you are not entitled to self defense. However, Florida is not one of those places due to stand your ground laws.
|
Trayvon was on the phone with his girl and didn't want to go home just yet. He didn't want his parents to hear the call. No searching for Zimmerman. The guy showed up instead of going to his truck and confrontet Trayvon.
|
On June 02 2013 22:50 Lt_Stork wrote:
Trayvon was on the phone with his girl and didn't want to go home just yet. He didn't want his parents to hear the call. No searching for Zimmerman. The guy showed up instead of going to his truck and confrontet Trayvon.
What makes more sense.
Black kid randomly attacks Zimmerman.
Black kid going home gets found by armed man who was following him, panicks from sight of gun and defends himself.
|
On June 02 2013 23:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 22:50 Lt_Stork wrote:
Trayvon was on the phone with his girl and didn't want to go home just yet. He didn't want his parents to hear the call. No searching for Zimmerman. The guy showed up instead of going to his truck and confrontet Trayvon. What makes more sense. Black kid randomly attacks Zimmerman. Black kid going home gets found by armed man who was following him, panicks from sight of gun and defends himself.
Zimmerman had a concealed carry license, There's no way Trayvon could've seen the gun, since it was night-time. They can be tough to spot even in broad daylight.
|
On June 03 2013 03:12 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 23:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 02 2013 22:50 Lt_Stork wrote:
Trayvon was on the phone with his girl and didn't want to go home just yet. He didn't want his parents to hear the call. No searching for Zimmerman. The guy showed up instead of going to his truck and confrontet Trayvon. What makes more sense. Black kid randomly attacks Zimmerman. Black kid going home gets found by armed man who was following him, panicks from sight of gun and defends himself. Zimmerman had a concealed carry license, There's no way Trayvon could've seen the gun, since it was night-time. They can be tough to spot even in broad daylight.
Speaking with such absolution, could he not have had it clearly brandished?
|
On June 03 2013 03:12 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 23:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 02 2013 22:50 Lt_Stork wrote:
Trayvon was on the phone with his girl and didn't want to go home just yet. He didn't want his parents to hear the call. No searching for Zimmerman. The guy showed up instead of going to his truck and confrontet Trayvon. What makes more sense. Black kid randomly attacks Zimmerman. Black kid going home gets found by armed man who was following him, panicks from sight of gun and defends himself. Zimmerman had a concealed carry license, There's no way Trayvon could've seen the gun, since it was night-time. They can be tough to spot even in broad daylight.
Having a conceal license =/= concealing at the time.
|
On June 02 2013 23:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 22:50 Lt_Stork wrote:
Trayvon was on the phone with his girl and didn't want to go home just yet. He didn't want his parents to hear the call. No searching for Zimmerman. The guy showed up instead of going to his truck and confrontet Trayvon. What makes more sense. Black kid randomly attacks Zimmerman. Black kid going home gets found by armed man who was following him, panicks from sight of gun and defends himself.
I don't know where people get off on Trayvon being the aggressor. He was running away, thinking he was safe in that back alley, he continued his call until he spotted Zimmerman who was still following him. Thats when the confrontation happened. Zimmerman has a whole lot of explaining to do. Instead of shouting help, why not say he was with the neighborhood watch?
|
Just because you start something doesn't mean you the deserve to die, which is what you suggesting if you believe if you start a fight you have no right to defend yourself. Feasibly in your world I could punch some guy, he could mount me and start slamming my head into the ground and I should just accept that I deserve to die for throwing a punch instead of using any means to preserve my life from an unreasonable, inescapable response.
Am I the only person raised to not start shit unless you can live with the consequences? I'm fairly sure this was part of the man code passed from father to son. There's even the saying "Don't let your mouth write checks your ass can't cash."
If you swing on someone do you deserve to die? Most likely not, depends on the situation and background. But if you do swing on someone you've made your own bed at that point and the other guy is well within his right to beat the living shit out of you within an inch of your life. When you throw that punch you damn well better be at peace with the possible repercussions of your action. If you start a fight and get your ass whooped pulling out a gun makes you a pussy, flat out you're a bitch.
Maybe I'm just old but growing up at least there was some code of conduct as a man.
|
On June 03 2013 07:16 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +Just because you start something doesn't mean you the deserve to die, which is what you suggesting if you believe if you start a fight you have no right to defend yourself. Feasibly in your world I could punch some guy, he could mount me and start slamming my head into the ground and I should just accept that I deserve to die for throwing a punch instead of using any means to preserve my life from an unreasonable, inescapable response. Am I the only person raised to not start shit unless you can live with the consequences? I'm fairly sure this was part of the man code passed from father to son. There's even the saying "Don't let your mouth write checks your ass can't cash." If you swing on someone do you deserve to die? Most likely not, depends on the situation and background. But if you do swing on someone you've made your own bed at that point and the other guy is well within his right to beat the living shit out of you within an inch of your life. When you throw that punch you damn well better be at peace with the possible repercussions of your action. If you start a fight and get your ass whooped pulling out a gun makes you a pussy, flat out you're a bitch. Maybe I'm just old but growing up at least there was some code of conduct as a man.
This is the problem with the whole debate and why the thread keeps exploding. Once I realised I was doing this myself, I stopped.
The people saying Zimmerman is in the wrong (like me) are concerned about the moral issues, people saying Zimmerman are in the right are more concerned about the technical issues. In the end we are never going to come to a bipartisan conclusion, because we are arguing different things.
In the end we all know that common sense would have stopped this from happening, however Zimmerman did have a right to do whatever he was doing, whether it was stupid or not is another matter.
|
On June 03 2013 11:33 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 07:16 OuchyDathurts wrote:Just because you start something doesn't mean you the deserve to die, which is what you suggesting if you believe if you start a fight you have no right to defend yourself. Feasibly in your world I could punch some guy, he could mount me and start slamming my head into the ground and I should just accept that I deserve to die for throwing a punch instead of using any means to preserve my life from an unreasonable, inescapable response. Am I the only person raised to not start shit unless you can live with the consequences? I'm fairly sure this was part of the man code passed from father to son. There's even the saying "Don't let your mouth write checks your ass can't cash." If you swing on someone do you deserve to die? Most likely not, depends on the situation and background. But if you do swing on someone you've made your own bed at that point and the other guy is well within his right to beat the living shit out of you within an inch of your life. When you throw that punch you damn well better be at peace with the possible repercussions of your action. If you start a fight and get your ass whooped pulling out a gun makes you a pussy, flat out you're a bitch. Maybe I'm just old but growing up at least there was some code of conduct as a man. This is the problem with the whole debate and why the thread keeps exploding. Once I realised I was doing this myself, I stopped. The people saying Zimmerman is in the wrong (like me) are concerned about the moral issues, people saying Zimmerman are in the right are more concerned about the technical issues. In the end we are never going to come to a bipartisan conclusion, because we are arguing different things. In the end we all know that common sense would have stopped this from happening, however Zimmerman did have a right to do whatever he was doing, whether it was stupid or not is another matter.
I'm not so sure the side who thinks Zimmerman is innocent are arguing pure technicalities, regardless of morals. The "technicalities" are a pretty important part of our legal system, the maintenance of which IS a moral issue, a bigger one in my opinion than Zimmerman's fate.
|
On June 03 2013 11:39 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 11:33 sluggaslamoo wrote:On June 03 2013 07:16 OuchyDathurts wrote:Just because you start something doesn't mean you the deserve to die, which is what you suggesting if you believe if you start a fight you have no right to defend yourself. Feasibly in your world I could punch some guy, he could mount me and start slamming my head into the ground and I should just accept that I deserve to die for throwing a punch instead of using any means to preserve my life from an unreasonable, inescapable response. Am I the only person raised to not start shit unless you can live with the consequences? I'm fairly sure this was part of the man code passed from father to son. There's even the saying "Don't let your mouth write checks your ass can't cash." If you swing on someone do you deserve to die? Most likely not, depends on the situation and background. But if you do swing on someone you've made your own bed at that point and the other guy is well within his right to beat the living shit out of you within an inch of your life. When you throw that punch you damn well better be at peace with the possible repercussions of your action. If you start a fight and get your ass whooped pulling out a gun makes you a pussy, flat out you're a bitch. Maybe I'm just old but growing up at least there was some code of conduct as a man. This is the problem with the whole debate and why the thread keeps exploding. Once I realised I was doing this myself, I stopped. The people saying Zimmerman is in the wrong (like me) are concerned about the moral issues, people saying Zimmerman are in the right are more concerned about the technical issues. In the end we are never going to come to a bipartisan conclusion, because we are arguing different things. In the end we all know that common sense would have stopped this from happening, however Zimmerman did have a right to do whatever he was doing, whether it was stupid or not is another matter. I'm not so sure the side who thinks Zimmerman is innocent are arguing pure technicalities, regardless of morals. The "technicalities" are a pretty important part of our legal system, the maintenance of which IS a moral issue, a bigger one in my opinion than Zimmerman's fate.
Zimmerman technically murder someone after technically following him in the darkness while armed after he technically chased him.
So, technically speaking, zimmerman chased, followed, and shot, someone who was part of the community he wanted to protect.
Some people want to say he's innocent--because they think its more realistic that a black kid walking home someone attacks random people.
Some people want to say he's guilty because it makes sense to them that people with guns who chases kids at night and end up shooting them a few minutes later are people who are guilty of shooting kids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
