|
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 03 2013 11:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 11:39 Millitron wrote: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.
1) Killing someone in self-defense is not murder as far as the law goes.
2) We do not know that Zimmerman chased Martin. In fact, if he had chased him, Martin would've made it home. The shooting occurred so close the home Martin was headed for, he had plenty of time to get there, especially if he was in a hurry, i.e. fleeing Zimmerman.
3) Up until the shooting, did he do anything illegal? No? Was his head being bashed against the ground hard enough to make him fear for his life? Yes? Then he must be found innocent, because opposing lethal force with lethal force when he did not instigate the use of force is legal.
4) He was legally allowed to carry that gun. If you want to discuss carry rights, we can take this to the gun thread. Otherwise, discussion of guns is pointless. Even if you want to change the carry laws, Zimmerman can't be considered guilty simply for carrying a gun because the incident occurred before any change you might want to make. No Ex Post Facto laws.
5) What people do and do not consider realistic has no bearing on the issue. It's all about doubt. If there is any doubt about whether or not Zimmerman is guilty, he's innocent as far as the law is concerned.
|
On June 03 2013 12:39 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 11:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 03 2013 11:39 Millitron wrote: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. 1) Killing someone in self-defense is not murder as far as the law goes. 2) We do not know that Zimmerman chased Martin. In fact, if he had chased him, Martin would've made it home. The shooting occurred so close the home Martin was headed for, he had plenty of time to get there, especially if he was in a hurry, i.e. fleeing Zimmerman. 3) Up until the shooting, did he do anything illegal? No? Was his head being bashed against the ground hard enough to make him fear for his life? Yes? Then he must be found innocent, because opposing lethal force with lethal force when he did not instigate the use of force is legal. 4) He was legally allowed to carry that gun. If you want to discuss carry rights, we can take this to the gun thread. Otherwise, discussion of guns is pointless. Even if you want to change the carry laws, Zimmerman can't be considered guilty simply for carrying a gun because the incident occurred before any change you might want to make. No Ex Post Facto laws. 5) What people do and do not consider realistic has no bearing on the issue. It's all about doubt. If there is any doubt about whether or not Zimmerman is guilty, he's innocent as far as the law is concerned.
A.) Self defense is about perspective. He states it was self defense, the evidence shows me that it was Martin acting in self defense.
B.) We have a recording of Zman running and panting. He was literally chasing after Martin. Martin ran away--because an armed man was chasing him.
C.) Most murderers do nothing illegal until the murder. It's not illegal to carry a knife, it's not illegal to walk around rooms or alley ways. People still get stabbed. People still get robbed. Most criminal acts are preceded by a bunch of legal acts. And further more, he is not being tried for following, he is not being tried for holding a gun. He is bring tried for shooting someone where his only defense is that it was self defense. Apart from the evidence showing that it's Martin who was acting in self defense--personally speaking, an armed man chasing kids at night don't get to claim self-defense after tracking someone and shooting them.
D.) Why do people keep trying to distract the conversation by saying "it's not illegal to carry a gun" when he isn't being tried for carrying a gun. He's being tried for shooting someone. He's being tried because he was initially chasing someone, then he followed him towards his house, and then he shot him. Saying it was legal for him to carry a gun is like saying it was legal for him to wear shoes. Yes, it's legal to carry a gun. It's not legal to chase someone, lose track of him, find him again, and then shooting him. I know that you and Kmilz keep going to the gun control thread and talk about guns being needed to defend against tyranny and shit like that, but telling me that it is legal for Zman to carry a gun is distracting the conversation since no one is arguing that it is illegal to carry a gun. It would be nice if the two of you can keep your pro-NRA bullshit in the Gun control thread and not in this thread. I know you guys don't want anyone who claims self defense to ever be considered guilty because it attacks your pro-NRA stance, but Zimmerman isn't being tried for carrying a gun so please stop this bullshit.
|
On June 03 2013 12:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 12:39 Millitron wrote:On June 03 2013 11:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 03 2013 11:39 Millitron wrote: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. 1) Killing someone in self-defense is not murder as far as the law goes. 2) We do not know that Zimmerman chased Martin. In fact, if he had chased him, Martin would've made it home. The shooting occurred so close the home Martin was headed for, he had plenty of time to get there, especially if he was in a hurry, i.e. fleeing Zimmerman. 3) Up until the shooting, did he do anything illegal? No? Was his head being bashed against the ground hard enough to make him fear for his life? Yes? Then he must be found innocent, because opposing lethal force with lethal force when he did not instigate the use of force is legal. 4) He was legally allowed to carry that gun. If you want to discuss carry rights, we can take this to the gun thread. Otherwise, discussion of guns is pointless. Even if you want to change the carry laws, Zimmerman can't be considered guilty simply for carrying a gun because the incident occurred before any change you might want to make. No Ex Post Facto laws. 5) What people do and do not consider realistic has no bearing on the issue. It's all about doubt. If there is any doubt about whether or not Zimmerman is guilty, he's innocent as far as the law is concerned. A.) Self defense is about perspective. He states it was self defense, the evidence shows me that it was Martin acting in self defense. B.) We have a recording of Zman running and panting. He was literally chasing after Martin. Martin ran away--because an armed man was chasing him. C.) Most murderers do nothing illegal until the murder. It's not illegal to carry a knife, it's not illegal to walk around rooms or alley ways. People still get stabbed. People still get robbed. Most criminal acts are preceded by a bunch of legal acts. And further more, he is not being tried for following, he is not being tried for holding a gun. He is bring tried for shooting someone where his only defense is that it was self defense. Apart from the evidence showing that it's Martin who was acting in self defense--personally speaking, an armed man chasing kids at night don't get to claim self-defense after tracking someone and shooting them. D.) Why do people keep trying to distract the conversation by saying "it's not illegal to carry a gun" when he isn't being tried for carrying a gun. He's being tried for shooting someone. He's being tried because he was initially chasing someone, then he followed him towards his house, and then he shot him. Saying it was legal for him to carry a gun is like saying it was legal for him to wear shoes. Yes, it's legal to carry a gun. It's not legal to chase someone, lose track of him, find him again, and then shooting him. I know that you and Kmilz keep going to the gun control thread and talk about guns being needed to defend against tyranny and shit like that, but telling me that it is legal for Zman to carry a gun is distracting the conversation since no one is arguing that it is illegal to carry a gun. It would be nice if the two of you can keep your pro-NRA bullshit in the Gun control thread and not in this thread. I know you guys don't want anyone who claims self defense to ever be considered guilty because it attacks your pro-NRA stance, but Zimmerman isn't being tried for carrying a gun so please stop this bullshit.
A) In my mind, the evidence shows that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.
B) Link please?
C) Can't address this until I get that link. I will though once I listen to the recording.
D) You brought up the gun first.
|
On June 03 2013 13:05 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 12:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 03 2013 12:39 Millitron wrote:On June 03 2013 11:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 03 2013 11:39 Millitron wrote: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. 1) Killing someone in self-defense is not murder as far as the law goes. 2) We do not know that Zimmerman chased Martin. In fact, if he had chased him, Martin would've made it home. The shooting occurred so close the home Martin was headed for, he had plenty of time to get there, especially if he was in a hurry, i.e. fleeing Zimmerman. 3) Up until the shooting, did he do anything illegal? No? Was his head being bashed against the ground hard enough to make him fear for his life? Yes? Then he must be found innocent, because opposing lethal force with lethal force when he did not instigate the use of force is legal. 4) He was legally allowed to carry that gun. If you want to discuss carry rights, we can take this to the gun thread. Otherwise, discussion of guns is pointless. Even if you want to change the carry laws, Zimmerman can't be considered guilty simply for carrying a gun because the incident occurred before any change you might want to make. No Ex Post Facto laws. 5) What people do and do not consider realistic has no bearing on the issue. It's all about doubt. If there is any doubt about whether or not Zimmerman is guilty, he's innocent as far as the law is concerned. A.) Self defense is about perspective. He states it was self defense, the evidence shows me that it was Martin acting in self defense. B.) We have a recording of Zman running and panting. He was literally chasing after Martin. Martin ran away--because an armed man was chasing him. C.) Most murderers do nothing illegal until the murder. It's not illegal to carry a knife, it's not illegal to walk around rooms or alley ways. People still get stabbed. People still get robbed. Most criminal acts are preceded by a bunch of legal acts. And further more, he is not being tried for following, he is not being tried for holding a gun. He is bring tried for shooting someone where his only defense is that it was self defense. Apart from the evidence showing that it's Martin who was acting in self defense--personally speaking, an armed man chasing kids at night don't get to claim self-defense after tracking someone and shooting them. D.) Why do people keep trying to distract the conversation by saying "it's not illegal to carry a gun" when he isn't being tried for carrying a gun. He's being tried for shooting someone. He's being tried because he was initially chasing someone, then he followed him towards his house, and then he shot him. Saying it was legal for him to carry a gun is like saying it was legal for him to wear shoes. Yes, it's legal to carry a gun. It's not legal to chase someone, lose track of him, find him again, and then shooting him. I know that you and Kmilz keep going to the gun control thread and talk about guns being needed to defend against tyranny and shit like that, but telling me that it is legal for Zman to carry a gun is distracting the conversation since no one is arguing that it is illegal to carry a gun. It would be nice if the two of you can keep your pro-NRA bullshit in the Gun control thread and not in this thread. I know you guys don't want anyone who claims self defense to ever be considered guilty because it attacks your pro-NRA stance, but Zimmerman isn't being tried for carrying a gun so please stop this bullshit. A) In my mind, the evidence shows that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. B) Link please? C) Can't address this until I get that link. I will though once I listen to the recording. D) You brought up the gun first.
Umm... Read the OP, because you obviously have no idea what's going on here.
Zimmerman phoned the Sanford Police Department police at the non-emergency number at approximately 7:00 p.m., February 26, 2012, to report Martin’s suspicious behavior, which he described as “just walking around looking about” in the rain. The police dispatcher tape recorded him saying, "This guy looks like he is up to no good. He is on drugs or something." He further stated that the person he was observing had his hand in his waistband, was holding something in his other hand, and was walking around slowly in the rain looking at houses.
The dispatcher recommended that he not take any action, and informed him that police were on the way. Zimmerman reported that Martin had taken off. The dispatcher asked him if he was in pursuit and he affirmed that he was. The dispatcher informed him that pursuit was not necessary, saying "We don't need you to do that."
A part of what Zimmerman said on the tape is unclear. Some have heard the disputed words as "fucking coons", an ethnic slur used against black people, while others suggest it was "clueless", "course", or "punks".
I did not bring up that it is illegal to carry a gun. I said it's illegal to chase someone and shoot them. I said it looks guilty when an armed man chases after, follows, and shoots someone he described as a "late teen." It is you and Kmilz who keep bringing up that it's not illegal for him to carry a gun--which is obvious because he isn't being tried for it.
The only evidence that shows he was doing it in self defense is his testimony--which has changed about (3?) times since he first described it. The only reason his "defense" holds any water is because the description of a black kid randomly attacking someone for no reason makes sense to people.
What makes sense to me is a kid who was initially chased by someone, who bumps into the guy a few minutes later, can get scared by a gun and cause him to fight for his life.
The only evidence against that is Zimmerman's changing stories that this kid who initially ran away from him for some odd reason also attacked him out of nowhere after Zimmerman walked about two blocks away from his car after being told he didn't have to pursue the murder victim.
|
On June 03 2013 12:39 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 11:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 03 2013 11:39 Millitron wrote: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. 1) Killing someone in self-defense is not murder as far as the law goes. 2) We do not know that Zimmerman chased Martin. In fact, if he had chased him, Martin would've made it home. The shooting occurred so close the home Martin was headed for, he had plenty of time to get there, especially if he was in a hurry, i.e. fleeing Zimmerman. 3) Up until the shooting, did he do anything illegal? No? Was his head being bashed against the ground hard enough to make him fear for his life? Yes? Then he must be found innocent, because opposing lethal force with lethal force when he did not instigate the use of force is legal. 4) He was legally allowed to carry that gun. If you want to discuss carry rights, we can take this to the gun thread. Otherwise, discussion of guns is pointless. Even if you want to change the carry laws, Zimmerman can't be considered guilty simply for carrying a gun because the incident occurred before any change you might want to make. No Ex Post Facto laws. 5) What people do and do not consider realistic has no bearing on the issue. It's all about doubt. If there is any doubt about whether or not Zimmerman is guilty, he's innocent as far as the law is concerned.
Funny how the exact thing I was talking about happens right after I post it.
|
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.
Maybe, but as you turned it into a dichotomy it is irrelevant to my post.
|
On June 03 2013 13:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I said it's illegal to chase someone and shoot them.
You keep calling it murder 5 or 6 times a post which implies that it was intended with malice even though it is just as likely a case of self defence.
You keep making it sound like Zman hunted down Martin with his gun out to murder him and shot him in cold blood. That's obviously not what happened. Zman had the shit beaten out of him judging from his pictures. Unless Zimmerman dove into the pavement a few times it's clearly not as cut and dry as you like to make it seem. Also why does Zman having a gun negate his right to talk to people. You keep emphasising that and framing it as some mean thug running around waving his gun. Is he suddenly not allowed to talk to people if he's armed? Is every case of self defence via concealed carry now 1st degree murder because you pre planned to carry that day? I like to imagine Zman wasn't talking to the dispatcher with one hand and playing with his pistol.
I highly doubt Zman was waving around his gun and then Martin decided the best course of action was to not only rush him but to use both hands to hit him instead of take the gun. That is the only situation where Zman would be guilty of murder.
If Martin started the fight after Zman approached him then it's not Zmans fault at all and the blame lies at Martins feet. Not only is a fight itself reason for deadly force (smashing head against concrete) but the gun being on Zman makes the situation even more deadly because if Martin who clearly is intending to do harm to Zman could grab the gun and use it on Zman. People like to point out of how guns get used on their owners a lot in self defence so don't forget that applies here as well.
We won't ever know what happened 100% and the damage done to Zman makes proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt nearly impossible.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On June 03 2013 13:59 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 12:39 Millitron wrote:On June 03 2013 11:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 03 2013 11:39 Millitron wrote: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. 1) Killing someone in self-defense is not murder as far as the law goes. 2) We do not know that Zimmerman chased Martin. In fact, if he had chased him, Martin would've made it home. The shooting occurred so close the home Martin was headed for, he had plenty of time to get there, especially if he was in a hurry, i.e. fleeing Zimmerman. 3) Up until the shooting, did he do anything illegal? No? Was his head being bashed against the ground hard enough to make him fear for his life? Yes? Then he must be found innocent, because opposing lethal force with lethal force when he did not instigate the use of force is legal. 4) He was legally allowed to carry that gun. If you want to discuss carry rights, we can take this to the gun thread. Otherwise, discussion of guns is pointless. Even if you want to change the carry laws, Zimmerman can't be considered guilty simply for carrying a gun because the incident occurred before any change you might want to make. No Ex Post Facto laws. 5) What people do and do not consider realistic has no bearing on the issue. It's all about doubt. If there is any doubt about whether or not Zimmerman is guilty, he's innocent as far as the law is concerned. Funny how the exact thing I was talking about happens right after I post it.
lol well was there any other way?  I get a feeling these arguments will just continue until they both tire each other out ^^ I think it would help if everyone arguing for either side remembers that there are a lot of missing details and there are no facts other than what we already have so we don't know if Zimmerman kept chasing after Martin after call, if he or Martin talked first(although phone call seems to indicate Martin), if Zimmerman showed his gun or tried to detain Martin in any way, if Martin decided to start the fight or not, what were Zimmerman's intention(although I doubt they were to kill but still) etc...
|
On June 03 2013 14:01 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 13:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I said it's illegal to chase someone and shoot them.
You keep calling it murder 5 or 6 times a post which implies that it was intended with malice even though it is just as likely a case of self defence. You keep making it sound like Zman hunted down Martin with his gun out to murder him and shot him in cold blood. That's obviously not what happened. Zman had the shit beaten out of him judging from his pictures. Unless Zimmerman dove into the pavement a few times it's clearly not as cut and dry as you like to make it seem. Also why does Zman having a gun negate his right to talk to people. You keep emphasising that and framing it as some mean thug running around waving his gun. Is he suddenly not allowed to talk to people if he's armed? Is every case of self defence via concealed carry now 1st degree murder because you pre planned to carry that day? I like to imagine Zman wasn't talking to the dispatcher with one hand and playing with his pistol. I highly doubt Zman was waving around his gun and then Martin decided the best course of action was to not only rush him but to use both hands to hit him instead of take the gun. That is the only situation where Zman would be guilty of murder. If Martin started the fight after Zman approached him then it's not Zmans fault at all and the blame lies at Martins feet. Not only is a fight itself reason for deadly force (smashing head against concrete) but the gun being on Zman makes the situation even more deadly because if Martin who clearly is intending to do harm to Zman could grab the gun and use it on Zman. People like to point out of how guns get used on their owners a lot in self defence so don't forget that applies here as well. We won't ever know what happened 100% and the damage done to Zman makes proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt nearly impossible.
In the dispatch recording he is running, slightly panting. They ask if he's goin after the victim, he says yes, saying they always get away (easy to assume that this isn't the first time he's run after people if "they" always get away--but that's irrelevant)
After the dispatch he walks away from the car, toward's the victims house. In the map the victim's house is not simply down the street but is several rows down wherein you'd have to walk through two lanes of houses and then down to the house. Somehow Zimmerman "miraculously" walks towards the victims house, supposedly by chance.
The victim is in the phone when Zimmerman finds him. The victim asks if there is a problem. Zimmerman says there is no problem. The victims phone is suddenly cut off. 40 seconds later the victim is dead.
Zimmerman's story is that the kid came out of nowhere. And then it became that the kid ambushed him. And then it became that they talked for a sentence or two--and the kid jumped him.
That does not make sense and doesn't fit the evidence.
What does?
Zman chases kid. Loses him.
Zman walks towards kids house, possibly with gun in hand or at least visible.
Zman finds kid, they speak, kid sees gun and fight/flight response kicks in.
Kid strikes zman, probably has one hand going after the gun and the other hand striking wildly in panic.
Zman has two hands on the gun, because of this he gains control of the weapon despite being pinned. Zman shoots kid.
Why does this make sense? Because it explains why the kid would hit zman, it explains why zman was walking toward style kids house, and it explains why zman didn't introduce himself when asked if there was a problem. It explains why the kid's phone randomly dies, it links back to both zmans anger of "the" always getting away and of zmans initial chase of the victim.
That's the evidence in front of us.
|
On June 03 2013 14:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 14:01 tokicheese wrote:On June 03 2013 13:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I said it's illegal to chase someone and shoot them.
You keep calling it murder 5 or 6 times a post which implies that it was intended with malice even though it is just as likely a case of self defence. You keep making it sound like Zman hunted down Martin with his gun out to murder him and shot him in cold blood. That's obviously not what happened. Zman had the shit beaten out of him judging from his pictures. Unless Zimmerman dove into the pavement a few times it's clearly not as cut and dry as you like to make it seem. Also why does Zman having a gun negate his right to talk to people. You keep emphasising that and framing it as some mean thug running around waving his gun. Is he suddenly not allowed to talk to people if he's armed? Is every case of self defence via concealed carry now 1st degree murder because you pre planned to carry that day? I like to imagine Zman wasn't talking to the dispatcher with one hand and playing with his pistol. I highly doubt Zman was waving around his gun and then Martin decided the best course of action was to not only rush him but to use both hands to hit him instead of take the gun. That is the only situation where Zman would be guilty of murder. If Martin started the fight after Zman approached him then it's not Zmans fault at all and the blame lies at Martins feet. Not only is a fight itself reason for deadly force (smashing head against concrete) but the gun being on Zman makes the situation even more deadly because if Martin who clearly is intending to do harm to Zman could grab the gun and use it on Zman. People like to point out of how guns get used on their owners a lot in self defence so don't forget that applies here as well. We won't ever know what happened 100% and the damage done to Zman makes proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt nearly impossible. In the dispatch recording he is running, slightly panting. They ask if he's goin after the victim, he says yes, saying they always get away (easy to assume that this isn't the first time he's run after people if "they" always get away--but that's irrelevant) After the dispatch he walks away from the car, toward's the victims house. In the map the victim's house is not simply down the street but is several rows down wherein you'd have to walk through two lanes of houses and then down to the house. Somehow Zimmerman "miraculously" walks towards the victims house, supposedly by chance. The victim is in the phone when Zimmerman finds him. The victim asks if there is a problem. Zimmerman says there is no problem. The victims phone is suddenly cut off. 40 seconds later the victim is dead. Zimmerman's story is that the kid came out of nowhere. And then it became that the kid ambushed him. And then it became that they talked for a sentence or two--and the kid jumped him. That does not make sense and doesn't fit the evidence. What does? Zman chases kid. Loses him. Zman walks towards kids house, possibly with gun in hand or at least visible. Zman finds kid, they speak, kid sees gun and fight/flight response kicks in. Kid strikes zman, probably has one hand going after the gun and the other hand striking wildly in panic. Zman has two hands on the gun, because of this he gains control of the weapon despite being pinned. Zman shoots kid. Why does this make sense? Because it explains why the kid would hit zman, it explains why zman was walking toward style kids house, and it explains why zman didn't introduce himself when asked if there was a problem. It explains why the kid's phone randomly dies, it links back to both zmans anger of "the" always getting away and of zmans initial chase of the victim. That's the evidence in front of us.
Except your evidence is mostly what you've made up in your mind and it doesn't actually make sense. You're just creating scenarios to help fuel your obvious witch-hunt. I'm trying not make this is a personal attack but I don't believe you actually know anything about people. Coming from someone who's been in a few physical confrontations and I've had a fairly violent upbringing I've seen people fight people for less. Heck I've been involved in some fights for less. You can keep saying your story "makes sense" but it just doesn't. It's apparent you've already made up your mind on the matter though because you somehow have some insight in this no one else can see. I don't know if you're overly rational or just overly irrational at this point.
Just because you wouldn't attack someone for "following you" doesn't mean someone else wouldn't. That is the bottom line.
|
What evidence was made up?
Him shooting Martin?
Him being near Martin's house?
Him being recorded chasing Martin?
Martins phone getting cut off after they started talking to each other (when the initial story was that it was an ambush)
Maybe I made up that Zimmerman walked away from his car?
Maybe I made up that Martin was initially running away?
Which evidence did I make up?
|
Holy shit. There are so many random assumptions, and so many clear misunderstandings of self-defence laws and their application in this thread that it's baffling to see so many people posting (probably because this is my job, but I also thought the mod note at the top was rather clear).
If you want to argue the morality of the situation, that's one thing, but if you want to draw conclusions about guilt or innocence, do yourself a favour and fucking educate yourself somewhat about the relevant laws and their application before you go referring to 'evidence' and drawing conclusions. There's a reason that a jury isn't just thrown in a room with random bits of information and told to make a decision. The law matters. Rebirth made a decent go of explaining just ONE of the glaring issues raised by many posts in the last few pages.
"For many of you this topic will just be informative, you will read and not post, and I think that's a good thing, especially if it is sufficiently short for people interested in the subject to read the entire discussion."
That's a part of Kwark's note that really seems to be ignored by people who seem to want to push their opinion as educated reasoning.
|
On June 03 2013 14:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
What evidence was made up?
Him shooting Martin?
Him being near Martin's house?
Him being recorded chasing Martin?
Martins phone getting cut off after they started talking to each other (when the initial story was that it was an ambush)
Maybe I made up that Zimmerman walked away from his car?
Maybe I made up that Martin was initially running away?
Which evidence did I make up?
Zman walks towards kids house, possibly with gun in hand or at least visible.
Zman finds kid, they speak, kid sees gun and fight/flight response kicks in.
Kid strikes zman, probably has one hand going after the gun and the other hand striking wildly in panic.
Zman has two hands on the gun, because of this he gains control of the weapon despite being pinned. Zman shoots kid.
This is complete and utter speculation. It's nothing but a baseless theory.
You keep saying it "makes sense" but it doesn't make sense. Maybe it makes sense you, but thankfully you've got no legal authority on Zimmerman's fate.
Again you have to go with the evidence we do have and Zimmerman's testimony. It doesn't matter what arbitrary garbage you continue you churn out, it doesn't make you right.
|
On May 30 2013 09:06 theaxis12 wrote:From the Wiki on Justifiable homicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide "A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker." I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night.
i put the jury instructions in the op.... why would you cite to wiki? and, furthermore, your analysis is completely off base.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On June 03 2013 14:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 14:01 tokicheese wrote:On June 03 2013 13:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I said it's illegal to chase someone and shoot them.
You keep calling it murder 5 or 6 times a post which implies that it was intended with malice even though it is just as likely a case of self defence. You keep making it sound like Zman hunted down Martin with his gun out to murder him and shot him in cold blood. That's obviously not what happened. Zman had the shit beaten out of him judging from his pictures. Unless Zimmerman dove into the pavement a few times it's clearly not as cut and dry as you like to make it seem. Also why does Zman having a gun negate his right to talk to people. You keep emphasising that and framing it as some mean thug running around waving his gun. Is he suddenly not allowed to talk to people if he's armed? Is every case of self defence via concealed carry now 1st degree murder because you pre planned to carry that day? I like to imagine Zman wasn't talking to the dispatcher with one hand and playing with his pistol. I highly doubt Zman was waving around his gun and then Martin decided the best course of action was to not only rush him but to use both hands to hit him instead of take the gun. That is the only situation where Zman would be guilty of murder. If Martin started the fight after Zman approached him then it's not Zmans fault at all and the blame lies at Martins feet. Not only is a fight itself reason for deadly force (smashing head against concrete) but the gun being on Zman makes the situation even more deadly because if Martin who clearly is intending to do harm to Zman could grab the gun and use it on Zman. People like to point out of how guns get used on their owners a lot in self defence so don't forget that applies here as well. We won't ever know what happened 100% and the damage done to Zman makes proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt nearly impossible. In the dispatch recording he is running, slightly panting. They ask if he's goin after the victim, he says yes, saying they always get away (easy to assume that this isn't the first time he's run after people if "they" always get away--but that's irrelevant) After the dispatch he walks away from the car, toward's the victims house. In the map the victim's house is not simply down the street but is several rows down wherein you'd have to walk through two lanes of houses and then down to the house. Somehow Zimmerman "miraculously" walks towards the victims house, supposedly by chance. The victim is in the phone when Zimmerman finds him. The victim asks if there is a problem. Zimmerman says there is no problem. The victims phone is suddenly cut off. 40 seconds later the victim is dead. Zimmerman's story is that the kid came out of nowhere. And then it became that the kid ambushed him. And then it became that they talked for a sentence or two--and the kid jumped him. That does not make sense and doesn't fit the evidence. What does?
Zman chases kid. Loses him.
Zman walks towards kids house, possibly with gun in hand or at least visible.
Zman finds kid, they speak, kid sees gun and fight/flight response kicks in.
Kid strikes zman, probably has one hand going after the gun and the other hand striking wildly in panic.
Zman has two hands on the gun, because of this he gains control of the weapon despite being pinned. Zman shoots kid.Why does this make sense? Because it explains why the kid would hit zman, it explains why zman was walking toward style kids house, and it explains why zman didn't introduce himself when asked if there was a problem. It explains why the kid's phone randomly dies, it links back to both zmans anger of "the" always getting away and of zmans initial chase of the victim. That's the evidence in front of us.
Zman originally chases him then stop from what we hear in the call. Whether he continues chasing after the call is up for debate but we aren't sure about that.
no no no! Zimmerman does NOT know where his house is or who he is at this point so there is NO way he was walking towards his house. We also have NO clue if the gun was in the hand or at least visible. I know you said possible but still you gave two options, both that are unknown which makes your statement false.
They obviously met otherwise a fight wouldn't have gone down. It's possible that Zimmerman kept walking around after the call and found Trayvon or he kept chasing, still not enough evidence to say which it was or if Zimmerman's story that Trayvon came back to attack him is true or not. Yes, they spoke if we go off Trayvon's gf account but no, we have NO clue if the kid saw the gun before the fight started which means all your next parts are just speculation again -_-
I've read some of your previous posts and its blatantly obvious that your main motive is to just find Zimmerman guilty because Trayvon lost his life. While I agree with you that the outcome of this situation was tragic, I think it's also pretty wrong to just say that Zimmerman should be found guilty because we know the end outcome without knowing what went down. Point is, please try to keep an open mind about this and before posting, read your statement and consider all the facts then post about it otherwise have fun debating! ^^
|
1) Zimmerman can't give a coherent account of what happened. His story has changed a couple of times
2) WTF happened to the STAND YOUR GROUND defense? As the trial got closer, he simply stopped saying that! D-A-F-U-Q
|
Man follows kid to house. Kid sees man following him, lets assume the kid attacks the man. Man shoots kid. You shouldn't be able to argue self defense if you are following someone with malicious intent (not too familiar with US legal system). If the evidence that ThievingMagpie said is legitimate then there is no question whether or not it was malicious.
|
This is getting more confusing
|
On June 03 2013 15:36 Lt_Stork wrote:
1) Zimmerman can't give a coherent account of what happened. His story has changed a couple of times
2) WTF happened to the STAND YOUR GROUND defense? As the trial got closer, he simply stopped saying that! D-A-F-U-Q
i think they have been pretty consistent in saying this is not a SYG case. its generic self defense. the only applicable SYG issue is the pre-trial motion that they waived for strategic reasons--they dont want to give the other side a preview of their defense. they are probably going to go for a judgment immediately after the prosecutor finishes its case.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On June 03 2013 15:47 zbedlam wrote:
Man follows kid to house. Kid sees man following him, lets assume the kid attacks the man. Man shoots kid. You shouldn't be able to argue self defense if you are following someone with malicious intent (not too familiar with US legal system). If the evidence that ThievingMagpie said is legitimate then there is no question whether or not it was malicious.
Following someone is NOT a crime and some parts of ThievingMagpie's posts are riddled with his own assumptions and bias towards Zimmerman so I wouldn't use those to argue for or against in this case. This case is a lot more complex than he seems to think it is. There is no evidence to show that Zimmerman followed Trayvon with malicious intent either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
