|
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 30 2013 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 16:14 ConGee wrote: .
"There is no culpable negligence from aproaching someone and asking him "what are you doing?", whether you carry a gun or not. Do you believe that should be a crime?" ---SKC
Being armed with deadly force while pursuing someone after contacting the authorities and them instructing you not to follow, is not the same as asking someone "what are you doing?".
Also whether you carry a gun does make a difference. If trayvon was the criminal Zimmerman thought he was, what was he going to do if Trayvon drew on him or just decided to fight and started to win... It should have been clear to Zimmerman that a shooting of himself or Trayvon would be a reasonably likely result of ignoring the instruction he was given not to pursue.
If he or anyone is too ignorant to understand that taking a gun to confront someone you suspect to be a potential criminal after already calling 911 and being told not realize a shooting as a potentially likely outcome, than that's on them.
That is what I believe is trying to be gotten at about "stupidity" not being an excuse to avoid the consequences of ones actions.
Do you actually know what the legal definition of what culpable negligence is? None of your assertions even come close to what would be considered culpable negligence. Culpable Negligence - Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Being armed with a gun to unnecessarily (against instruction actually) pursue a suspected criminal is precisely that. Or at least that's what the prosecution should have probably started with.
No, what Zimmerman did does not fall into that category. If he had been brandishing his weapon at Trayvon and had been shouting racial slurs, then that could be considered culpable negligence.
Simply concealed carrying a gun does not make it culpable negligence.
|
On June 30 2013 16:37 ConGee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 30 2013 16:14 ConGee wrote: .
"There is no culpable negligence from aproaching someone and asking him "what are you doing?", whether you carry a gun or not. Do you believe that should be a crime?" ---SKC
Being armed with deadly force while pursuing someone after contacting the authorities and them instructing you not to follow, is not the same as asking someone "what are you doing?".
Also whether you carry a gun does make a difference. If trayvon was the criminal Zimmerman thought he was, what was he going to do if Trayvon drew on him or just decided to fight and started to win... It should have been clear to Zimmerman that a shooting of himself or Trayvon would be a reasonably likely result of ignoring the instruction he was given not to pursue.
If he or anyone is too ignorant to understand that taking a gun to confront someone you suspect to be a potential criminal after already calling 911 and being told not realize a shooting as a potentially likely outcome, than that's on them.
That is what I believe is trying to be gotten at about "stupidity" not being an excuse to avoid the consequences of ones actions.
Do you actually know what the legal definition of what culpable negligence is? None of your assertions even come close to what would be considered culpable negligence. Culpable Negligence - Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Being armed with a gun to unnecessarily (against instruction actually) pursue a suspected criminal is precisely that. Or at least that's what the prosecution should have probably started with. No, what Zimmerman did does not fall into that category. If he had been brandishing his weapon at Trayvon and had been shouting racial slurs, then that could be considered culpable negligence. Simply concealed carrying a gun does not make it culpable negligence.
I am not suggesting simply carrying a gun does that.
It is the compendium of circumstances that raises it to the level of culpable negligence IMO
|
On June 30 2013 16:21 FatChicksUnited wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 16:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
Also whether you carry a gun does make a difference. If trayvon was the criminal Zimmerman thought he was, what was he going to do if Trayvon drew on him or just decided to fight and started to win... It should have been clear to Zimmerman that a shooting of himself or Trayvon would be a reasonably likely result of ignoring the instruction he was given not to pursue.
If he or anyone is too ignorant to understand that taking a gun to confront someone you suspect to be a potential criminal after already calling 911 and being told not to pursue is reasonably likely to end in a shooting and/or death, than that's on them.
Let me get this straight. Are you saying that people have a legal and moral duty to actively avoid interacting with potential criminals? Or even sillier, are you saying that people are supposed to avoid potential criminals unless you are not armed, to avoid any situation where you might end up hurting the potential criminal?
If you look at black people as potential criminals instead of human beings like everyone else, then yeah, you'd better goddamned well avoid them instead of confronting them with lethal weapons so you don't kill them. And even aside from that, it is a better idea to avoid actual criminals than to confront them, yes.
|
My more realistic concern is whether or not there will be riots if Zimmerman is acquitted. Does anybody really think that Zimmerman will get a fair shake at his trial given the racially-charged atmosphere his entire case presents?
I unfortunately have so little faith in the justice system for this particular trial that I'm going to go ahead and call it a reverse OJ Simpson.
|
I heard an interesting argument on one of the news shows that is relevant to what's being discussed.
The argument is that police have 2 forms of authority: moral authority associated with being a police officer and physical authority associated with physical skills in a fight + the gun/mace/taser.
As this relates to the police profiling discussion in this thread, the guys argument was that when you deal with people who don't trust/like/respect the police (this can be a racial group, social group or criminals) then the police don't have that more subdued form of authority. Therefore they can only fall back on the physical authority and tend to be more abrupt and aggressive.
As this relates to the idea of vigilantes, they automatically have no moral authority to exercise. Therefore they can only rely upon physical authority, which is likely applicable to this case and certainly part of why he was carrying a gun in the first place.
|
What feels like a shame (to me) is that while the media has whipped the public into a frenzy by painting this situation as a case of preferential treatment of 'whites' or a racially motivated murder, there is this whole, more relevant conversation about gun legislation that is being overlooked.
This feels like a case study that is gift-wrapped with a bow for gun control advocates. It's the perfect example of how guns can encourage an avoidable conflict, or can escalate any conflict or misunderstanding into a life or death situation.
If Zimmerman isn't armed, does he approach Trayvon or the situation differently? If he suspects Trayvon is dangerous, does he even get out of his car?
|
On June 30 2013 16:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 16:37 ConGee wrote:On June 30 2013 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 30 2013 16:14 ConGee wrote: .
"There is no culpable negligence from aproaching someone and asking him "what are you doing?", whether you carry a gun or not. Do you believe that should be a crime?" ---SKC
Being armed with deadly force while pursuing someone after contacting the authorities and them instructing you not to follow, is not the same as asking someone "what are you doing?".
Also whether you carry a gun does make a difference. If trayvon was the criminal Zimmerman thought he was, what was he going to do if Trayvon drew on him or just decided to fight and started to win... It should have been clear to Zimmerman that a shooting of himself or Trayvon would be a reasonably likely result of ignoring the instruction he was given not to pursue.
If he or anyone is too ignorant to understand that taking a gun to confront someone you suspect to be a potential criminal after already calling 911 and being told not realize a shooting as a potentially likely outcome, than that's on them.
That is what I believe is trying to be gotten at about "stupidity" not being an excuse to avoid the consequences of ones actions.
Do you actually know what the legal definition of what culpable negligence is? None of your assertions even come close to what would be considered culpable negligence. Culpable Negligence - Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Being armed with a gun to unnecessarily (against instruction actually) pursue a suspected criminal is precisely that. Or at least that's what the prosecution should have probably started with. No, what Zimmerman did does not fall into that category. If he had been brandishing his weapon at Trayvon and had been shouting racial slurs, then that could be considered culpable negligence. Simply concealed carrying a gun does not make it culpable negligence. I am not suggesting simply carrying a gun does that. It is the compendium of circumstances that raises it to the level of culpable negligence IMO
You have got to be fucking kidding me if you actually believe that.
The totality of the circumstances fulfill the quanta of proof for me to know that you're a dunce when it comes to legal definitions and interpretation of how the law is actually applied.
|
On June 30 2013 16:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 16:33 FatChicksUnited wrote:On June 30 2013 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Also with the Murder charge comes the Involuntary manslaughter charge so while he might be found not guilty of Murder that does not automatically mean he can't or shouldn't get convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Zimmerman is claiming self-defence. It is a defence against murder charges and manslaughter charges. Unless the prosecution can disprove his claim of self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt, he will be found not guilty. Yes, and the reasonable doubt would be that by ignoring the instructions he was given by the 911 operator and carrying his gun to the confrontation he breached the burden to show culpable negligence (provided the prosecution convinces the jury of that) So that while Self Defense might be enough to avoid a murder conviction the problem is that his Self defense doesn't start until AFTER the culpable negligence.
Why do you keep repeating this lie? That GZ ignored the 911 operator instructions? Didn't bothered to watch the live feed?
It was stated at the trial, right by the operator, that it is FORBIDDEN to give instructions/orders/commands to the person they're talking to. So, GZ had no instruction to ignore since none was given in the first place.
Even more, at cross, the witness admitted that his words, the way he asked GZ where TM went, it could be misunderstood to mean that he wanted him to get out of the car and look closely where he went.
And to counter another of your theories, what matters is who attacked who, not who follow who. If you follow me and I sucker punch you I'm guilty for assault, not you. And that is because otherwise all bullies would state in their defense that somehow the victim followed them and they were "constrained" to attacked them.
|
On June 30 2013 19:30 Kakaru2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 16:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 30 2013 16:33 FatChicksUnited wrote:On June 30 2013 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Also with the Murder charge comes the Involuntary manslaughter charge so while he might be found not guilty of Murder that does not automatically mean he can't or shouldn't get convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Zimmerman is claiming self-defence. It is a defence against murder charges and manslaughter charges. Unless the prosecution can disprove his claim of self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt, he will be found not guilty. Yes, and the reasonable doubt would be that by ignoring the instructions he was given by the 911 operator and carrying his gun to the confrontation he breached the burden to show culpable negligence (provided the prosecution convinces the jury of that) So that while Self Defense might be enough to avoid a murder conviction the problem is that his Self defense doesn't start until AFTER the culpable negligence. Why do you keep repeating this lie? That GZ ignored the 911 operator instructions? Didn't bothered to watch the live feed? It was stated at the trial, right by the operator, that it is FORBIDDEN to give instructions/orders/commands to the person they're talking to. So, GZ had no instruction to ignore since none was given in the first place. Even more, at cross, the witness admitted that his words, the way he asked GZ where TM went, it could be misunderstood to mean that he wanted him to get out of the car and look closely where he went. And to counter another of your theories, what matters is who attacked who, not who follow who. If you follow me and I sucker punch you I'm guilty for assault, not you. And that is because otherwise all bullies would state in their defense that somehow the victim followed them and they were "constrained" to attacked them.
You're right advice should be what I said.
As for the rest it still totally applies. If someone is taunting you from down the street and you follow them armed with a deadly weapon after contacting authorities it is still a liability and reasonable likelihood that your actions 'could result in death or great bodily injury' which is the burden that needs to be reached for I.Manslaughter.
So your last point is addressed already in that the the outcome of a death at GZ's hands and the recklessness nature with which GZ entered the situation alone are enough for the Involuntary Manslaughter. Who hit who first isn't even necessarily relevant as it has been argued so far in that the law shows that if after you initiate a fight...your life in danger.. (I'm sure you guys know that part)
But again that doesn't apply to GZ recklessly endangering his and Trayvon's life by getting into the confrontation as he did.
As the standard is "reasonably should have known" about the reckless nature of carrying a deadly weapon to follow someone you suspect could also be armed and a criminal it is somewhat subjective. But I think most people with common sense would say that if they were armed and pursuing someone they believed could be/was a fleeing armed criminal they would tell you that death or serious bodily harm would be a likely result.
|
On June 30 2013 19:30 Kakaru2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 16:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 30 2013 16:33 FatChicksUnited wrote:On June 30 2013 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Also with the Murder charge comes the Involuntary manslaughter charge so while he might be found not guilty of Murder that does not automatically mean he can't or shouldn't get convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Zimmerman is claiming self-defence. It is a defence against murder charges and manslaughter charges. Unless the prosecution can disprove his claim of self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt, he will be found not guilty. Yes, and the reasonable doubt would be that by ignoring the instructions he was given by the 911 operator and carrying his gun to the confrontation he breached the burden to show culpable negligence (provided the prosecution convinces the jury of that) So that while Self Defense might be enough to avoid a murder conviction the problem is that his Self defense doesn't start until AFTER the culpable negligence. Why do you keep repeating this lie? That GZ ignored the 911 operator instructions? Didn't bothered to watch the live feed? It was stated at the trial, right by the operator, that it is FORBIDDEN to give instructions/orders/commands to the person they're talking to. So, GZ had no instruction to ignore since none was given in the first place. Even more, at cross, the witness admitted that his words, the way he asked GZ where TM went, it could be misunderstood to mean that he wanted him to get out of the car and look closely where he went. And to counter another of your theories, what matters is who attacked who, not who follow who. If you follow me and I sucker punch you I'm guilty for assault, not you. And that is because otherwise all bullies would state in their defense that somehow the victim followed them and they were "constrained" to attacked them.
I would just like to give my perspective as to why the 911 call keeps being an issue for so many people. Take it for what you will.
As somebody who heard the call, as I assume most people here have, there are two major sticking points at the moment the operator told Z-man "we don't need you to do that". The first one being that, while we all know the operator has no right to issue an order, most people would consider the operator an authority figure regardless. Sort of similar to how a doctor may tell you to do something, they have no power or right to force you but you do it anyway because we all know they are probably right. They may have gotten some testimony about ambiguous wording but from what I heard you have to go pretty deep to justify Z-mans actions this way.
The second issue being that one of the first tenants of concealed carry is that you avoid conflict at almost any cost. There is a type of vigilance that is taught in concealed carry that, if heeded, would have caused most people to turn back and let the police handle it. It is clear that Z-man was caught up in the moment and ignored his training. If he had been looking for excuses to back off and play it safe, those words were about as big of an opportunity as possible.
Now the big question is, does this make Z-man guilty? I would say no. It seems to me that unless there is some new evidence pertaining to the altercation he has to go free. What I can also say though is that if I were Z-man I would consider myself a murderer whether it was technically legally true or not.
|
@velocirapture:
1. Arent'you a murderer if you kill some one, period? Including in war. That you receive a medal or a prison sentence it's a different story.
2. We don't need you do that means we don't force you, not that you shouldn't do it. And asking which way he went it's a basically encouraging GZ to follow him in order to answer the question.
At the end of day the 911 operator is a human after all and he isn't infallible.
@ greenm horizon
Doesn't matter if I'm armed with a bazooka or a 9mm. The question is who hits first.
Also, why you keep bringing the gun example? let's put 2 guys, GZ and Mike Tyson on the same room, bare hands, and open the door after one minute. One is armed and deadly with his fists, the other is an obese (doctor's testimony) untrained and unskilled (gym's owner testimony) fighter. It's the same as in your gun example.
|
On June 30 2013 20:47 Velocirapture wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 19:30 Kakaru2 wrote:On June 30 2013 16:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 30 2013 16:33 FatChicksUnited wrote:On June 30 2013 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Also with the Murder charge comes the Involuntary manslaughter charge so while he might be found not guilty of Murder that does not automatically mean he can't or shouldn't get convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Zimmerman is claiming self-defence. It is a defence against murder charges and manslaughter charges. Unless the prosecution can disprove his claim of self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt, he will be found not guilty. Yes, and the reasonable doubt would be that by ignoring the instructions he was given by the 911 operator and carrying his gun to the confrontation he breached the burden to show culpable negligence (provided the prosecution convinces the jury of that) So that while Self Defense might be enough to avoid a murder conviction the problem is that his Self defense doesn't start until AFTER the culpable negligence. Why do you keep repeating this lie? That GZ ignored the 911 operator instructions? Didn't bothered to watch the live feed? It was stated at the trial, right by the operator, that it is FORBIDDEN to give instructions/orders/commands to the person they're talking to. So, GZ had no instruction to ignore since none was given in the first place. Even more, at cross, the witness admitted that his words, the way he asked GZ where TM went, it could be misunderstood to mean that he wanted him to get out of the car and look closely where he went. And to counter another of your theories, what matters is who attacked who, not who follow who. If you follow me and I sucker punch you I'm guilty for assault, not you. And that is because otherwise all bullies would state in their defense that somehow the victim followed them and they were "constrained" to attacked them. I would just like to give my perspective as to why the 911 call keeps being an issue for so many people. Take it for what you will. As somebody who heard the call, as I assume most people here have, there are two major sticking points at the moment the operator told Z-man "we don't need you to do that". The first one being that, while we all know the operator has no right to issue an order, most people would consider the operator an authority figure regardless. Sort of similar to how a doctor may tell you to do something, they have no power or right to force you but you do it anyway because we all know they are probably right. They may have gotten some testimony about ambiguous wording but from what I heard you have to go pretty deep to justify Z-mans actions this way. The second issue being that one of the first tenants of concealed carry is that you avoid conflict at almost any cost. There is a type of vigilance that is taught in concealed carry that, if heeded, would have caused most people to turn back and let the police handle it. It is clear that Z-man was caught up in the moment and ignored his training. If he had been looking for excuses to back off and play it safe, those words were about as big of an opportunity as possible. Now the big question is, does this make Z-man guilty? I would say no. It seems to me that unless there is some new evidence pertaining to the altercation he has to go free. What I can also say though is that if I were Z-man I would consider myself a murderer whether it was technically legally true or not.
There is nothing wrong with following someone, you are completely legally and morally allowed to do that. Martin was acting 'suspiciously' so he followed him, that is what his job is.
Martin chose to ATTACK Zimmerman, there is a 100 over things he could done, instead he punches Zimmerman to the floor and jumps on him.
Zimmerman ONLY pulled the gun, after screaming for help and getting his head POUNDED on the floor.
If this is all true Zimmerman did nothing to cause the shooting, it was all Martin.
|
On June 30 2013 20:59 Kakaru2 wrote:
@velocirapture:
1. Arent'you a murderer if you kill some one, period? Including in war. That you receive a medal or a prison sentence it's a different story.
2. We don't need you do that means we don't force you, not that you shouldn't do it. And asking which way he went it's a basically encouraging GZ to follow him in order to answer the question.
At the end of day the 911 operator is a human after all and he isn't infallible.
@ greenm horizon
Doesn't matter if I'm armed with a bazooka or a 9mm. The question is who hits first.
Also, why you keep bringing the gun example? let's put 2 guys, GZ and Mike Tyson on the same room, bare hands, and open the door after one minute. One is armed and deadly with his fists, the other is an obese (doctor's testimony) untrained and unskilled (gym's owner testimony) fighter. It's the same as in your gun example.
Killing someone makes you a killer, but not a murderer. Soldiers and executioners are killers, but not murderers.
The biggest question that no one is talking about is what was the state of the "fight" when Zimmerman shot Martin. If Martin was still beating on him then that makes the self defense argument strong. If Martin had stopped the beating and given Zimmerman a chance to get up and then Zimmerman shot Martin in a fit of rage then that would destroy Zimmerman's case.
|
On June 30 2013 20:59 Kakaru2 wrote:
@velocirapture:
1. Arent'you a murderer if you kill some one, period? Including in war. That you receive a medal or a prison sentence it's a different story.
2. We don't need you do that means we don't force you, not that you shouldn't do it. And asking which way he went it's a basically encouraging GZ to follow him in order to answer the question.
At the end of day the 911 operator is a human after all and he isn't infallible.
@ greenm horizon
Doesn't matter if I'm armed with a bazooka or a 9mm. The question is who hits first.
Also, why you keep bringing the gun example? let's put 2 guys, GZ and Mike Tyson on the same room, bare hands, and open the door after one minute. One is armed and deadly with his fists, the other is an obese (doctor's testimony) untrained and unskilled (gym's owner testimony) fighter. It's the same as in your gun example.
I am very dubious of your thought processes. I'm not going to argue the definition of murder because im pretty sure you just made the first point impulsively without thinking, but that you read my post and completely missed the greater point is frustrating. There were lots of reasons for him to want to follow. If you look into his history with the police and scour the transcript for phrases which could possibly be construed in such a way, you will find it. The whole point is that he should have been looking for reasons NOT to follow. One of the fundamentals of concealed carry is to avoid confrontation.
Like i said, technically it is not an order because even experts don't know everything and can't pretend that they do but if you are looking for a reason to avoid confrontation, as Z-man should have been doing, this was the moment where the opportunity was clearest.
Like I stated before, none of this means he should be convicted but in the eyes of many it sure as heck makes him guilty.
|
On June 30 2013 21:36 Fulla wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 20:47 Velocirapture wrote:On June 30 2013 19:30 Kakaru2 wrote:On June 30 2013 16:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 30 2013 16:33 FatChicksUnited wrote:On June 30 2013 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Also with the Murder charge comes the Involuntary manslaughter charge so while he might be found not guilty of Murder that does not automatically mean he can't or shouldn't get convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Zimmerman is claiming self-defence. It is a defence against murder charges and manslaughter charges. Unless the prosecution can disprove his claim of self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt, he will be found not guilty. Yes, and the reasonable doubt would be that by ignoring the instructions he was given by the 911 operator and carrying his gun to the confrontation he breached the burden to show culpable negligence (provided the prosecution convinces the jury of that) So that while Self Defense might be enough to avoid a murder conviction the problem is that his Self defense doesn't start until AFTER the culpable negligence. Why do you keep repeating this lie? That GZ ignored the 911 operator instructions? Didn't bothered to watch the live feed? It was stated at the trial, right by the operator, that it is FORBIDDEN to give instructions/orders/commands to the person they're talking to. So, GZ had no instruction to ignore since none was given in the first place. Even more, at cross, the witness admitted that his words, the way he asked GZ where TM went, it could be misunderstood to mean that he wanted him to get out of the car and look closely where he went. And to counter another of your theories, what matters is who attacked who, not who follow who. If you follow me and I sucker punch you I'm guilty for assault, not you. And that is because otherwise all bullies would state in their defense that somehow the victim followed them and they were "constrained" to attacked them. I would just like to give my perspective as to why the 911 call keeps being an issue for so many people. Take it for what you will. As somebody who heard the call, as I assume most people here have, there are two major sticking points at the moment the operator told Z-man "we don't need you to do that". The first one being that, while we all know the operator has no right to issue an order, most people would consider the operator an authority figure regardless. Sort of similar to how a doctor may tell you to do something, they have no power or right to force you but you do it anyway because we all know they are probably right. They may have gotten some testimony about ambiguous wording but from what I heard you have to go pretty deep to justify Z-mans actions this way. The second issue being that one of the first tenants of concealed carry is that you avoid conflict at almost any cost. There is a type of vigilance that is taught in concealed carry that, if heeded, would have caused most people to turn back and let the police handle it. It is clear that Z-man was caught up in the moment and ignored his training. If he had been looking for excuses to back off and play it safe, those words were about as big of an opportunity as possible. Now the big question is, does this make Z-man guilty? I would say no. It seems to me that unless there is some new evidence pertaining to the altercation he has to go free. What I can also say though is that if I were Z-man I would consider myself a murderer whether it was technically legally true or not. There is nothing wrong with following someone, you are completely legally and morally allowed to do that. Martin was acting 'suspiciously' so he followed him, that is what his job is. Martin chose to ATTACK Zimmerman, there is a 100 over things he could done, instead he punches Zimmerman to the floor and jumps on him. Zimmerman ONLY pulled the gun, after screaming for help and getting his head POUNDED on the floor. If this is all true Zimmerman did nothing to cause the shooting, it was all Martin.
Do me a favor and please, please, pleeeeeeease go out tomorrow night, wait until it's dark, and follow a woman or black man down the street on foot on in your car for at least ten minutes. Better yet, bring a gun too, y'know ... 'just in case'.
Report back and let us know whether you got maced in the face, kicked in the nuts, or the person went ran and hid from the crazy person following them.
It might be legal, but moral? They're are plenty of reasons why it's morally wrong to follow someone based on their appearance *cough blackness cough*. Doesn't Trayvon Martin have a fair expectation to be able to walk down the street like a normal person without being tailed by an armed man? Sheesh.
|
On June 30 2013 22:13 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 21:36 Fulla wrote:On June 30 2013 20:47 Velocirapture wrote:On June 30 2013 19:30 Kakaru2 wrote:On June 30 2013 16:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 30 2013 16:33 FatChicksUnited wrote:On June 30 2013 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Also with the Murder charge comes the Involuntary manslaughter charge so while he might be found not guilty of Murder that does not automatically mean he can't or shouldn't get convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Zimmerman is claiming self-defence. It is a defence against murder charges and manslaughter charges. Unless the prosecution can disprove his claim of self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt, he will be found not guilty. Yes, and the reasonable doubt would be that by ignoring the instructions he was given by the 911 operator and carrying his gun to the confrontation he breached the burden to show culpable negligence (provided the prosecution convinces the jury of that) So that while Self Defense might be enough to avoid a murder conviction the problem is that his Self defense doesn't start until AFTER the culpable negligence. Why do you keep repeating this lie? That GZ ignored the 911 operator instructions? Didn't bothered to watch the live feed? It was stated at the trial, right by the operator, that it is FORBIDDEN to give instructions/orders/commands to the person they're talking to. So, GZ had no instruction to ignore since none was given in the first place. Even more, at cross, the witness admitted that his words, the way he asked GZ where TM went, it could be misunderstood to mean that he wanted him to get out of the car and look closely where he went. And to counter another of your theories, what matters is who attacked who, not who follow who. If you follow me and I sucker punch you I'm guilty for assault, not you. And that is because otherwise all bullies would state in their defense that somehow the victim followed them and they were "constrained" to attacked them. I would just like to give my perspective as to why the 911 call keeps being an issue for so many people. Take it for what you will. As somebody who heard the call, as I assume most people here have, there are two major sticking points at the moment the operator told Z-man "we don't need you to do that". The first one being that, while we all know the operator has no right to issue an order, most people would consider the operator an authority figure regardless. Sort of similar to how a doctor may tell you to do something, they have no power or right to force you but you do it anyway because we all know they are probably right. They may have gotten some testimony about ambiguous wording but from what I heard you have to go pretty deep to justify Z-mans actions this way. The second issue being that one of the first tenants of concealed carry is that you avoid conflict at almost any cost. There is a type of vigilance that is taught in concealed carry that, if heeded, would have caused most people to turn back and let the police handle it. It is clear that Z-man was caught up in the moment and ignored his training. If he had been looking for excuses to back off and play it safe, those words were about as big of an opportunity as possible. Now the big question is, does this make Z-man guilty? I would say no. It seems to me that unless there is some new evidence pertaining to the altercation he has to go free. What I can also say though is that if I were Z-man I would consider myself a murderer whether it was technically legally true or not. There is nothing wrong with following someone, you are completely legally and morally allowed to do that. Martin was acting 'suspiciously' so he followed him, that is what his job is. Martin chose to ATTACK Zimmerman, there is a 100 over things he could done, instead he punches Zimmerman to the floor and jumps on him. Zimmerman ONLY pulled the gun, after screaming for help and getting his head POUNDED on the floor. If this is all true Zimmerman did nothing to cause the shooting, it was all Martin. Do me a favor and please, please, pleeeeeeease go out tomorrow night, wait until it's dark, and follow a woman or black man down the street on foot on in your car for at least ten minutes. Better yet, bring a gun too, y'know ... 'just in case'. Report back and let us know whether you got maced in the face, kicked in the nuts, or the person went ran and hid from the crazy person following them. It might be legal, but moral? They're are plenty of reasons why it's morally wrong to follow someone based on their appearance *cough blackness cough*. Doesn't Trayvon Martin have a fair expectation to be able to walk down the street like a normal person without being tailed by an armed man? Sheesh.
Why use a completely different analogy.
- It was daytime.
- Not a gang ridden alley way in a city, it was a quiet housing estate.
There had been alot of breakings, so he was there to patrol around.
|
On June 30 2013 21:46 Velocirapture wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 20:59 Kakaru2 wrote:
@velocirapture:
1. Arent'you a murderer if you kill some one, period? Including in war. That you receive a medal or a prison sentence it's a different story.
2. We don't need you do that means we don't force you, not that you shouldn't do it. And asking which way he went it's a basically encouraging GZ to follow him in order to answer the question.
At the end of day the 911 operator is a human after all and he isn't infallible.
@ greenm horizon
Doesn't matter if I'm armed with a bazooka or a 9mm. The question is who hits first.
Also, why you keep bringing the gun example? let's put 2 guys, GZ and Mike Tyson on the same room, bare hands, and open the door after one minute. One is armed and deadly with his fists, the other is an obese (doctor's testimony) untrained and unskilled (gym's owner testimony) fighter. It's the same as in your gun example. I am very dubious of your thought processes. I'm not going to argue the definition of murder because im pretty sure you just made the first point impulsively without thinking, but that you read my post and completely missed the greater point is frustrating. There were lots of reasons for him to want to follow. If you look into his history with the police and scour the transcript for phrases which could possibly be construed in such a way, you will find it. The whole point is that he should have been looking for reasons NOT to follow. One of the fundamentals of concealed carry is to avoid confrontation. Like i said, technically it is not an order because even experts don't know everything and can't pretend that they do but if you are looking for a reason to avoid confrontation, as Z-man should have been doing, this was the moment where the opportunity was clearest. Like I stated before, none of this means he should be convicted but in the eyes of many it sure as heck makes him guilty.
Yeah, can definitely see why people would view zimmerman as guilty. I don't know why the prosecution isn't pushing the angle that the police specifically told him not to follow the man and he did anyway - some would construe that as intent to harm.
I don't know how the defense is managing to argue that it was self defense when he followed the man home, was armed and did not have police sanction. They seem to be doing a bloody good job though.
They also seem to be making out that Trayvon is some sort of trained MMA killer, which anyone with any form of martial training knows if you want to cause someone death or severe harm and they are on the ground you stomp, you don't straddle them.
This is a really poor effort by the prosecution.
|
On June 30 2013 16:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 16:33 FatChicksUnited wrote:On June 30 2013 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Also with the Murder charge comes the Involuntary manslaughter charge so while he might be found not guilty of Murder that does not automatically mean he can't or shouldn't get convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Zimmerman is claiming self-defence. It is a defence against murder charges and manslaughter charges. Unless the prosecution can disprove his claim of self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt, he will be found not guilty. Yes, and the reasonable doubt would be that by ignoring the instructions he was given by the 911 operator and carrying his gun to the confrontation he breached the burden to show culpable negligence (provided the prosecution convinces the jury of that) So that while Self Defense might be enough to avoid a murder conviction the problem is that his Self defense doesn't start until AFTER the culpable negligence.
This is a perfect example of what I meant when I said that a disturbingly large element of people was demonstrating a manifest disregard for the law when opining about this case.
|
On June 30 2013 22:13 Defacer wrote:
It might be legal, but moral? They're are plenty of reasons why it's morally wrong to follow someone based on their appearance *cough blackness cough*. Doesn't Trayvon Martin have a fair expectation to be able to walk down the street like a normal person without being tailed by an armed man? Sheesh.
Is it not moral to want to keep an eye on someone you consider suspicious so that if they enter a house to execute a burglary, their location can be reported to the police ? If he had completely cut off contact, and the suspicious person had burglarized a home, or even more seriously victimized his neighbors, was it truly the moral thing to have cut off contact with that suspicious person because he didn't want to be considered to have "followed" that poor suspicious person ?
On June 30 2013 23:45 zbedlam wrote:
Yeah, can definitely see why people would view zimmerman as guilty. I don't know why the prosecution isn't pushing the angle that the police specifically told him not to follow the man and he did anyway - some would construe that as intent to harm.
I don't know how the defense is managing to argue that it was self defense when he followed the man home, was armed and did not have police sanction. They seem to be doing a bloody good job though.
They also seem to be making out that Trayvon is some sort of trained MMA killer, which anyone with any form of martial training knows if you want to cause someone death or severe harm and they are on the ground you stomp, you don't straddle them.
This is a really poor effort by the prosecution.
The entirety of your post is explained by the evidence in the case. This is a really poor effort by the poster.
|
On July 01 2013 00:34 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 22:13 Defacer wrote:
It might be legal, but moral? They're are plenty of reasons why it's morally wrong to follow someone based on their appearance *cough blackness cough*. Doesn't Trayvon Martin have a fair expectation to be able to walk down the street like a normal person without being tailed by an armed man? Sheesh.
Is it not moral to want to keep an eye on someone you consider suspicious so that if they enter a house to execute a burglary, their location can be reported to the police ? If he had completely cut off contact, and the suspicious person had burglarized a home, or even more seriously victimized his neighbors, was it truly the moral thing to have cut off contact with that suspicious person because he didn't want to be considered to have "followed" that poor suspicious person ? Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 23:45 zbedlam wrote:
Yeah, can definitely see why people would view zimmerman as guilty. I don't know why the prosecution isn't pushing the angle that the police specifically told him not to follow the man and he did anyway - some would construe that as intent to harm.
I don't know how the defense is managing to argue that it was self defense when he followed the man home, was armed and did not have police sanction. They seem to be doing a bloody good job though.
They also seem to be making out that Trayvon is some sort of trained MMA killer, which anyone with any form of martial training knows if you want to cause someone death or severe harm and they are on the ground you stomp, you don't straddle them.
This is a really poor effort by the prosecution. The entirety of your post is explained by the evidence in the case. This is a really poor effort by the poster.
If the entirety of my post is explained by evidence there wouldn't be a case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
