| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
Is everyone okay with someone shooting you with no other witness close enough to testify (without a shadow of doubt) and then claiming self-defense? That just seems like a massive loophole. /edit Like, is there a discourse on the issue of self-defense law? I would love to learn more! If anyone can direct me towards peer-reviewed journals etc. <3 | ||
|
Dosey
United States4505 Posts
On July 08 2013 14:59 plogamer wrote: Let's cast aside race and everything else. Is everyone okay with someone shooting you with no other witness close enough to testify (without a shadow of doubt) and then claiming self-defense? That just seems like a massive loophole. /edit Like, is there a discourse on the issue of self-defense law? I would love to learn more! If anyone can direct me towards peer-reviewed journals etc. <3 So, are we just going to completely ignore the fact that a completely credible witness saw me on top of the guy who shot me, pounding him? o_O | ||
|
plgElwood
Germany518 Posts
Again a gun killed someone. It was also the quarrel about the gun that made Zimmerman finally use it. If it had not been there Martin had beaten him up (and no injuries were fatal or lasted more than 3 days...since martin wasn´t a good fighter either). So what could have been a simple fight became lethal. Anyhow you may not discuss this matter in this thread. | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On July 08 2013 15:26 plgElwood wrote: Selfdefense is okay, as long as you don´t allow every idiot to buy/own/carry a gun. Again a gun killed someone. It was also the quarrel about the gun that made Zimmerman finally use it. If it had not been there Martin had beaten him up (and no injuries were fatal or lasted more than 3 days...since martin wasn´t a good fighter either). So what could have been a simple fight became lethal. Anyhow you may not discuss this matter in this thread. He could have also died in that "simple fight". And yes, the injuries weren't fatal or lasted more than a few days, but what exactly does that have to do with anything? If the fight continued without the use of the gun the injuries could have been a lot more substantial correct? | ||
|
zbedlam
Australia549 Posts
On July 08 2013 15:33 PanN wrote: He could have also died in that "simple fight". And yes, the injuries weren't fatal or lasted more than a few days, but what exactly does that have to do with anything? If the fight continued without the use of the gun the injuries could have been a lot more substantial correct? Indeed they could have been, TM is dead however and there is no proof he had any intention of killing GZ. Not saying GZ is guilty, he is clearly innocent by US law however he shouldn't be following suspicious people home if he is incapable of defending himself from an unarmed assailant without gunning them down. | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On July 08 2013 15:26 plgElwood wrote: Selfdefense is okay, as long as you don´t allow every idiot to buy/own/carry a gun. Again a gun killed someone. It was also the quarrel about the gun that made Zimmerman finally use it. If it had not been there Martin had beaten him up (and no injuries were fatal or lasted more than 3 days...since martin wasn´t a good fighter either). So what could have been a simple fight became lethal. Anyhow you may not discuss this matter in this thread. Eh, the point of defending yourself is to avoid lethal injuries. It would be pretty strange if the requirement for using a gun to defend yourself is to let an attacker injury you to that point first. And I'm pretty sure the law says the same (read the thread, I'm sure people have brought up the specific requirement for self-defense) And you can't say what the fight would have ended up since the gun shot effectively put an end to it. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 08 2013 14:59 plogamer wrote: Let's cast aside race and everything else. Is everyone okay with someone shooting you with no other witness close enough to testify (without a shadow of doubt) and then claiming self-defense? That just seems like a massive loophole. /edit Like, is there a discourse on the issue of self-defense law? I would love to learn more! If anyone can direct me towards peer-reviewed journals etc. <3 What is it with this generation and peer reviewed journals ? What's wrong with thinking for ourselves ? Sometimes events occur where there is not sufficient evidence to determine whether a crime was committed. That is real life. It happens. We don't imagine we know what happened and then send someone to prison. We still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty. If sufficient evidence doesn't exist, then what the fuck good is some peer-reviewed journal going to do ? | ||
|
Dosey
United States4505 Posts
On July 08 2013 15:26 plgElwood wrote: Selfdefense is okay, as long as you don´t allow every idiot to buy/own/carry a gun. Again a gun killed someone. It was also the quarrel about the gun that made Zimmerman finally use it. If it had not been there Martin had beaten him up (and no injuries were fatal or lasted more than 3 days...since martin wasn´t a good fighter either). So what could have been a simple fight became lethal. Anyhow you may not discuss this matter in this thread. I talked about this a few pages ago, but I'll reiterate for those late to the party. Zimmerman screamed "Help" and received none. Imagine the dread you would feel if you were in ANY potentially dangerous situation and you realized no aid was coming to you. An unattended fight can go extremely awry under the right circumstances and the head isn't as durable as you seem to think. Martin clearly had the upper hand and obviously had no intention to stop (per Good's testimony) until he was stopped by someone or something. Zimmerman felt this, realized the potential danger he was in, felt the dread when he realized no one was coming to help him, and used the only means available to him to end the altercation. | ||
|
plgElwood
Germany518 Posts
Zimmerman testified: "I screamed for help, while he was beating me (screams reported by wittnesses and on tape for 40seconds) Than he saw my gun, and said something like "You are gonna die tonight" and reached for it, i got it first and shot him" So if that is correct, the gun caused the lethal end to that fight. Any doubts? Police arrived seconds after the shot, wittnesses all around heard the cries for help. I am not going down the road "what could have been" But there is much pointing to that the incident would not have been lethal to either one if it was not for the gun. I´m not arguing that he was acting in "self defense". But the matter of selfdefense has not to be lethal and with guns it rather fast get to that end. He got it, he used it. But if he rather trained martial arts, instead of buying a gun, Martin would be alive. | ||
|
Dosey
United States4505 Posts
On July 08 2013 16:03 plgElwood wrote: Pff. I never said that the injury has to be en par with the matter of the defense. Zimmerman testified: "I screamed for help, while he was beating me (screams reported by wittnesses and on tape for 40seconds) Than he saw my gun, and said something like "You are gonna die tonight" and reached for it, i got it first and shot him" So if that is correct, the gun caused the lethal end to that fight. Any doubts? Police arrived seconds after the shot, wittnesses all around heard the cries for help. I am not going down the road "what could have been" But there is much pointing to that the incident would not have been lethal to either one if it was not for the gun. I´m not arguing that he was acting in "self defense". But the matter of selfdefense has not to be lethal and with guns it rather fast get to that end. He got it, he used it. But if he rather trained martial arts, instead of buying a gun, Martin would be alive. So a man has to be physically fit and well trained in order to defend himself in a potentially lethal altercation? What... I don't even... what kind of asinine belief is that? Oh and for the record, Zimmerman did take MMA classes. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
| ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
Let's say I'm punching the shit out you. I'm just hitting your nose though; it hurts like all hell but is not deadly. Somehow I manage to catch you in the temple. Boom. Serious head injury. I keep punching you, not intending to kill you at all, but now you have internal bleeding in the brain, which I exacerbate by repeatedly punching you in the head. You black out and I don't notice in time and you die from repeated strikes to the head. So imagine that you're out and you see a suspicious person. You follow them a bit, and all the sudden they attack you. They start smashing your face with their fist. You cry for help but no one comes and they don't stop. You start to feel dizzy and think you're going to black out. They show no sign of stopping. You have a gun. Do you wait until it's too late, or do you pull and shoot and pray that the person attacking you doesn't die? There is no one and nothing to contradict Zimmerman's story. He says Martin attacked him. Evidence suggests that Martin attacked him, or at least go the clear upper hand at some point and didn't stop. Zimmerman, by any reasonable law, at that point, has the right to self defense. It sucks that Martin, by all sources, a decent (if somewhat foolish) kid is dead. It's fucking horrible that he's dead. But we shouldn't convict people for revenge. We need evidence. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On July 08 2013 15:53 zbedlam wrote: Indeed they could have been, TM is dead however and there is no proof he had any intention of killing GZ. Not saying GZ is guilty, he is clearly innocent by US law however he shouldn't be following suspicious people home if he is incapable of defending himself from an unarmed assailant without gunning them down. Maybe that assailant just shouldn't assault people? | ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
On July 08 2013 15:57 Kaitlin wrote: What is it with this generation and peer reviewed journals ? What's wrong with thinking for ourselves ? Sometimes events occur where there is not sufficient evidence to determine whether a crime was committed. That is real life. It happens. We don't imagine we know what happened and then send someone to prison. We still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty. If sufficient evidence doesn't exist, then what the fuck good is some peer-reviewed journal going to do ? All laws are peer-reviewed, by other members of congress, senate, etc. It isn't unique to this generation. All I wanted was to know the different views of scholars who devote their lives to the study these kinds of law. /edit I am aware that there isn't sufficient evidence in the current incarnation of the self-defense law. What issuffient enough evidence, though? These kinds of questions are intriguing. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 08 2013 16:41 plogamer wrote: All laws are peer-reviewed, by other members of congress, senate, etc. It isn't unique to this generation. All I wanted was to know the different views of scholars who devote their lives to the study these kinds of law. /edit I am aware that there isn't sufficient evidence in the current incarnation of the self-defense law. What issuffient enough evidence, though? These kinds of questions are intriguing. Come back to the real world. All laws are peer-reviewed ? The ACA wasn't even read. You're just making up generalities about how the world works, based on absolutely nothing. As for the sufficiency of evidence, it has nothing to do with self-defense. It has to do with sufficiency of evidence. And sufficient evidence is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, as determined by a jury of one's peers, that the defendant has committed the crimes charged. | ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
On July 08 2013 16:58 Kaitlin wrote: Come back to the real world. All laws are peer-reviewed ? The ACA wasn't even read. You're just making up generalities about how the world works, based on absolutely nothing. As for the sufficiency of evidence, it has nothing to do with self-defense. It has to do with sufficiency of evidence. And sufficient evidence is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, as determined by a jury of one's peers, that the defendant has committed the crimes charged. How other-worldly of me to assume that laws in Democratic institutions, especially in the US with their checks and balances built into the constitutionm, are reviewed before it gets passed. The rest of your post is frankly jibberish. Sufficient evidence has everything to do with self-defense. The prosecution has to have enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, ie, suffiecient enough, to get a conviction in the current law. If the law changes in that regard, so does the sufficiency of evidence. /edit The ACA passing without a reading points to the Canadian parliamentary system's lack of checking the power of the PM and the cabinet. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 08 2013 17:08 plogamer wrote: The ACA passing without a reading points to the Canadian parliamentary system's lack of checking the power of the PM and the cabinet. Do you even know what the ACA is ? | ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
I live in Canada. ACA, unless you specify clearly, means something else to me. But hey, ignore the rest of my post and leave it out. | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
On July 08 2013 16:03 plgElwood wrote: Pff. I never said that the injury has to be en par with the matter of the defense. Zimmerman testified: "I screamed for help, while he was beating me (screams reported by wittnesses and on tape for 40seconds) Than he saw my gun, and said something like "You are gonna die tonight" and reached for it, i got it first and shot him" So if that is correct, the gun caused the lethal end to that fight. Any doubts? Police arrived seconds after the shot, wittnesses all around heard the cries for help. I am not going down the road "what could have been" But there is much pointing to that the incident would not have been lethal to either one if it was not for the gun. I´m not arguing that he was acting in "self defense". But the matter of selfdefense has not to be lethal and with guns it rather fast get to that end. He got it, he used it. But if he rather trained martial arts, instead of buying a gun, Martin would be alive. Why are you talking about gun control here? It really doesn't matter what "could have happened" at this point. Anything could have happened. What if Zimmerman had confronted a possible suspect who had a knife, while he himself had no gun? Well, then he would get cut up, regardless of any kind of martial arts training. The point is - hypothetical scenarios of what could have been in regards to our gun laws (and believe me, Americans are having this discussion) and discussing changing or debating gun-control policy is largely irrelevant to this case. | ||
|
plgElwood
Germany518 Posts
Zimmerman testified: "I screamed for help, while he was beating me (screams reported by wittnesses and on tape for 40seconds) Than he saw my gun, and said something like "You are gonna die tonight" and reached for it, i got it first and shot him" So if that is correct, the gun caused the lethal end to that fight. Any doubts? Gun control alone is not case relevant. "Stand your ground" is. And allowing to shoot on attackers is pretty dangerous. There were, are and will be cases of overreaction and accidents. Giving someone the means and the right to kill a person with a twist of a finger should be a thing considered carefully. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
WardiTV Weekly
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
