|
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 July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:On July 12 2013 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin. Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find. I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver. It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance. He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did.
Well he was already on his way to his girlfriend's house was he not? And the African American community has a tenuous relationship with police. I agree that that's what he should have done, but it's really easy to see a rationale for not wanting to involve police.
|
On July 12 2013 00:38 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:On July 12 2013 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin. Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find. I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver. It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance. I don't know what area you're from; but you're lucky those youth were not armed. An untrained person like a cab driver could have escalated the situation and gotten you killed when you could have run and dialed 911 and achieved the same result.
It's not always possible to simply run away and call the police. The group might have faster runners than you, and once they get you on the ground you're not going to get up again easily if there are several of them.
|
On July 12 2013 00:42 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:On July 12 2013 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin. Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find. I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver. It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance. He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did. There's a reason we don't allow 17 year olds to vote.
I would have done both of those things at 12, 13, 14, 17, 824, a million years old.
It is pretty strange that Martin, who was supposedly freaked out and scared shitless, didn't try to go home (his home was very close to where they were, something like 90-150 meters) or call anyone besides his girlfriend or whatever, and instead somehow ended up causing injuries to Zimmerman and at some point on top of him pounding him "MMA-style".
Let's be clear here, the only story that makes any kind of sense is a confrontation INSTIGATED by Martin.
|
On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:42 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:On July 12 2013 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin. Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find. I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver. It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance. He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did. There's a reason we don't allow 17 year olds to vote. I would have done both of those things at 12, 13, 14, 17, 824, a million years old. It is pretty strange that Martin, who was supposedly freaked out and scared shitless, didn't try to go home or call anyone besides his girlfriend or whatever, and instead somehow ended up causing injuries to Zimmerman and at some point on top of him pounding him "MMA-style". Let's be clear here, the only story that makes any kind of sense is a confrontation INSTIGATED by Martin.
"I would have blah blah blah". You know what, at 12, 13, 14, 17, million years old etc etc. I would not have followed a criminal suspect without backup.
Don't forget that Zimmerman expressed hostility towards Trayvon in his comment to the dispatcher.
|
On July 12 2013 00:37 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:34 Freddybear wrote:On July 12 2013 00:28 docvoc wrote:On July 12 2013 00:25 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 00:17 Sermokala wrote:
This is just silly. Pobably was the prosecutions strategy the whole time to direct the case to be 2nd degree murder and then bait and switch at the end to get anything on him.
People shouldn't be allowed to be charged with different even lesser crimes at the end of their trial, just sickening. But isn't the point of a trial to arrive at the truth? Obviously the lawyers just want to win their case but the entire process ought to bring about justice. If you're not guilty of pre-meditated murder but you are guilty of something lesser, a trial ought to be able to shift gears. Because guilty people ought to be taken off the streets and (ideally) rehabilitated. No. Hopefully the trial does that, but truth is subjective. What seems to be occuring is that the prosectution has realized that they have either done a poor job, or are insecure in the job they have done. From the beginning they had a backup plan, as all good lawyers do. This is entirely within their rights from what I'm reading. The problem is that they're springing this on the defense at literally the last minute. There is a certain amount of research needed to find the case law (actual trial decisions in previous cases) regarding these new charges. The prosecution is trying to deny Zimmerman his right to effective counsel by preventing his lawyers from having the time to do that research. It doesn't matter if they are springing it on them at the last minute because job of courts is to find the truth and find an effective punishment for whatever happened. If they are able to prove you are guilty of a crime that you weren't charged with during the trial then that's no reason for you to simply get off on that crime.
Actually it does matter because, at least in American courts, that finding of the truth is the outcome of a process of give-and-take between the prosecution and the defense. If either side can spring a surprise on the other, that denies the process of finding the truth and leaves the results up to trickery and deception.
|
On July 12 2013 00:50 Freddybear wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:37 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 Freddybear wrote:On July 12 2013 00:28 docvoc wrote:On July 12 2013 00:25 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 00:17 Sermokala wrote:
This is just silly. Pobably was the prosecutions strategy the whole time to direct the case to be 2nd degree murder and then bait and switch at the end to get anything on him.
People shouldn't be allowed to be charged with different even lesser crimes at the end of their trial, just sickening. But isn't the point of a trial to arrive at the truth? Obviously the lawyers just want to win their case but the entire process ought to bring about justice. If you're not guilty of pre-meditated murder but you are guilty of something lesser, a trial ought to be able to shift gears. Because guilty people ought to be taken off the streets and (ideally) rehabilitated. No. Hopefully the trial does that, but truth is subjective. What seems to be occuring is that the prosectution has realized that they have either done a poor job, or are insecure in the job they have done. From the beginning they had a backup plan, as all good lawyers do. This is entirely within their rights from what I'm reading. The problem is that they're springing this on the defense at literally the last minute. There is a certain amount of research needed to find the case law (actual trial decisions in previous cases) regarding these new charges. The prosecution is trying to deny Zimmerman his right to effective counsel by preventing his lawyers from having the time to do that research. It doesn't matter if they are springing it on them at the last minute because job of courts is to find the truth and find an effective punishment for whatever happened. If they are able to prove you are guilty of a crime that you weren't charged with during the trial then that's no reason for you to simply get off on that crime. Actually it does matter because, at least in American courts, that finding of the truth is the outcome of a process of give-and-take between the prosecution and the defense. If either side can spring a surprise on the other, that denies the process of finding the truth and leaves the results up to trickery and deception.
Well, I know that full disclosure is standard practice. But I thought that only involved evidence. What to pursue with the fully disclosed evidence should be another matter. Only an incompetent lawyer would not be aware of all the possibilities given a set of evidence.
|
On July 12 2013 00:38 plogamer wrote:
I don't know what area you're from; but you're lucky those youth were not armed. An untrained person like a cab driver could have escalated the situation and gotten you killed when you could have run and dialed 911 and achieved the same result. I'm sorry...I wasn't clear. He didn't engage these punks, but he opened the door of his cab while I was staggering away in a daze. If he weren't there to pick me up at that moment, they could easily have decided to deliver the "coup de grace", so to speak.
Point I was trying to raise is, following suspicious-looking individuals can lead to positive outcomes as well as detrimental ones. Unless there's laws addressing this point (and there can't be any or we would have heard about them by now), the right or wrong is very much in the beholder's eye.
It's beyond absurd to try to convict Zimmerman for an ambiguous point of morality that has nothing to do with the existing laws in any circumstance.
|
On July 12 2013 00:49 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:42 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:On July 12 2013 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin. Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find. I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver. It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance. He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did. There's a reason we don't allow 17 year olds to vote. I would have done both of those things at 12, 13, 14, 17, 824, a million years old. It is pretty strange that Martin, who was supposedly freaked out and scared shitless, didn't try to go home or call anyone besides his girlfriend or whatever, and instead somehow ended up causing injuries to Zimmerman and at some point on top of him pounding him "MMA-style". Let's be clear here, the only story that makes any kind of sense is a confrontation INSTIGATED by Martin. "I would have blah blah blah". You know what, at 12, 13, 14, 17, million years old etc etc. I would not have followed a criminal suspect without backup. Don't forget that Zimmerman expressed hostility towards Trayvon in his comment to the dispatcher.
You wouldn't try to find out where you are when a police dispatcher requests that you do so? How could they get there on time then?
We have no reason to assume Zimmerman was showing hostility, only suspicion.
(and you didn't address the facts that show pretty conclusively that Martin was not trying to run away)
|
On July 12 2013 00:50 Freddybear wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:37 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 Freddybear wrote:On July 12 2013 00:28 docvoc wrote:On July 12 2013 00:25 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 00:17 Sermokala wrote:
This is just silly. Pobably was the prosecutions strategy the whole time to direct the case to be 2nd degree murder and then bait and switch at the end to get anything on him.
People shouldn't be allowed to be charged with different even lesser crimes at the end of their trial, just sickening. But isn't the point of a trial to arrive at the truth? Obviously the lawyers just want to win their case but the entire process ought to bring about justice. If you're not guilty of pre-meditated murder but you are guilty of something lesser, a trial ought to be able to shift gears. Because guilty people ought to be taken off the streets and (ideally) rehabilitated. No. Hopefully the trial does that, but truth is subjective. What seems to be occuring is that the prosectution has realized that they have either done a poor job, or are insecure in the job they have done. From the beginning they had a backup plan, as all good lawyers do. This is entirely within their rights from what I'm reading. The problem is that they're springing this on the defense at literally the last minute. There is a certain amount of research needed to find the case law (actual trial decisions in previous cases) regarding these new charges. The prosecution is trying to deny Zimmerman his right to effective counsel by preventing his lawyers from having the time to do that research. It doesn't matter if they are springing it on them at the last minute because job of courts is to find the truth and find an effective punishment for whatever happened. If they are able to prove you are guilty of a crime that you weren't charged with during the trial then that's no reason for you to simply get off on that crime. Actually it does matter because, at least in American courts, that finding of the truth is the outcome of a process of give-and-take between the prosecution and the defense. If either side can spring a surprise on the other, that denies the process of finding the truth and leaves the results up to trickery and deception.
But there was no suprise, these charges were always an option. The Defense is upset because the prosecution had decided to focus on 3rd degree murder as well, which they did not expect. Or maybe they did and they are just complaining in an effor to get the judge to stall out the process a little more.
|
On July 12 2013 00:50 Freddybear wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:37 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 Freddybear wrote:On July 12 2013 00:28 docvoc wrote:On July 12 2013 00:25 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 00:17 Sermokala wrote:
This is just silly. Pobably was the prosecutions strategy the whole time to direct the case to be 2nd degree murder and then bait and switch at the end to get anything on him.
People shouldn't be allowed to be charged with different even lesser crimes at the end of their trial, just sickening. But isn't the point of a trial to arrive at the truth? Obviously the lawyers just want to win their case but the entire process ought to bring about justice. If you're not guilty of pre-meditated murder but you are guilty of something lesser, a trial ought to be able to shift gears. Because guilty people ought to be taken off the streets and (ideally) rehabilitated. No. Hopefully the trial does that, but truth is subjective. What seems to be occuring is that the prosectution has realized that they have either done a poor job, or are insecure in the job they have done. From the beginning they had a backup plan, as all good lawyers do. This is entirely within their rights from what I'm reading. The problem is that they're springing this on the defense at literally the last minute. There is a certain amount of research needed to find the case law (actual trial decisions in previous cases) regarding these new charges. The prosecution is trying to deny Zimmerman his right to effective counsel by preventing his lawyers from having the time to do that research. It doesn't matter if they are springing it on them at the last minute because job of courts is to find the truth and find an effective punishment for whatever happened. If they are able to prove you are guilty of a crime that you weren't charged with during the trial then that's no reason for you to simply get off on that crime. Actually it does matter because, at least in American courts, that finding of the truth is the outcome of a process of give-and-take between the prosecution and the defense. If either side can spring a surprise on the other, that denies the process of finding the truth and leaves the results up to trickery and deception.
But lesser charges aren't a surprise. The defense knows that the prosecution can drop the severity of the charges. Part of building a comprehensive defense is planning for those. And since the prosecution is required to prove guild "beyond reasonable doubt" I'm still gonna say the defense has an easier job (in general).
|
On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:42 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:On July 12 2013 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin. Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find. I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver. It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance. He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did. There's a reason we don't allow 17 year olds to vote. I would have done both of those things at 12, 13, 14, 17, 824, a million years old. It is pretty strange that Martin, who was supposedly freaked out and scared shitless, didn't try to go home (his home was very close to where they were, something like 90-150 meters) or call anyone besides his girlfriend or whatever, and instead somehow ended up causing injuries to Zimmerman and at some point on top of him pounding him "MMA-style". Let's be clear here, the only story that makes any kind of sense is a confrontation INSTIGATED by Martin.
It is great that you can act like this in a panic situation, but your chain of logic does not apply to everybody, especially to the picture of Martin that was drawn over the last days weeks and months.
Of course your story could be possible, but there are other possibilities as well (GZ attacked Martin, who defended himself and when GZ recognized he would lose the fight he pulled his gun.) Just as an example.
It really isnt as one dimensional as you make it look like or else this case wouldnt be as thrilling as it is.
|
On July 12 2013 00:52 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:38 plogamer wrote:
I don't know what area you're from; but you're lucky those youth were not armed. An untrained person like a cab driver could have escalated the situation and gotten you killed when you could have run and dialed 911 and achieved the same result. I'm sorry...I wasn't clear. He didn't engage these punks, but he opened the door of his cab while I was staggering away in a daze. If he weren't there to pick me up at that moment, they could easily have decided to deliver the "coup de grace", so to speak. Point I was trying to raise is, following suspicious-looking individuals can lead to positive outcomes as well as detrimental ones. Unless there's laws addressing this point (and there can't be any or we would have heard about them by now), the right or wrong is very much in the beholder's eye. It's beyond absurd to try to convict Zimmerman for an ambiguous point of morality that has nothing to do with the existing laws in any circumstance.
Yeah, I'm not for Zimmerman's conviction of murder. But his behaviour was reckless - he endangered himself, and ironically, he endangered Trayvon by letting the situation escalate into a fight. He is the 29 year old adult here.
|
On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:42 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:On July 12 2013 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin. Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find. I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver. It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance. He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did. There's a reason we don't allow 17 year olds to vote. I would have done both of those things at 12, 13, 14, 17, 824, a million years old. It is pretty strange that Martin, who was supposedly freaked out and scared shitless, didn't try to go home (his home was very close to where they were, something like 90-150 meters) or call anyone besides his girlfriend or whatever, and instead somehow ended up causing injuries to Zimmerman and at some point on top of him pounding him "MMA-style". Let's be clear here, the only story that makes any kind of sense is a confrontation INSTIGATED by Martin.
Is there any doubt that the confrontation (regardless of who instigated it because I havnt seen definitive evidence one way or other) happened because Zimmerman followed him? I might also have tried to fight if I thought I couldn't safely get away. After all, showing my back to someone who may or may not be armed seems like a bad decision especially when I don't know if running will get me killed or not.
Also judging by the amount of lies that Zimmerman has been caught in and the amount of disproven events I would be taking anything he says with a grain of salt unless real proof was attached to it.
|
On July 12 2013 00:52 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:49 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:42 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:On July 12 2013 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin. Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find. I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver. It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance. He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did. There's a reason we don't allow 17 year olds to vote. I would have done both of those things at 12, 13, 14, 17, 824, a million years old. It is pretty strange that Martin, who was supposedly freaked out and scared shitless, didn't try to go home or call anyone besides his girlfriend or whatever, and instead somehow ended up causing injuries to Zimmerman and at some point on top of him pounding him "MMA-style". Let's be clear here, the only story that makes any kind of sense is a confrontation INSTIGATED by Martin. "I would have blah blah blah". You know what, at 12, 13, 14, 17, million years old etc etc. I would not have followed a criminal suspect without backup. Don't forget that Zimmerman expressed hostility towards Trayvon in his comment to the dispatcher. You wouldn't try to find out where you are when a police dispatcher requests that you do so? How could they get there on time then? We have no reason to assume Zimmerman was showing hostility, only suspicion. (and you didn't address the facts that show pretty conclusively that Martin was not trying to run away)
Are you serious?
"Fucking punks, these a**holes always get away." Yeah, Zimmerman sounds totally chill right? :|
|
On July 12 2013 00:54 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:52 GreenGringo wrote:On July 12 2013 00:38 plogamer wrote:
I don't know what area you're from; but you're lucky those youth were not armed. An untrained person like a cab driver could have escalated the situation and gotten you killed when you could have run and dialed 911 and achieved the same result. I'm sorry...I wasn't clear. He didn't engage these punks, but he opened the door of his cab while I was staggering away in a daze. If he weren't there to pick me up at that moment, they could easily have decided to deliver the "coup de grace", so to speak. Point I was trying to raise is, following suspicious-looking individuals can lead to positive outcomes as well as detrimental ones. Unless there's laws addressing this point (and there can't be any or we would have heard about them by now), the right or wrong is very much in the beholder's eye. It's beyond absurd to try to convict Zimmerman for an ambiguous point of morality that has nothing to do with the existing laws in any circumstance. Yeah, I'm not for Zimmerman's conviction of murder. But his behaviour was reckless - he endangered himself, and ironically, he endangered Trayvon by letting the situation escalate into a fight. He is the 29 year old adult here.
That is what I am thinking as well. In my eyes he is responsible in a way, but I cannot say if or which kind of legal consequences this requires.
|
On July 12 2013 00:52 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:50 Freddybear wrote:On July 12 2013 00:37 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 Freddybear wrote:On July 12 2013 00:28 docvoc wrote:On July 12 2013 00:25 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 00:17 Sermokala wrote:
This is just silly. Pobably was the prosecutions strategy the whole time to direct the case to be 2nd degree murder and then bait and switch at the end to get anything on him.
People shouldn't be allowed to be charged with different even lesser crimes at the end of their trial, just sickening. But isn't the point of a trial to arrive at the truth? Obviously the lawyers just want to win their case but the entire process ought to bring about justice. If you're not guilty of pre-meditated murder but you are guilty of something lesser, a trial ought to be able to shift gears. Because guilty people ought to be taken off the streets and (ideally) rehabilitated. No. Hopefully the trial does that, but truth is subjective. What seems to be occuring is that the prosectution has realized that they have either done a poor job, or are insecure in the job they have done. From the beginning they had a backup plan, as all good lawyers do. This is entirely within their rights from what I'm reading. The problem is that they're springing this on the defense at literally the last minute. There is a certain amount of research needed to find the case law (actual trial decisions in previous cases) regarding these new charges. The prosecution is trying to deny Zimmerman his right to effective counsel by preventing his lawyers from having the time to do that research. It doesn't matter if they are springing it on them at the last minute because job of courts is to find the truth and find an effective punishment for whatever happened. If they are able to prove you are guilty of a crime that you weren't charged with during the trial then that's no reason for you to simply get off on that crime. Actually it does matter because, at least in American courts, that finding of the truth is the outcome of a process of give-and-take between the prosecution and the defense. If either side can spring a surprise on the other, that denies the process of finding the truth and leaves the results up to trickery and deception. Well, I know that full disclosure is standard practice. But I thought that only involved evidence. What to pursue with the fully disclosed evidence should be another matter. Only an incompetent lawyer would not be aware of all the possibilities given a set of evidence.
There is a reason why the charges to be considered in the trial are stated at the beginning. The prosecution had plenty of opportunities to ask for the additional charge of child abuse. It's not like they didn't know Trademark's age before the defense rested.
|
On July 12 2013 00:54 Kleinmuuhg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:42 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:On July 12 2013 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin. Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find. I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver. It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance. He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did. There's a reason we don't allow 17 year olds to vote. I would have done both of those things at 12, 13, 14, 17, 824, a million years old. It is pretty strange that Martin, who was supposedly freaked out and scared shitless, didn't try to go home (his home was very close to where they were, something like 90-150 meters) or call anyone besides his girlfriend or whatever, and instead somehow ended up causing injuries to Zimmerman and at some point on top of him pounding him "MMA-style". Let's be clear here, the only story that makes any kind of sense is a confrontation INSTIGATED by Martin. It is great that you can act like this in a panic situation, but your chain of logic does not apply to everybody, especially to the picture of Martin that was drawn over the last days weeks and months. Of course your story could be possible, but there are other possibilities as well (GZ attacked Martin, who defended himself and when GZ recognized he would lose the fight he pulled his gun.) Just as an example. It really isnt as one dimensional as you make it look like or else this case wouldnt be as thrilling as it is.
It's great that my natural instinct is the same as the natural instinct of every mammal on earth? That when threatened my first instinct is to find a place of safety? Yeah, I guess that's great... It has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with instinct. What person who is creeped out and completely scared is going to sit around waiting to confront and fight a threat when they have lost the person and are literally 300 feet from their home? It makes absolutely no sense that Martin didn't, at some point, re-approach Zimmerman. The timeline of events DOES NOT FIT. There is no evidence to support that conclusion. Come up with a plausible scenario that somehow fits with the evidence and I will consider it, because as of now, only Zimmerman has done that.
Let's be clear again, even if Zimmerman did start the fight (and there is strong evidence suggesting this is not so), he would still have the right to use deadly force to defend himself if Martin escalated the conflict to deadly levels (MMA-style beating, not stopping when told to by John Good).
It is absolutely as one dimensional as it is, which is what I say it looks like. It looks like that because it is like that. The only reason this is "thrilling" is because juries are stupid and could go any way. If these juries were made up of perfect "law-bots" than there would be no question whatsoever that Zimmerman would get off.
|
On July 12 2013 00:57 plogamer wrote:Are you serious?
"Fucking punks, these a**holes always get away." Yeah, Zimmerman sounds totally chill right? :|
That does sound pretty chill to me. I call my LoL team mates worse for failing a tower dive, for God's sake.
|
On July 12 2013 01:01 Freddybear wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:52 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:50 Freddybear wrote:On July 12 2013 00:37 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 Freddybear wrote:On July 12 2013 00:28 docvoc wrote:On July 12 2013 00:25 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 00:17 Sermokala wrote:
This is just silly. Pobably was the prosecutions strategy the whole time to direct the case to be 2nd degree murder and then bait and switch at the end to get anything on him.
People shouldn't be allowed to be charged with different even lesser crimes at the end of their trial, just sickening. But isn't the point of a trial to arrive at the truth? Obviously the lawyers just want to win their case but the entire process ought to bring about justice. If you're not guilty of pre-meditated murder but you are guilty of something lesser, a trial ought to be able to shift gears. Because guilty people ought to be taken off the streets and (ideally) rehabilitated. No. Hopefully the trial does that, but truth is subjective. What seems to be occuring is that the prosectution has realized that they have either done a poor job, or are insecure in the job they have done. From the beginning they had a backup plan, as all good lawyers do. This is entirely within their rights from what I'm reading. The problem is that they're springing this on the defense at literally the last minute. There is a certain amount of research needed to find the case law (actual trial decisions in previous cases) regarding these new charges. The prosecution is trying to deny Zimmerman his right to effective counsel by preventing his lawyers from having the time to do that research. It doesn't matter if they are springing it on them at the last minute because job of courts is to find the truth and find an effective punishment for whatever happened. If they are able to prove you are guilty of a crime that you weren't charged with during the trial then that's no reason for you to simply get off on that crime. Actually it does matter because, at least in American courts, that finding of the truth is the outcome of a process of give-and-take between the prosecution and the defense. If either side can spring a surprise on the other, that denies the process of finding the truth and leaves the results up to trickery and deception. Well, I know that full disclosure is standard practice. But I thought that only involved evidence. What to pursue with the fully disclosed evidence should be another matter. Only an incompetent lawyer would not be aware of all the possibilities given a set of evidence. There is a reason why the charges to be considered in the trial are stated at the beginning. The prosecution had plenty of opportunities to ask for the additional charge of child abuse. It's not like they didn't know Trademark's age before the defense rested.
Thats not how the process works. The prosecution can ask for other charges to be considered and the Defense was aware that 3rd degree murder was an option. I don't know how the child abuse comes into this, since 3rd degree murder is its own charge, but I would need to see what they are citing.
|
On July 12 2013 00:56 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:42 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:On July 12 2013 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin. Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find. I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver. It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance. He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did. There's a reason we don't allow 17 year olds to vote. I would have done both of those things at 12, 13, 14, 17, 824, a million years old. It is pretty strange that Martin, who was supposedly freaked out and scared shitless, didn't try to go home (his home was very close to where they were, something like 90-150 meters) or call anyone besides his girlfriend or whatever, and instead somehow ended up causing injuries to Zimmerman and at some point on top of him pounding him "MMA-style". Let's be clear here, the only story that makes any kind of sense is a confrontation INSTIGATED by Martin. Is there any doubt that the confrontation (regardless of who instigated it because I havnt seen definitive evidence one way or other) happened because Zimmerman followed him? I might also have tried to fight if I thought I couldn't safely get away. After all, showing my back to someone who may or may not be armed seems like a bad decision especially when I don't know if running will get me killed or not.
And if you survived that fight you would be charged with assault and battery. You do not have the right to attack someone because they are following you and "they might be armed." So no, I do not agree that the confrontation was started by Zimmerman following Trayvon. Zimmerman has the right to follow Martin. Hell, I would argue that it was perfectly wise (remember that hind-sight is 20/20) for Zimmerman to do so. he had no idea Martin was going to jump him.
Also judging by the amount of lies that Zimmerman has been caught in and the amount of disproven events I would be taking anything he says with a grain of salt unless real proof was attached to it.
What lies and what disproven events? All the lying and disproving has been done by the defense, not the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
