|
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 13 2013 14:21 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 14:12 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:04 LegalLord wrote:On July 13 2013 14:03 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 13:55 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 13 2013 13:43 HeavenS wrote:
I'm just curious here, i seem to be reading a lot of comments that are in favor of Zimmerman but I'm unsure if they are in favor of him being innocent or simply in favor of him not being charge with second degree murder but something less like voluntary/involuntary manslaughter. Someone please help me understand this, since I for one believe he should at least be charged with voluntary manslaughter. Why do you believe that he should be charged? Not to be hostile, I'm honestly curious. Based on the evidence we have, what do you think makes certain that he was acting illegally when he shot Trayvon Martin? you don't have to act illegally to display gross negligence, if that negligence leads to a death then the person should be held responsible. i appreciate the lack of hostility, ditto. if he didnt act in self defense (i.e., grossly negligent) then under the law he should be convicted of manslaughter. these are mutually exclusive. he either acted grossly negligent or under self defense. cant be both. i know lol....that is exactly what i am saying. im saying he was grossly negligent and therefore should be charged with manslaughter. i'd even go so far as to say that by placing himself in that situation, he shouldnt be able to claim self defense. i feel you cannot introduce yourself to a situation where you are the sole carrier of a firearm, be the person that escalates the situation, and then claim self defense, it just doesn't make sense to me. Keeping an eye on someone suspicious who ambushes you is grossly negligent? lol no...keeping an eye on someone is not grossly negligent, but im sure you already knew that judging by the rhetorical nature of the question you posed. however, actively pursuing someone after being told not to do so by police dispatcher after you have already requested help from the police, all while carrying a loaded weapon knowing full well what some of the possible outcomes could be is grossly negligent at best and criminal at worst. that to me is pretty self explanatory. edit: sry the bias in your comment is bothering me. no one was being ambushed, walking away is not ambushing someone. it can even be argued that trayvon was the one who was ambushed. if this is going to be discussed at least keep the discussion honest or its really just pointless. and also, what constitutes him being suspicious? him being black? his clothes? hmmm i think maybe that should've been left up to the cops to decide, not zimmerman. i just have one question. if everything happened up until the point where there was a physical confrontation, but instead of a fight, both parties just walked away such that nobody got hurt and nobody was killed; in that scenario, what crime would you have charged zimmerman with? i think the main dispute between the two sides is that people who think it was self defense dont think he did anything illegal up until that point, and thus, it does not matter. whereas people who think that it wasnt self defense tend to think he had already violated legal principles by causing the situation in teh first place. but if the situation he caused wasnt really wrongful, who cares since what happened afterwards is what was criminal or not.
if both parties had walked away unharmed then he wouldn't be charged with anything because it did not result in a death. the fact that someone died because of his decision, regardless of how legal it was, makes all the difference in the world.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 13 2013 14:30 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 14:22 forsooth wrote:On July 13 2013 14:12 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:04 LegalLord wrote:On July 13 2013 14:03 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 13:55 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 13 2013 13:43 HeavenS wrote:
I'm just curious here, i seem to be reading a lot of comments that are in favor of Zimmerman but I'm unsure if they are in favor of him being innocent or simply in favor of him not being charge with second degree murder but something less like voluntary/involuntary manslaughter. Someone please help me understand this, since I for one believe he should at least be charged with voluntary manslaughter. Why do you believe that he should be charged? Not to be hostile, I'm honestly curious. Based on the evidence we have, what do you think makes certain that he was acting illegally when he shot Trayvon Martin? you don't have to act illegally to display gross negligence, if that negligence leads to a death then the person should be held responsible. i appreciate the lack of hostility, ditto. if he didnt act in self defense (i.e., grossly negligent) then under the law he should be convicted of manslaughter. these are mutually exclusive. he either acted grossly negligent or under self defense. cant be both. i know lol....that is exactly what i am saying. im saying he was grossly negligent and therefore should be charged with manslaughter. i'd even go so far as to say that by placing himself in that situation, he shouldnt be able to claim self defense. i feel you cannot introduce yourself to a situation where you are the sole carrier of a firearm, be the person that escalates the situation, and then claim self defense, it just doesn't make sense to me. Keeping an eye on someone suspicious who ambushes you is grossly negligent? lol no...keeping an eye on someone is not grossly negligent, but im sure you already knew that judging by the rhetorical nature of the question you posed. however, actively pursuing someone after being told not to do so by police dispatcher after you have already requested help from the police, all while carrying a loaded weapon knowing full well what some of the possible outcomes could be is grossly negligent at best and criminal at worst. that to me is pretty self explanatory. The dispatcher's word was not law, and neither carrying a weapon nor following Martin were illegal either. Doesn't mean he made a good decision in doing so, but it's also not something he can be punished for in court. The trial is to determine whether the shooting itself was lawful or not. doesnt matter if it isnt illegal, if negligence results in a death then it can and should be punished in court.
You're not supposed to punish people criminally for something that's not illegal.
|
On July 13 2013 14:30 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 14:22 forsooth wrote:On July 13 2013 14:12 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:04 LegalLord wrote:On July 13 2013 14:03 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 13:55 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 13 2013 13:43 HeavenS wrote:
I'm just curious here, i seem to be reading a lot of comments that are in favor of Zimmerman but I'm unsure if they are in favor of him being innocent or simply in favor of him not being charge with second degree murder but something less like voluntary/involuntary manslaughter. Someone please help me understand this, since I for one believe he should at least be charged with voluntary manslaughter. Why do you believe that he should be charged? Not to be hostile, I'm honestly curious. Based on the evidence we have, what do you think makes certain that he was acting illegally when he shot Trayvon Martin? you don't have to act illegally to display gross negligence, if that negligence leads to a death then the person should be held responsible. i appreciate the lack of hostility, ditto. if he didnt act in self defense (i.e., grossly negligent) then under the law he should be convicted of manslaughter. these are mutually exclusive. he either acted grossly negligent or under self defense. cant be both. i know lol....that is exactly what i am saying. im saying he was grossly negligent and therefore should be charged with manslaughter. i'd even go so far as to say that by placing himself in that situation, he shouldnt be able to claim self defense. i feel you cannot introduce yourself to a situation where you are the sole carrier of a firearm, be the person that escalates the situation, and then claim self defense, it just doesn't make sense to me. Keeping an eye on someone suspicious who ambushes you is grossly negligent? lol no...keeping an eye on someone is not grossly negligent, but im sure you already knew that judging by the rhetorical nature of the question you posed. however, actively pursuing someone after being told not to do so by police dispatcher after you have already requested help from the police, all while carrying a loaded weapon knowing full well what some of the possible outcomes could be is grossly negligent at best and criminal at worst. that to me is pretty self explanatory. The dispatcher's word was not law, and neither carrying a weapon nor following Martin were illegal either. Doesn't mean he made a good decision in doing so, but it's also not something he can be punished for in court. The trial is to determine whether the shooting itself was lawful or not. doesnt matter if it isnt illegal, if negligence results in a death then it can and should be punished in court.
once again, if its negligent, its illegal. these are mutually exclusive things. you are basically saying his acts are both legal and illegal at the same time. it makes absolutely no sense.
|
heavens I believe your argument is that since Zimmerman was carrying a gun he had a heightened responsibility to avoid conflict and was negligent in not doing so.
I think this argument is wrong and partially a misapprehension on your part; people who have licenses to carry concealed firearms or who open carry in public do not usually go out with the apprehension that they will have to use their weapons.
Also Zimmerman did not apparently brandish his gun or try to use it at all until, according to him, he felt his life was threatened.
I agree that if you are carrying a gun you carry a much higher moral responsibility for avoiding conflict, and legally this is also the case. It is simply unknowable who started the physical altercation. It was not grossly negligent for Zimmerman to follow Trayvon, and according to him he lost sight of Trayvon and was actually on his way back to his vehicle when he was ambushed.
If that is all bs and it started with Zimmerman grabbing Trayvon's arm or something, that is a different story but I still don't think that would be grossly or criminally negligent. If he came up holding his gun in his waistband with one hand there wouldn't even be a controversy, but we can't know for sure exactly how the actual physical fight started.
As long as Zimmerman was not the initiator of physical force I don't see how his behavior was negligent or reckless.
In the end the question is was it reasonable for Zimmerman to believe his life was in danger. Even if he had started the fight, from the witness testimony it is obvious that Zimmerman did not immediately go for his gun. The circumstances are very important here. This wasn't a bar fight where after 1-2 shoves or 1-2 punches someone grabs a knife or a gun. Someone was definitely on top of someone beating him up good and then Trayvon got shot. If Zimmerman really was the guy on the bottom , getting his head punched into the ground / pavement, seems like it would be reasonable for him to think he was in danger of death or being maimed or crippled. And if that is a reasonable belief, he had a right to use lethal force to defend himself.
|
On July 13 2013 14:34 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 14:30 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:22 forsooth wrote:On July 13 2013 14:12 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:04 LegalLord wrote:On July 13 2013 14:03 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 13:55 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 13 2013 13:43 HeavenS wrote:
I'm just curious here, i seem to be reading a lot of comments that are in favor of Zimmerman but I'm unsure if they are in favor of him being innocent or simply in favor of him not being charge with second degree murder but something less like voluntary/involuntary manslaughter. Someone please help me understand this, since I for one believe he should at least be charged with voluntary manslaughter. Why do you believe that he should be charged? Not to be hostile, I'm honestly curious. Based on the evidence we have, what do you think makes certain that he was acting illegally when he shot Trayvon Martin? you don't have to act illegally to display gross negligence, if that negligence leads to a death then the person should be held responsible. i appreciate the lack of hostility, ditto. if he didnt act in self defense (i.e., grossly negligent) then under the law he should be convicted of manslaughter. these are mutually exclusive. he either acted grossly negligent or under self defense. cant be both. i know lol....that is exactly what i am saying. im saying he was grossly negligent and therefore should be charged with manslaughter. i'd even go so far as to say that by placing himself in that situation, he shouldnt be able to claim self defense. i feel you cannot introduce yourself to a situation where you are the sole carrier of a firearm, be the person that escalates the situation, and then claim self defense, it just doesn't make sense to me. Keeping an eye on someone suspicious who ambushes you is grossly negligent? lol no...keeping an eye on someone is not grossly negligent, but im sure you already knew that judging by the rhetorical nature of the question you posed. however, actively pursuing someone after being told not to do so by police dispatcher after you have already requested help from the police, all while carrying a loaded weapon knowing full well what some of the possible outcomes could be is grossly negligent at best and criminal at worst. that to me is pretty self explanatory. The dispatcher's word was not law, and neither carrying a weapon nor following Martin were illegal either. Doesn't mean he made a good decision in doing so, but it's also not something he can be punished for in court. The trial is to determine whether the shooting itself was lawful or not. doesnt matter if it isnt illegal, if negligence results in a death then it can and should be punished in court. once again, if its negligent, its illegal. these are mutually exclusive things. you are basically saying his acts are both legal and illegal at the same time. it makes absolutely no sense.
its not making sense to you because you are interpreting the word in a legal context which is probably my fault for not being more clear.
+ Show Spoiler +neg·li·gent
[neg-li-juhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
guilty of or characterized by neglect, as of duty
2.
lazily careless; offhand
neglect
Use Neglect in a sentence
ne·glect
[ni-glekt] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to pay no attention or too little attention to; disregard or slight
2.
to be remiss in the care or treatment of
3.
to omit, through indifference or carelessness
|
On July 13 2013 14:28 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 14:18 LegalLord wrote:On July 13 2013 14:12 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:04 LegalLord wrote:On July 13 2013 14:03 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 13:55 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 13 2013 13:43 HeavenS wrote:
I'm just curious here, i seem to be reading a lot of comments that are in favor of Zimmerman but I'm unsure if they are in favor of him being innocent or simply in favor of him not being charge with second degree murder but something less like voluntary/involuntary manslaughter. Someone please help me understand this, since I for one believe he should at least be charged with voluntary manslaughter. Why do you believe that he should be charged? Not to be hostile, I'm honestly curious. Based on the evidence we have, what do you think makes certain that he was acting illegally when he shot Trayvon Martin? you don't have to act illegally to display gross negligence, if that negligence leads to a death then the person should be held responsible. i appreciate the lack of hostility, ditto. if he didnt act in self defense (i.e., grossly negligent) then under the law he should be convicted of manslaughter. these are mutually exclusive. he either acted grossly negligent or under self defense. cant be both. i know lol....that is exactly what i am saying. im saying he was grossly negligent and therefore should be charged with manslaughter. i'd even go so far as to say that by placing himself in that situation, he shouldnt be able to claim self defense. i feel you cannot introduce yourself to a situation where you are the sole carrier of a firearm, be the person that escalates the situation, and then claim self defense, it just doesn't make sense to me. Keeping an eye on someone suspicious who ambushes you is grossly negligent? lol no...keeping an eye on someone is not grossly negligent, but im sure you already knew that judging by the rhetorical nature of the question you posed. however, actively pursuing someone after being told not to do so by police dispatcher after you have already requested help from the police, all while carrying a loaded weapon knowing full well what some of the possible outcomes could be is grossly negligent at best and criminal at worst. that to me is pretty self explanatory. edit: sry the bias in your comment is bothering me. no one was being ambushed, walking away is not ambushing someone. it can even be argued that trayvon was the one who was ambushed. if this is going to be discussed at least keep the discussion honest or its really just pointless. and also, what constitutes him being suspicious? him being black? his clothes? hmmm i think maybe that should've been left up to the cops to decide, not zimmerman. According to Zimmerman, he was ambushed. What I meant was "following someone who ends up ambushing you." If Zimmerman did the same thing unarmed, would you still say he was criminally negligent? I don't see how the gun has anything to do with it. I see no reason to assume that he wanted to start a fight that would end in death. if zimmerman had been unarmed, i would say it was still negligent. the fact that he was armed makes it grossly negligent and perhaps criminally negligent. if zimmerman had not followed, would trayvon be alive today? i agree with you that he probably did not want to start a fight that would end in death, but it doesnt excuse him of being negligent. it was a stupid, irresponsible decision that lead to a death.
I hate to say it but your argument isn't a good one. Mainly because Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch. It was "sort of" his job/duty to do what he had done, and there was nothing illegal or harmful about it. What people have been saying in this thread repeatedly following someone isn't illegal, assaulting someone is.
With your argument you could almost turn into a rape blame thing. Like is it the woman's fault for dressing how she did? Is it her fault for walking through that dark neighborhood? Was it her fault for being intoxicated? No.
|
On July 13 2013 14:45 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 14:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 14:30 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:22 forsooth wrote:On July 13 2013 14:12 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:04 LegalLord wrote:On July 13 2013 14:03 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 13:55 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
Why do you believe that he should be charged? Not to be hostile, I'm honestly curious. Based on the evidence we have, what do you think makes certain that he was acting illegally when he shot Trayvon Martin? you don't have to act illegally to display gross negligence, if that negligence leads to a death then the person should be held responsible. i appreciate the lack of hostility, ditto. if he didnt act in self defense (i.e., grossly negligent) then under the law he should be convicted of manslaughter. these are mutually exclusive. he either acted grossly negligent or under self defense. cant be both. i know lol....that is exactly what i am saying. im saying he was grossly negligent and therefore should be charged with manslaughter. i'd even go so far as to say that by placing himself in that situation, he shouldnt be able to claim self defense. i feel you cannot introduce yourself to a situation where you are the sole carrier of a firearm, be the person that escalates the situation, and then claim self defense, it just doesn't make sense to me. Keeping an eye on someone suspicious who ambushes you is grossly negligent? lol no...keeping an eye on someone is not grossly negligent, but im sure you already knew that judging by the rhetorical nature of the question you posed. however, actively pursuing someone after being told not to do so by police dispatcher after you have already requested help from the police, all while carrying a loaded weapon knowing full well what some of the possible outcomes could be is grossly negligent at best and criminal at worst. that to me is pretty self explanatory. The dispatcher's word was not law, and neither carrying a weapon nor following Martin were illegal either. Doesn't mean he made a good decision in doing so, but it's also not something he can be punished for in court. The trial is to determine whether the shooting itself was lawful or not. doesnt matter if it isnt illegal, if negligence results in a death then it can and should be punished in court. once again, if its negligent, its illegal. these are mutually exclusive things. you are basically saying his acts are both legal and illegal at the same time. it makes absolutely no sense. its not making sense to you because you are interpreting the word in a legal context which is probably my fault for not being more clear. + Show Spoiler +neg·li·gent
[neg-li-juhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
guilty of or characterized by neglect, as of duty
2.
lazily careless; offhand
neglect
Use Neglect in a sentence
ne·glect
[ni-glekt] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to pay no attention or too little attention to; disregard or slight
2.
to be remiss in the care or treatment of
3.
to omit, through indifference or carelessness
All that matters is the legal context though, because you said he should be punished. You can't punish people for things that aren't illegal.
|
On July 13 2013 14:45 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 14:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 14:30 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:22 forsooth wrote:On July 13 2013 14:12 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:04 LegalLord wrote:On July 13 2013 14:03 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 13:55 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
Why do you believe that he should be charged? Not to be hostile, I'm honestly curious. Based on the evidence we have, what do you think makes certain that he was acting illegally when he shot Trayvon Martin? you don't have to act illegally to display gross negligence, if that negligence leads to a death then the person should be held responsible. i appreciate the lack of hostility, ditto. if he didnt act in self defense (i.e., grossly negligent) then under the law he should be convicted of manslaughter. these are mutually exclusive. he either acted grossly negligent or under self defense. cant be both. i know lol....that is exactly what i am saying. im saying he was grossly negligent and therefore should be charged with manslaughter. i'd even go so far as to say that by placing himself in that situation, he shouldnt be able to claim self defense. i feel you cannot introduce yourself to a situation where you are the sole carrier of a firearm, be the person that escalates the situation, and then claim self defense, it just doesn't make sense to me. Keeping an eye on someone suspicious who ambushes you is grossly negligent? lol no...keeping an eye on someone is not grossly negligent, but im sure you already knew that judging by the rhetorical nature of the question you posed. however, actively pursuing someone after being told not to do so by police dispatcher after you have already requested help from the police, all while carrying a loaded weapon knowing full well what some of the possible outcomes could be is grossly negligent at best and criminal at worst. that to me is pretty self explanatory. The dispatcher's word was not law, and neither carrying a weapon nor following Martin were illegal either. Doesn't mean he made a good decision in doing so, but it's also not something he can be punished for in court. The trial is to determine whether the shooting itself was lawful or not. doesnt matter if it isnt illegal, if negligence results in a death then it can and should be punished in court. once again, if its negligent, its illegal. these are mutually exclusive things. you are basically saying his acts are both legal and illegal at the same time. it makes absolutely no sense. its not making sense to you because you are interpreting the word in a legal context which is probably my fault for not being more clear. + Show Spoiler +neg·li·gent
[neg-li-juhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
guilty of or characterized by neglect, as of duty
2.
lazily careless; offhand
neglect
Use Neglect in a sentence
ne·glect
[ni-glekt] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to pay no attention or too little attention to; disregard or slight
2.
to be remiss in the care or treatment of
3.
to omit, through indifference or carelessness
so be more specific. are you saying he should go to prison for 30 years because he was careless? because then you are violating his constitutional rights to be free from ex post facto laws. that seems a greater injustice than letting him go free.
|
@HEAVENS - This is a criminal case, is there OTHER interpretation of negligent EXCEPT the legal one?
You have this premade idea that if one carries a gun with him he is somehow responsible for whatever bad things happen around him. That already make su biased in regard to Zimmerman case.
IS there a reasonable possibility that TM attacked GZ by ambushing him in a dark alley? If there is because the prosecution could not disprove it than GZ using his gun in self-defense makes him not guilty according to the LAW.
To you, you may have the MORAL belief that if one takes a life he is guilty of something no matter the circumstances. But your personal belief is not the society common agreed laws/regulations and you should learn the difference when arguing between them.
You are entitled to whatever moral apprehension of GZ. But throwing him in jail should be done according to the law in force when the crime happened, which is Florida/USA. And there, as all over the world, if you kill someone in self-defense then you are free. IF it wasn't self defense then there is a punishment.
So, thw question you should answer BEFORE stating that GZ should be punished is "was there self-defense?" And also,. according to the law you must not be 100% convinced. If you are just 1% then you still must say not guilty.
The system was designed this way because was commonly agreed that it's better to let 99 guys commit a crime and get away because of insufficient evidence than let 1 innocent person go to prison. MOM used some nice Adam's quotes I think 250 years ago which are still valid, and probably will be valid 250 years from now on, unless a 1984 Orweliian society somehow establishes itself in that distant future.
|
On July 13 2013 14:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:
heavens I believe your argument is that since Zimmerman was carrying a gun he had a heightened responsibility to avoid conflict and was negligent in not doing so.
I think this argument is wrong and partially a misapprehension on your part; people who have licenses to carry concealed firearms or who open carry in public do not usually go out with the apprehension that they will have to use their weapons.
Also Zimmerman did not apparently brandish his gun or try to use it at all until, according to him, he felt his life was threatened.
I agree that if you are carrying a gun you carry a much higher moral responsibility for avoiding conflict, and legally this is also the case. It is simply unknowable who started the physical altercation. It was not grossly negligent for Zimmerman to follow Trayvon, and according to him he lost sight of Trayvon and was actually on his way back to his vehicle when he was ambushed.
If that is all bs and it started with Zimmerman grabbing Trayvon's arm or something, that is a different story but I still don't think that would be grossly or criminally negligent. If he came up holding his gun in his waistband with one hand there wouldn't even be a controversy, but we can't know for sure exactly how the actual physical fight started.
As long as Zimmerman was not the initiator of physical force I don't see how his behavior was negligent or reckless.
In the end the question is was it reasonable for Zimmerman to believe his life was in danger. Even if he had started the fight, from the witness testimony it is obvious that Zimmerman did not immediately go for his gun. The circumstances are very important here. This wasn't a bar fight where after 1-2 shoves or 1-2 punches someone grabs a knife or a gun. Someone was definitely on top of someone beating him up good and then Trayvon got shot. If Zimmerman really was the guy on the bottom , getting his head punched into the ground / pavement, seems like it would be reasonable for him to think he was in danger of death or being maimed or crippled. And if that is a reasonable belief, he had a right to use lethal force to defend himself.
first off thanks for being so thorough in your response, i appreciate this type of discussion. you make a lot of sense, and you are correct in your interpretation of what i meant. perhaps i was incorrect with my using the phrase criminally negligent, thank you for clearing that up.
people who have licenses to carry concealed firearms or who open carry in public do not usually go out with the apprehension that they will have to use their weapons.
i agree, but they go out with the apprehension that they MIGHT have to use their weapon, otherwise why carry it? as such i believe it was irresponsible of zimmerman to continue pursuing and thereby placing himself in a situation with a potentially deadly outcome.
the problem with taking zimmerman's account of what happened is that trayvon is not alive to give his side and if i'm not mistaken zimmerman did not appear on the witness stand therefore his version of what happened is irrelevant. like you said we simply have no way of knowing what happened. but what we do know is that zimmerman disobeyed the dispatcher. i know it is not illegal, but surely it carries weight. this whole him walking back to his car after losing sight and then being ambushed thing is irrelevant, nothing backs this up. all we know is zimmerman followed him, thats known. it was irresponsible,careless, he should have known better, he probably did know better but he made the conscious decision to ignore it despite being told by the very police whose help he was seeking. this is why there is a jury, for matters like this. because the law is black and white but sometimes the reality is that the incident is not black and white. zimmerman made a mistake in following trayvon, i think we can all agree with that. the mistake ended up costing a human life.
|
On July 13 2013 14:50 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 14:45 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 14:30 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:22 forsooth wrote:On July 13 2013 14:12 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:04 LegalLord wrote:On July 13 2013 14:03 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 13:55 HeavenS wrote:
[quote]
you don't have to act illegally to display gross negligence, if that negligence leads to a death then the person should be held responsible. i appreciate the lack of hostility, ditto. if he didnt act in self defense (i.e., grossly negligent) then under the law he should be convicted of manslaughter. these are mutually exclusive. he either acted grossly negligent or under self defense. cant be both. i know lol....that is exactly what i am saying. im saying he was grossly negligent and therefore should be charged with manslaughter. i'd even go so far as to say that by placing himself in that situation, he shouldnt be able to claim self defense. i feel you cannot introduce yourself to a situation where you are the sole carrier of a firearm, be the person that escalates the situation, and then claim self defense, it just doesn't make sense to me. Keeping an eye on someone suspicious who ambushes you is grossly negligent? lol no...keeping an eye on someone is not grossly negligent, but im sure you already knew that judging by the rhetorical nature of the question you posed. however, actively pursuing someone after being told not to do so by police dispatcher after you have already requested help from the police, all while carrying a loaded weapon knowing full well what some of the possible outcomes could be is grossly negligent at best and criminal at worst. that to me is pretty self explanatory. The dispatcher's word was not law, and neither carrying a weapon nor following Martin were illegal either. Doesn't mean he made a good decision in doing so, but it's also not something he can be punished for in court. The trial is to determine whether the shooting itself was lawful or not. doesnt matter if it isnt illegal, if negligence results in a death then it can and should be punished in court. once again, if its negligent, its illegal. these are mutually exclusive things. you are basically saying his acts are both legal and illegal at the same time. it makes absolutely no sense. its not making sense to you because you are interpreting the word in a legal context which is probably my fault for not being more clear. + Show Spoiler +neg·li·gent
[neg-li-juhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
guilty of or characterized by neglect, as of duty
2.
lazily careless; offhand
neglect
Use Neglect in a sentence
ne·glect
[ni-glekt] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to pay no attention or too little attention to; disregard or slight
2.
to be remiss in the care or treatment of
3.
to omit, through indifference or carelessness so be more specific. are you saying he should go to prison for 30 years because he was careless? because then you are violating his constitutional rights to be free from ex post facto laws. that seems a greater injustice than letting him go free.
i am saying he should be punished because it was his carelessness that resulted in the death of a person.
|
zimmerman's side came in through interviews. so, his version is quite relevant.
and people carry guns for the same reason they carry condoms. they arent normally expecting to use them, but when they need them, they are there.
|
On July 13 2013 15:08 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 14:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 14:45 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 14:30 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:22 forsooth wrote:On July 13 2013 14:12 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:04 LegalLord wrote:On July 13 2013 14:03 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:57 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
if he didnt act in self defense (i.e., grossly negligent) then under the law he should be convicted of manslaughter. these are mutually exclusive. he either acted grossly negligent or under self defense. cant be both. i know lol....that is exactly what i am saying. im saying he was grossly negligent and therefore should be charged with manslaughter. i'd even go so far as to say that by placing himself in that situation, he shouldnt be able to claim self defense. i feel you cannot introduce yourself to a situation where you are the sole carrier of a firearm, be the person that escalates the situation, and then claim self defense, it just doesn't make sense to me. Keeping an eye on someone suspicious who ambushes you is grossly negligent? lol no...keeping an eye on someone is not grossly negligent, but im sure you already knew that judging by the rhetorical nature of the question you posed. however, actively pursuing someone after being told not to do so by police dispatcher after you have already requested help from the police, all while carrying a loaded weapon knowing full well what some of the possible outcomes could be is grossly negligent at best and criminal at worst. that to me is pretty self explanatory. The dispatcher's word was not law, and neither carrying a weapon nor following Martin were illegal either. Doesn't mean he made a good decision in doing so, but it's also not something he can be punished for in court. The trial is to determine whether the shooting itself was lawful or not. doesnt matter if it isnt illegal, if negligence results in a death then it can and should be punished in court. once again, if its negligent, its illegal. these are mutually exclusive things. you are basically saying his acts are both legal and illegal at the same time. it makes absolutely no sense. its not making sense to you because you are interpreting the word in a legal context which is probably my fault for not being more clear. + Show Spoiler +neg·li·gent
[neg-li-juhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
guilty of or characterized by neglect, as of duty
2.
lazily careless; offhand
neglect
Use Neglect in a sentence
ne·glect
[ni-glekt] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to pay no attention or too little attention to; disregard or slight
2.
to be remiss in the care or treatment of
3.
to omit, through indifference or carelessness so be more specific. are you saying he should go to prison for 30 years because he was careless? because then you are violating his constitutional rights to be free from ex post facto laws. that seems a greater injustice than letting him go free. i am saying he should be punished because it was his carelessness that resulted in the death of a person.
and im saying that punishing someone for an act that is completely legal because you decide after the fact that you consider it illegal is barbaric.
|
On July 13 2013 15:08 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 14:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 14:45 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 14:30 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:22 forsooth wrote:On July 13 2013 14:12 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:04 LegalLord wrote:On July 13 2013 14:03 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:57 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
if he didnt act in self defense (i.e., grossly negligent) then under the law he should be convicted of manslaughter. these are mutually exclusive. he either acted grossly negligent or under self defense. cant be both. i know lol....that is exactly what i am saying. im saying he was grossly negligent and therefore should be charged with manslaughter. i'd even go so far as to say that by placing himself in that situation, he shouldnt be able to claim self defense. i feel you cannot introduce yourself to a situation where you are the sole carrier of a firearm, be the person that escalates the situation, and then claim self defense, it just doesn't make sense to me. Keeping an eye on someone suspicious who ambushes you is grossly negligent? lol no...keeping an eye on someone is not grossly negligent, but im sure you already knew that judging by the rhetorical nature of the question you posed. however, actively pursuing someone after being told not to do so by police dispatcher after you have already requested help from the police, all while carrying a loaded weapon knowing full well what some of the possible outcomes could be is grossly negligent at best and criminal at worst. that to me is pretty self explanatory. The dispatcher's word was not law, and neither carrying a weapon nor following Martin were illegal either. Doesn't mean he made a good decision in doing so, but it's also not something he can be punished for in court. The trial is to determine whether the shooting itself was lawful or not. doesnt matter if it isnt illegal, if negligence results in a death then it can and should be punished in court. once again, if its negligent, its illegal. these are mutually exclusive things. you are basically saying his acts are both legal and illegal at the same time. it makes absolutely no sense. its not making sense to you because you are interpreting the word in a legal context which is probably my fault for not being more clear. + Show Spoiler +neg·li·gent
[neg-li-juhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
guilty of or characterized by neglect, as of duty
2.
lazily careless; offhand
neglect
Use Neglect in a sentence
ne·glect
[ni-glekt] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to pay no attention or too little attention to; disregard or slight
2.
to be remiss in the care or treatment of
3.
to omit, through indifference or carelessness so be more specific. are you saying he should go to prison for 30 years because he was careless? because then you are violating his constitutional rights to be free from ex post facto laws. that seems a greater injustice than letting him go free. i am saying he should be punished because it was his carelessness that resulted in the death of a person.
You could say he's already been punished in the public eye in addition to legal costs and whatnot. Even if he walks free he'll probably spend a long time with people treating him like he's guilty, he might have a hard time getting certain jobs he may want and so on. Isn't that enough considering the weak legal evidence of his guilt, even if you think he acted unwise on that night?
|
You're not understanding what criminal negligence means. It means you did something ILLEGAL. If I purposely ran over a person on purpose that would be murder. If I was speeding I would get manslaughter for my ILLEGAL negligence. If I forget to check my mirror and get someone killed I don't get charged for my mistake. That's not negligence even though I did something wrong.
|
On July 13 2013 15:00 Kakaru2 wrote:
@HEAVENS - This is a criminal case, is there OTHER interpretation of negligent EXCEPT the legal one?
You have this premade idea that if one carries a gun with him he is somehow responsible for whatever bad things happen around him. That already make su biased in regard to Zimmerman case.
IS there a reasonable possibility that TM attacked GZ by ambushing him in a dark alley? If there is because the prosecution could not disprove it than GZ using his gun in self-defense makes him not guilty according to the LAW.
To you, you may have the MORAL belief that if one takes a life he is guilty of something no matter the circumstances. But your personal belief is not the society common agreed laws/regulations and you should learn the difference when arguing between them.
You are entitled to whatever moral apprehension of GZ. But throwing him in jail should be done according to the law in force when the crime happened, which is Florida/USA. And there, as all over the world, if you kill someone in self-defense then you are free. IF it wasn't self defense then there is a punishment.
So, thw question you should answer BEFORE stating that GZ should be punished is "was there self-defense?" And also,. according to the law you must not be 100% convinced. If you are just 1% then you still must say not guilty.
The system was designed this way because was commonly agreed that it's better to let 99 guys commit a crime and get away because of insufficient evidence than let 1 innocent person go to prison. MOM used some nice Adam's quotes I think 250 years ago which are still valid, and probably will be valid 250 years from now on, unless a 1984 Orweliian society somehow establishes itself in that distant future.
first off, you are incorrect in your assumption that i have that premade idea. pls don't put words in my mouth, i never said if you carry a gun then you are responsible for every bad thing that happens around you. however you DO carry a greater responsibility to be sensible in your actions.
i AGREE with you that the use of deadly force in self defense is justified. furthemore i know the difference b/w moral beliefs and laws. you should learn that just because someone disagrees with you it does not make them an idiot.
you make a good point that the question that should be asked is was there self defense? should you be able to claim self defense in this situation if it was zimmerman's irresponsibility that aggravated the situation when it did not NEED to be aggravated at all? trayvon could have claimed self defense too if he was alive, but he is not so why should we honor zimmerman's when we don't even have enough information to know who was the aggressor besides the known fact that zimmerman chose to follow?
someone above me used a barfight as an example so ill stick to that.
if you get in a barfight with someone and the cops get called and break it up. they question you about the fight and you claim self defense, are you going to jail? yep. how are you going to claim self defense when you were involved in a fight. and this happens all the time, people willingly get into fights then theyre all like oh self defense, yet the cop knows better and arrests your ass anyways and the other guy too. same shit here, how is zimmerman going to claim self defense when his actions initially escalated the situation in the first place? look im not saying its clear cut that he should be convicted but its not as simple as you guys are saying. zimmerman has fault in this, that much is evident. i trust the jury's decision whatever it ends up being.
|
On July 13 2013 15:10 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 15:08 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 14:45 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 14:30 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:22 forsooth wrote:On July 13 2013 14:12 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:04 LegalLord wrote:On July 13 2013 14:03 HeavenS wrote:
[quote]
i know lol....that is exactly what i am saying. im saying he was grossly negligent and therefore should be charged with manslaughter. i'd even go so far as to say that by placing himself in that situation, he shouldnt be able to claim self defense. i feel you cannot introduce yourself to a situation where you are the sole carrier of a firearm, be the person that escalates the situation, and then claim self defense, it just doesn't make sense to me. Keeping an eye on someone suspicious who ambushes you is grossly negligent? lol no...keeping an eye on someone is not grossly negligent, but im sure you already knew that judging by the rhetorical nature of the question you posed. however, actively pursuing someone after being told not to do so by police dispatcher after you have already requested help from the police, all while carrying a loaded weapon knowing full well what some of the possible outcomes could be is grossly negligent at best and criminal at worst. that to me is pretty self explanatory. The dispatcher's word was not law, and neither carrying a weapon nor following Martin were illegal either. Doesn't mean he made a good decision in doing so, but it's also not something he can be punished for in court. The trial is to determine whether the shooting itself was lawful or not. doesnt matter if it isnt illegal, if negligence results in a death then it can and should be punished in court. once again, if its negligent, its illegal. these are mutually exclusive things. you are basically saying his acts are both legal and illegal at the same time. it makes absolutely no sense. its not making sense to you because you are interpreting the word in a legal context which is probably my fault for not being more clear. + Show Spoiler +neg·li·gent
[neg-li-juhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
guilty of or characterized by neglect, as of duty
2.
lazily careless; offhand
neglect
Use Neglect in a sentence
ne·glect
[ni-glekt] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to pay no attention or too little attention to; disregard or slight
2.
to be remiss in the care or treatment of
3.
to omit, through indifference or carelessness so be more specific. are you saying he should go to prison for 30 years because he was careless? because then you are violating his constitutional rights to be free from ex post facto laws. that seems a greater injustice than letting him go free. i am saying he should be punished because it was his carelessness that resulted in the death of a person. and im saying that punishing someone for an act that is completely legal because you decide after the fact that you consider it illegal is barbaric.
it happens all the time though, parents get prosecuted because their kid kills themselves after finding their parents gun. its attributed to carelessness by the parents and negligence and they are prosecuted. its not so barbaric to think that someone who takes a life through willful ignorance should be held accountable.
edit: guys im going to sleep, its 2:30 am in miami and im tired af. lets try to remember that different viewpoints are OKAY and that is the purpose of these forums. we can at least agree to disagree because at the end of the day im glad to be having this discussion. goodnight zzzZZZzz
|
On July 13 2013 13:28 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 12:42 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On July 13 2013 11:37 zbedlam wrote:On July 13 2013 11:35 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2013 11:32 zbedlam wrote:On July 13 2013 11:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 13 2013 10:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2013 09:43 ThreeAcross wrote:On July 13 2013 09:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2013 08:49 TheRealArtemis wrote:
[quote]
Wow..I can say some offensive shit from time to time, but this guy didnt even bother to masquerade it lol. -_-
I have the feeling that there will be a verdict tomorrow. Im sure that the majority of them feel the same, but want to go over the details to persuade the rest. The banned post's writer reflects that part of the United States a few of us have referred to, where seemingly decent normal individuals actually are complete racist bigots to an obscene degree and had they not just come out and just said it you would of never known. How do you know he is from the States? You do see his location says UK right? Not saying he's from the states just that type of person is out there( and it would surprise you who they are) or more accurately poster where you have hundreds of posts with little to no posts that would come anywhere close to that level of racism and bigotry. Then Bam! Says something showing him as currently irredeemably racist or so childish and petty I would say something so offensive "for the lol's" Just a random example of how you never really know what kind of things someone could be thinking before they say or do something. Not to mention helps you understand what kind of person Trayvon likely thought was following him. Reflects more on you than on the United States that you would make such a statement... The religious belief that America in particular and Western society in general is chock full of secret and/or unconscious racism bubbling just under the surface is a matter of faith and as such unfortunately is not up for fact-based debate. You find someone who believes it and it is very unlikely that any amount of evidence will change that dogma. And it results in silly posts like that quoted. You have a minority taking up the majority of space in prison. You have towns labelled as having high black population which is synonymous with high crime and poverty. Racism exists for a reason. Since when do objective statistics constitute racism? Didn't say the statistics were racist. I said there is an objective reason why racism is well entrenched in American culture. You've got your causality reversed. Institutional racism produces those outcomes (which individual racists may incorrectly use to justify their beliefs, but I don't think you're talking about individuals when you talk about "racism...in American culture." I don't think racism has ever been about hating on individuals, in my experience it is isn't even directed at the race itself but more the culture associated with that race.
No one said that racism was about hating individuals. "Individual racists" refers to racism as a personal prejudice in any particular individual(s), in contrast to institutional racism, which is inequality between races resulting from the institutions and systems in society.
|
On July 13 2013 15:26 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 15:00 Kakaru2 wrote:
@HEAVENS - This is a criminal case, is there OTHER interpretation of negligent EXCEPT the legal one?
You have this premade idea that if one carries a gun with him he is somehow responsible for whatever bad things happen around him. That already make su biased in regard to Zimmerman case.
IS there a reasonable possibility that TM attacked GZ by ambushing him in a dark alley? If there is because the prosecution could not disprove it than GZ using his gun in self-defense makes him not guilty according to the LAW.
To you, you may have the MORAL belief that if one takes a life he is guilty of something no matter the circumstances. But your personal belief is not the society common agreed laws/regulations and you should learn the difference when arguing between them.
You are entitled to whatever moral apprehension of GZ. But throwing him in jail should be done according to the law in force when the crime happened, which is Florida/USA. And there, as all over the world, if you kill someone in self-defense then you are free. IF it wasn't self defense then there is a punishment.
So, thw question you should answer BEFORE stating that GZ should be punished is "was there self-defense?" And also,. according to the law you must not be 100% convinced. If you are just 1% then you still must say not guilty.
The system was designed this way because was commonly agreed that it's better to let 99 guys commit a crime and get away because of insufficient evidence than let 1 innocent person go to prison. MOM used some nice Adam's quotes I think 250 years ago which are still valid, and probably will be valid 250 years from now on, unless a 1984 Orweliian society somehow establishes itself in that distant future. first off, you are incorrect in your assumption that i have that premade idea. pls don't put words in my mouth, i never said if you carry a gun then you are responsible for every bad thing that happens around you. however you DO carry a greater responsibility to be sensible in your actions. i AGREE with you that the use of deadly force in self defense is justified. furthemore i know the difference b/w moral beliefs and laws. you should learn that just because someone disagree with you it does not make them an idiot. you're make a good point that the question that should be asked is was there self defense? should you be able to claim self defense in this situation if it was zimmerman's irresponsibility that aggravated the situation when it did not NEED to be aggravated at all? trayvon could have claimed self defense too if he was alive, but he is not so why should we honor zimmerman's when we don't even have enough information to know who was the aggressor besides the known fact that zimmerman chose to follow? someone above me used a barfight as an example so ill stick to that. if you get in a barfight with someone and the cops get called and break it up. they question you about the fight and you claim self defense, are you going to jail? yep. how are you going to claim self defense when you were involved in a fight. and this happens all the time, people willingly get into fights then theyre all like oh self defense, yet the cop knows better and arrests your ass anyways and the other guy too. same shit here, how is zimmerman going to claim self defense when his actions initially escalated the situation in the first place? look im not saying its clear cut that he should be convicted but its not as simple as you guys are saying. zimmerman has fault in this, that much is evident. i trust the jury's decision whatever it ends up being.
The prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense when he shot Trayvon Martin. The prosecution's argument was nearly entirely based on emotions and filling in the blanks, not evidence. The actual evidence supports the self-defense claim. It actually is pretty much "clear cut", however you simply never know whether a jury will go by the law and evidence or by emotion, that is really why people aren't sure how the verdict will come down.
|
On July 13 2013 15:31 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 15:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 15:08 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 14:45 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 14:30 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:22 forsooth wrote:On July 13 2013 14:12 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:04 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Keeping an eye on someone suspicious who ambushes you is grossly negligent? lol no...keeping an eye on someone is not grossly negligent, but im sure you already knew that judging by the rhetorical nature of the question you posed. however, actively pursuing someone after being told not to do so by police dispatcher after you have already requested help from the police, all while carrying a loaded weapon knowing full well what some of the possible outcomes could be is grossly negligent at best and criminal at worst. that to me is pretty self explanatory. The dispatcher's word was not law, and neither carrying a weapon nor following Martin were illegal either. Doesn't mean he made a good decision in doing so, but it's also not something he can be punished for in court. The trial is to determine whether the shooting itself was lawful or not. doesnt matter if it isnt illegal, if negligence results in a death then it can and should be punished in court. once again, if its negligent, its illegal. these are mutually exclusive things. you are basically saying his acts are both legal and illegal at the same time. it makes absolutely no sense. its not making sense to you because you are interpreting the word in a legal context which is probably my fault for not being more clear. + Show Spoiler +neg·li·gent
[neg-li-juhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
guilty of or characterized by neglect, as of duty
2.
lazily careless; offhand
neglect
Use Neglect in a sentence
ne·glect
[ni-glekt] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to pay no attention or too little attention to; disregard or slight
2.
to be remiss in the care or treatment of
3.
to omit, through indifference or carelessness so be more specific. are you saying he should go to prison for 30 years because he was careless? because then you are violating his constitutional rights to be free from ex post facto laws. that seems a greater injustice than letting him go free. i am saying he should be punished because it was his carelessness that resulted in the death of a person. and im saying that punishing someone for an act that is completely legal because you decide after the fact that you consider it illegal is barbaric. it happens all the time though, parents get prosecuted because their kid kills themselves after finding their parents gun. its attributed to carelessness by the parents and negligence and they are prosecuted. its not so barbaric to think that someone who takes a life through willful ignorance should be held accountable. edit: guys im going to sleep, its 2:30 am in miami and im tired af. lets try to remember that different viewpoints are OKAY and that is the purpose of these forums. we can at least agree to disagree because at the end of the day im glad to be having this discussion. goodnight zzzZZZzz
What does your reply have to do with the line you quoted ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
