EPTShooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 414
| Forum Index > General Forum |
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. | ||
|
crms
United States11933 Posts
| ||
|
Kris312
United States70 Posts
On July 14 2013 08:21 crms wrote: what's the status? jury still deliberating? any updates? Still deliberating. | ||
|
Esk23
United States447 Posts
On July 14 2013 08:19 Kaitlin wrote: I'm not sure what's racist about what I said or what modifier is missing. The question was why was this case a big deal, and I pointed out why it became a big deal. It became a big deal because the media twisted the facts of the case and made it look like a civil rights case which we now know is not. A civil rights case for Blacks, but we now know this case has nothing to do with being black, it could've been any race. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 14 2013 08:20 Velocirapture wrote: Like i said, Im not saying he is guilty. Im basically saying that forensics seems largely inconclusive in this matter barring some very extreme circumstances. If the gun shot had come when they were standing would self defense be invalid? If the shot had been in the head would the self defense claim be invalid? Since the answer to these questions is no, I am simply asking what possible piece forensic evidence apart from witnesses or records excludes self defense since I can't think of one. While I agree that "innocent until proven guilty" is necessary, it would be disconcerting if murder only requires the consideration of 3 or 4 variables to get away with. If forensics showed that Trayvon was shot in the back or the back of the head from a distance of 10 to 20 feet, it would be a difficult self-defense case, forensically. | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On July 14 2013 08:20 Velocirapture wrote: Like i said, Im not saying he is guilty. Im basically saying that forensics seems largely inconclusive in this matter barring some very extreme circumstances. If the gun shot had come when they were standing would self defense be invalid? If the shot had been in the head would the self defense claim be invalid? Since the answer to these questions is no, I am simply asking what possible piece forensic evidence apart from witnesses or records excludes self defense since I can't think of one. While I agree that "innocent until proven guilty" is necessary, it would be disconcerting if murder only requires the consideration of 3 or 4 variables to get away with. It´s important if it contradicts his story. The criminal has no idea what the forensics will say, and his story will be diferent from the reality since his is guilty, so if the experts find something that proves he is lieing it messes with his credibility. | ||
|
hp.Shell
United States2527 Posts
This case makes me really depressed. | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On July 14 2013 08:24 hp.Shell wrote: I would love to see more self-defense cases where there are only non-fatal gunshot wounds involved, as opposed to fatal ones. It is probably possible to shoot your attacker in, say, the arm or leg instead of directly in the heart if you have access to the chest area. In the split second I would have to decide to pull the trigger, I'd definitely make every effort to make the wound non-fatal. Why does the wound have to be fatal? This case makes me really depressed. Because it's efficient. The same reason the police shoots in the center of mass of the body. Limbs are easy to miss and a bullet in his arm often can not incapacitate him enough to stop him from killing you. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
On July 14 2013 08:19 Kaitlin wrote: I'm not sure what's racist about what I said or what modifier is missing. The question was why was this case a big deal, and I pointed out why it became a big deal. Contrary to what Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson say, not every black person assumes injustice given the information the public has been given. Generally, "black people" is not a helpful group signifier. | ||
|
hp.Shell
United States2527 Posts
| ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 14 2013 08:24 hp.Shell wrote: I would love to see more self-defense cases where there are only non-fatal gunshot wounds involved, as opposed to fatal ones. It is probably possible to shoot your attacker in, say, the arm or leg instead of directly in the heart if you have access to the chest area. In the split second I would have to decide to pull the trigger, I'd definitely make every effort to make the wound non-fatal. Why does the wound have to be fatal? This case makes me really depressed. Anyone learning about proper usage of firearms learns that the use of the firearm is to "stop the threat". Police (excluding specially trained SWAT snipers) do NOT aim for extremities, to shoot guns or knives out of people's hands, etc. They shoot "center mass". It is not an intent to kill, but only to stop the threat. These days, attackers are frequently on drugs and don't feel many effects, so a shot in the leg, arm, whatever won't necessarily stop them, let alone it's more difficult to hit the target when it's an arm or leg. The "center mass" is the easiest to hit and most likely to stop the threat. That is why that is the target. You hope they don't die, but that is a distant secondary concern. | ||
|
rasnj
United States1959 Posts
On July 14 2013 08:20 Velocirapture wrote: Like i said, Im not saying he is guilty. Im basically saying that forensics seems largely inconclusive in this matter barring some very extreme circumstances. If the gun shot had come when they were standing would self defense be invalid? If the shot had been in the head would the self defense claim be invalid? Since the answer to these questions is no, I am simply asking what possible piece forensic evidence apart from witnesses or records excludes self defense since I can't think of one. While I agree that "innocent until proven guilty" is necessary, it would be disconcerting if murder only requires the consideration of 3 or 4 variables to get away with. The rule really should be that you are convicted of murder if and only if you have commited murder, but that rule does just not work in the real world. If there is nothing to prove you have done anything wrong, then you should not just not get convicted. It is by far the lesser of the two evils we have to choose between. In any case these 3 or 4 variables are just not easy to control. You will need some kind of story, and do you really know what kind of stuff forensics scientists may conclude based on evidence and can you keep track of what may eventually contradict your story? Can you really know when there are witnesses nearby? If you can control these things, then you should also be able to just not get caught which seems like a safer way to escape punishment. In the end what you are saying boils down to "It would be disconcerting if murder only requires not leaving evidence of murder.", which simply must be how the system has to work if you believe in the "innocent until proven guilty" ideal. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 14 2013 08:27 farvacola wrote: Contrary to what Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson say, not every black person assumes injustice given the information the public has been given. Generally, "black people" is not a helpful group signifier. But my statement was a response to a question of why it became a big deal. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are two BIG factors in why it became a big deal. "Black people" is a relevant phrase as to why this case became a big deal. Can we get off race now, and back to the actual case ? | ||
|
IMHope
Korea (South)1241 Posts
On July 14 2013 08:24 hp.Shell wrote: I would love to see more self-defense cases where there are only non-fatal gunshot wounds involved, as opposed to fatal ones. It is probably possible to shoot your attacker in, say, the arm or leg instead of directly in the heart if you have access to the chest area. In the split second I would have to decide to pull the trigger, I'd definitely make every effort to make the wound non-fatal. Why does the wound have to be fatal? This case makes me really depressed. Well when you are in a situation where you have to defend yourself sometimes you don't think about giving someone a non fatal wound more than protecting your own life. Also like someone else already mention aiming at the body or chest will increase your chances of hitting the other person rather than trying to aim for a leg or arm which is easier to miss and possibly harder to aim at. | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On July 14 2013 08:30 hp.Shell wrote: Well if he hasn't stopped trying to kill you after you shoot him in the arm, keep shooting him in the arm until he DOES stop. You still don't have to kill him. You have the superior weapon. If you are capable of firing that weapon, you are in control of how that situation resolves itself. If you are in control of the situation you are not allowed to kill him anymore. You use the gun because you are not in control of the situation. If you are a safe distance away, able to shoot and wait to see how he reacts (or even disengage), you are not shooting in self defense. You shoot because he is trying to kill you, and if you shoot him in the arm while he tries to kill you he may still succeed. | ||
|
SjPhotoGrapher
181 Posts
On July 14 2013 08:30 hp.Shell wrote: Well if he hasn't stopped trying to kill you after you shoot him in the arm, keep shooting him in the arm until he DOES stop. You still don't have to kill him. You have the superior weapon. If you are capable of firing that weapon, you are in control of how that situation resolves itself. Try getting into a situation like his and than try to say that shooting someone in an area as small as an arm or leg is efficient especially when you're getting beat to death, any blow can knock you out, and your heart is pounding out of your chest and you can hardly aim in the first place and doing something as simple as pulling the gun from your holster might seem like a lifetime. | ||
|
Grimmyman123
Canada939 Posts
Who swung first? Obviously there was a verbal confrontation or questioning initiated by the accused of the deceased, but when did it escalate to a physical confrontation? Who swung first? I try to ignore opinion and suggestions - what does actual physical evidence say? If the deceased swung first, then the accused was defending themselves. The accused has been shown having marks from combat - more than I would figure from a grown man fending off a 17 year old young man. That tells me that he was beaten pretty good - enough warranting deadly force? Did the accused ever gain control of the situation, and if so, did he lose control, where deadly force was warranted? Personal thoughts: I do hate trials and such where they try to illicit personal feelings, and introduce ideas based on ideas not on tangible facts. The idea that being 17 means he is a little boy (portrayed as a child, almost infantile) means nothing to me. The suggestions in the trial about racial profiling further means nothing to me on this case. The youth was effectively trespassing in a gated private community, to which he did not belong or reside. That alone is enough to warrant suspicion. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On July 14 2013 08:30 hp.Shell wrote: Well if he hasn't stopped trying to kill you after you shoot him in the arm, keep shooting him in the arm until he DOES stop. You still don't have to kill him. You have the superior weapon. If you are capable of firing that weapon, you are in control of how that situation resolves itself. Every cop I've ever talked to says that shooting someone in the leg/arm is not viable. | ||
|
hp.Shell
United States2527 Posts
On July 14 2013 08:43 SjPhotoGrapher wrote: Try getting into a situation like his and than try to say that shooting someone in an area as small as an arm or leg is efficient especially when you're getting beat to death, any blow can knock you out, and your heart is pounding out of your chest and you can hardly aim in the first place and doing something as simple as pulling the gun from your holster might seem like a lifetime. It just seems coincidence that if something as small as an arm or leg is so hard to hit, then the defender would put a bullet in the heart. To me that says he had aim. | ||
|
shockaslim
United States1105 Posts
On July 14 2013 08:14 Kaitlin wrote: Black people seem to take offense when a black teenager is walking home from the candy store, is shot dead, the killer tells the cops he did it, and the cops don't arrest him. Black person here. I honestly can say that all of my family, and all of my black friends think Zimmerman is guilty just because the victim was black. Media spun this in so many ways to make this about race when it really wasn't in the first place. They turned the phrase, "Fucking punks. The assholes always get away" into some warped racial hatred line. Not to mention black people are almost religiously taught and are told that if anything bad happens to you at the hand of someone who is not black then it was due to race. | ||
|
Grimmyman123
Canada939 Posts
If one discharges a firearm at another individual, the intent and purpose of that discharge is to kill. Not to maim or incapacitate. As for opinion as to firing with aim to an appendage, it can be done, with accuracy (with training) at closer ranges (eg. less than 20 or 30 feet). See above regarding maiming though. | ||
| ||
