|
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. |
Here we have a defense that logically invalidates itself. If you're going to claim Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, then I don't see how you can deny that right to Trayvon. Here we have an aggressive armed man following an unarmed teenager around a dark street at night for reasons that would not have been apparent to Trayvon. It is unclear exactly how the situation escalated, but what is clear is that if Zimmerman can claim self defense, then Trayvon most certainly could have. If Trayvon felt his life was being threatened he had the right to defend himself, even if it would have been unwise. You have to deny Trayvon the right to defend himself to hold him up as an aggressor, which is illogical if you believe in the right to self defense to the extent that it validates a killing like this. Both of these men can't claim to be acting in the interest of self preservation, one of them is the aggressor. It is illogical to hold up the actions of a man seeking an armed confrontation for no apparent reason and then shooting and killing an unarmed teenager as self defense by misrepresenting Trayvon as the aggressor, and in doing so denying Trayvon that same right to self defense. And that's even assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which is a dubious claim in and of itself.
On April 12 2012 23:11 RCMDVA wrote:
7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
Arming yourself with a lethal weapon and pursuing someone, who is not actually doing anything wrong, with the intent of instigating a potentially deadly confrontation is an imminently dangerous act that shows very little regard for human life. This is likely the reason the 9-1-1 dispatcher advised against it. Doing so because you believe black people are guilty by virtue of being black demonstrates a depraved mind. Instigating a potentially deadly confrontation with a lethal weapon against someone that in your depravity you believe to be dangerous (and are therefore ready to shoot), killing him after you've likely given him little option but to attempt to defend himself, ignoring his rightful claim to defend himself, and subsequently claiming you were acting in the interests of self preservation demonstrates a depraved mind. People acting in the interests of self preservation do not precipitate armed conflicts. And even with that, that's still assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which may not even have been the case.
|
On April 13 2012 03:21 sevencck wrote:Here we have a defense that logically invalidates itself. If you're going to claim Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, then I don't see how you can deny that right to Trayvon. Here we have an aggressive armed man following an unarmed teenager around a dark street at night for reasons that would not have been apparent to Trayvon. It is unclear exactly how the situation escalated, but what is clear is that if Zimmerman can claim self defense, then Trayvon most certainly could have. If Trayvon felt his life was being threatened he had the right to defend himself, even if it would have been unwise. Both of these men can't claim to be acting in the interest of self preservation, one of them is the aggressor. It is illogical to hold up the actions of a man seeking an armed confrontation for no apparent reason and then shooting and killing an unarmed teenager as self defense by denying Trayvon that same right to defend himself (the right which people defending Zimmerman are so quick to acknowledge), and subsequently misrepresenting Trayvon as the aggressor. And that's even assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which is a dubious claim in and of itself. Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 23:11 RCMDVA wrote:
7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. Arming yourself with a lethal weapon and pursuing someone, who is not actually doing anything wrong, with the intent of instigating a potentially deadly confrontation is an imminently dangerous act that shows very little regard for human life. Doing so because you believe black people are guilty by virtue of being black demonstrates a depraved mind. Instigating a potentially deadly confrontation with a lethal weapon against someone that in your depravity you believe to be dangerous (and are therefore ready to shoot), killing him after you've likely given him little option but to attempt to defend himself, ignoring his rightful claim to defend himself, and subsequently claiming you were acting in the interests of self preservation demonstrates a depraved mind. People acting in the interests of self preservation do not precipitate armed conflicts. And even with that, that's still assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which may not even have been the case.
Very good points imho, as I feel quite similar about the situation.
The main points (for me) that don´t go go into GZ's favor are the fact that Zimmerman followed him with a gun - especially and even after a 911 dispatcher told him not to. If he acted accordingly to what the dispatcher said, this situation could have been(most likely, and in my opinion) prevented. TM was per pedes, and GZ in a car - so it should have been quite possible and doable to let go the duty he felt as a neighbourhood watch guy and simply leave and let the police handle it from there.
Literally everything after the call and till the appearance of the police seems pretty blurry and filled more with preconceived notions than actual facts, so I am quite interested how the case will evolve in court and how the defendant´s lawyers and the prosecutor will try to argue here, and who will be able to create the more compelling and plausible story.
//edit typo.
|
Just a procedural point of inquiry,
Is it allowed in the US to discuss ongoing cases? Especially criminal ones?
|
On April 13 2012 03:21 sevencck wrote:Here we have a defense that logically invalidates itself. If you're going to claim Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, then I don't see how you can deny that right to Trayvon. Here we have an aggressive armed man following an unarmed teenager around a dark street at night for reasons that would not have been apparent to Trayvon. It is unclear exactly how the situation escalated, but what is clear is that if Zimmerman can claim self defense, then Trayvon most certainly could have. If Trayvon felt his life was being threatened he had the right to defend himself, even if it would have been unwise. You have to deny Trayvon the right to defend himself to hold him up as an aggressor, which is illogical if you believe in the right to self defense to the extent that it validates a killing like this. Both of these men can't claim to be acting in the interest of self preservation, one of them is the aggressor. It is illogical to hold up the actions of a man seeking an armed confrontation for no apparent reason and then shooting and killing an unarmed teenager as self defense by misrepresenting Trayvon as the aggressor, and in doing so denying Trayvon that same right to self defense. And that's even assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which is a dubious claim in and of itself. Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 23:11 RCMDVA wrote:
7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. Arming yourself with a lethal weapon and pursuing someone, who is not actually doing anything wrong, with the intent of instigating a potentially deadly confrontation is an imminently dangerous act that shows very little regard for human life. Doing so because you believe black people are guilty by virtue of being black demonstrates a depraved mind. Instigating a potentially deadly confrontation with a lethal weapon against someone that in your depravity you believe to be dangerous (and are therefore ready to shoot), killing him after you've likely given him little option but to attempt to defend himself, ignoring his rightful claim to defend himself, and subsequently claiming you were acting in the interests of self preservation demonstrates a depraved mind. People acting in the interests of self preservation do not precipitate armed conflicts. And even with that, that's still assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which may not even have been the case.
Agreed as well.
In addition, I think the mortician's analysis will probably serve as strong evidence to support the prosecution. If I recall correctly, he said there were none of the typical marks of a struggle or fight on Martin's body, and no marks on his hands or fists, which highly suggests he was not an aggressor in anyway.
Also, I'm hoping a forensics team can get an idea of where the bullet was fired, where it impacted, and the distance at which Martin's body received the bullet judging from bullet impact. If it can be proven it was shot at a distance of at least a few feet, that would also point against Zimmerman's story.
I'm not sure the audio samples will be all that useful, except to go against Zimmerman's claim that he was the one shouting, since if there are no audio samples of Martin, they can't show it was Martin screaming.
And I'd really wish the whole issue of race was kept separate (Zimmerman allegedly whispering "fucking coons" which I believe it is pretty clear he did say). What we need is to establish the facts first, discussing the whole race issue could potential obfuscate everything. Of course we can't avoid the issue, and it certainly should be investigated as a motive, but man ... things just get so ugly with that.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
If this thing does go to trial, jury selection is going to be interesting.
|
Here we have a defense that logically invalidates itself. If you're going to claim Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, then I don't see how you can deny that right to Trayvon. Here we have an aggressive armed man following an unarmed teenager around a dark street at night for reasons that would not have been apparent to Trayvon. It is unclear exactly how the situation escalated, but what is clear is that if Zimmerman can claim self defense, then Trayvon most certainly could have. If Trayvon felt his life was being threatened he had the right to defend himself, even if it would have been unwise. You have to deny Trayvon the right to defend himself to hold him up as an aggressor, which is illogical if you believe in the right to self defense to the extent that it validates a killing like this. Both of these men can't claim to be acting in the interest of self preservation, one of them is the aggressor. It is illogical to hold up the actions of a man seeking an armed confrontation for no apparent reason and then shooting and killing an unarmed teenager as self defense by misrepresenting Trayvon as the aggressor, and in doing so denying Trayvon that same right to self defense. And that's even assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which is a dubious claim in and of itself.
You mix a lot of unsupported assertions into this analysis, there's nothing dubious about Zimmerman's claim save that you believe that it is dubious. There are no known facts that contradict his claim that Martin attacked him. There are no facts to support the contention that Zimmerman was acting aggressively, arguing that asking someone "What are you doing here?" is aggressive to the point of constituting a physical threat is a far stretch. Holding that Martin had the right to defend himself does not strip away Zimmerman's right to defend himself if he genuinely believed in the moment that his life was in danger. There is no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman intended deadly force to be used, threatened to use it or attempted to use it until he felt his life was in danger. What you're saying is little more than mental gymnastics. What is truly illogical is constructing a series of events and reasons for them with no evidence backing it up and then making claims about logic. There is no evidence Zimmerman was seeking an armed confrontation for no reason.
Arming yourself with a lethal weapon and pursuing someone, who is not actually doing anything wrong, with the intent of instigating a potentially deadly confrontation is an imminently dangerous act that shows very little regard for human life. Doing so because you believe black people are guilty by virtue of being black demonstrates a depraved mind. Instigating a potentially deadly confrontation with a lethal weapon against someone that in your depravity you believe to be dangerous (and are therefore ready to shoot), killing him after you've likely given him little option but to attempt to defend himself, ignoring his rightful claim to defend himself, and subsequently claiming you were acting in the interests of self preservation demonstrates a depraved mind. People acting in the interests of self preservation do not precipitate armed conflicts. And even with that, that's still assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which may not even have been the case.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman had the intention of instigating anything other than a verbal confrontation. There is no evidence that Zimmerman believed Martin was guilty of anything solely by reason of his being black. That's an accusation of racism again with no evidence for it. You're just piling one assumption up after another to make a claim of depravity. Again, no armed conflict was 'precipitated.' A conflict began which in its course became an armed conflict. There has been no credible claim that Zimmerman drew his weapon or made its existence known until the point at which he used it. What you are saying is that Zimmerman wanted to have a physical altercation with Martin solely based on Martin's race. There's no evidence for this whatsoever.
Inflammatory arguments built on sand do not prove anything. Using some actual facts to form your opinion rather than assumptions is far better.
|
On April 13 2012 03:52 Telcontar wrote:
If this thing does go to trial, jury selection is going to be interesting.
I'm more interest in what judge presides over the case.
|
I'm so tired of race being brought in to this. He is half Hispanic, has extended family that is black. Friends of his that are black have come out in his defense, one of them being a news reporter. There are witnesses and proof that he was part of a mentoring program for black youth, and that he also actively protested, and distributed fliers to help a homeless black man that was beat up by a cop. So what everyone is saying is, that he either hid it really well from everyone, or that it's possible to just be racist against some black people and not all of them.
|
Zimmerman appeared in court today.
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20120410/US.Neighborhood.Watch/?cid=hero_media
SANFORD, Fla. — Neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman made his first court appearance Thursday on a second-degree murder charge in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, as a court document provided new details on the prosecution's case.
During the brief appearance, Zimmerman stood up straight, looked straight ahead and wore a gray prison jumpsuit. He spoke only to answer "Yes, sir," twice after he was asked basic questions about the charge against him and his attorney.
His hair was shaved down to stubble and he had a thin goatee, which appeared consistent with his booking photo from the day before. He had resurfaced Wednesday to turn himself in after weeks in hiding.
Judge Mark E. Herr said he found probable cause to move ahead with the case and that an arraignment would be held on May 29 before another judge.
The affidavit of probable cause prepared by prosecutors shed some light on why they chose to charge Zimmerman. The Orlando Sentinel said it had obtained a copy before it was expected to be filed with the courthouse.
The newspaper says that Martin's mother identified screams heard in the background of a 911 call as her son's. There had been some question as to whether Martin or Zimmerman was the one calling for help.
Prosecutors also interviewed a friend of Martin's who was talking to him just before the shooting. The affidavit says Martin told the witness he was being followed and was scared.
Martin tried to run home, the affidavit says, but was followed by Zimmerman: "Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin."
The affidavit says that "Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher" who told him to stop, and "continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home."
Speaking to reporters after the hearing, attorney Mark O'Mara said he was concerned that the case up to now has been handled in the public eye, with details coming out in piecemeal fashion.
"It's really supposed to happen in the courtroom," O'Mara said, deflecting questions about evidence in the case and his client's mental state.
Earlier Thursday on NBC's "Today" show, O'Mara said Zimmerman is stressed and very tired and hoping to get bail.
Meanwhile, Martin's mother raised eyebrows with her own comments on "Today" about the accidental nature of the case, but she clarified what she meant in another interview later in the day. Sybrina Fulton told The Associated Press that she was referring to the chance encounter between Zimmerman and her son.
"Their meeting was the accident," Fulton said. "That was the accident. Not the actual act of him shooting him. That was murder ... They were never supposed to meet."
Zimmerman was charged after a public campaign to make an arrest in the Feb. 26 shooting, which has galvanized the nation for weeks. Some legal experts had expected Zimmerman to face a lesser count of manslaughter and say a prosecutor will face steep hurdles to win a murder conviction.
The prosecutor and her team will have to prove that the 28-year-old Zimmerman intentionally went after Martin instead of shooting him in self-defense, to refute arguments that a Florida law empowered him to use deadly force.
Legal experts said Corey chose a tough route with the murder charge, which could send Zimmerman to prison for life if he's convicted, over manslaughter, which usually carries 15-year prison terms and covers reckless or negligent killings.
The prosecutors must prove Zimmerman's shooting of Martin was rooted in hatred or ill will and counter his claims that he shot Martin to protect himself while patrolling his gated community in the Orlando suburb of Sanford. Zimmerman's lawyers would only have to prove by a preponderance of evidence — a relatively low legal standard — that he acted in self-defense at a pretrial hearing to prevent the case from going to trial.
There's a "high likelihood it could be dismissed by the judge even before the jury gets to hear the case," Florida defense attorney Richard Hornsby said.
Corey announced the charges Wednesday after an extraordinary 45-day campaign for Zimmerman's arrest, led by Martin's parents and civil rights activists, including the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Protesters wore hooded sweatshirts like the one Martin had on the night of the shooting. The debate reached all the way to the White House, where President Barack Obama observed last month: "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon."
Corey would not discuss how she reconciled conflicting accounts of the shooting by Zimmerman, witnesses and phone recordings that indicated Martin thought Zimmerman was following him.
"We do not prosecute by public pressure or by petition. We prosecute based on the facts on any given case as well as the laws of the state of Florida," Corey said Wednesday. She was also present at Thursday's hearing.
Martin's parents expressed relief over the decision to prosecute the person who shot their son.
"The question I would really like to ask him is, if he could look into Trayvon's eyes and see how innocent he was, would he have then pulled the trigger? Or would he have just let him go on home?" said his father, Tracy Martin.
Many attorneys said they had expected the prosecutor to opt for the lesser charge of manslaughter. The most severe homicide charge, first-degree murder, is subject to the death penalty in Florida and requires premeditation — something all sides agreed was not present in this case.
"I predicted manslaughter, so I'm a little surprised," said Michael Seigel, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches law at the University of Florida. "But she has more facts than I do."
O'Mara, Zimmerman's attorney, said his client would plead not guilty and invoke Florida's so-called "stand your ground" law, which gives people wide latitude to use deadly force rather than retreat during a fight.
The confrontation took place in a gated community where Martin was staying with his father and his father's fiancée. Martin was walking back in the rain from a convenience store when Zimmerman spotted him and called 911. He followed the teenager despite being told not to by a police dispatcher and the two got into a struggle.
Zimmerman told police Martin punched him in the nose, knocking him down, and then began banging the volunteer's head on the sidewalk. Zimmerman said he shot Martin in fear for his life. Sanford police took Zimmerman, whose father is white and whose mother is Hispanic, into custody the night of the shooting but released him without charging him.
This is the part that gets me most, and lends to what I've already felt about the case being tried in front of a jury:
"There's a "high likelihood it could be dismissed by the judge even before the jury gets to hear the case," Florida defense attorney Richard Hornsby said."
Trayvon's mother also said that she doesn't believe the shooting was an accident, that their encounter was the accident.
|
Interesting, they will use the stand your ground law. I can´t blame O'mara to use everything at her/his disposal, but I am quite disgusted myself by this move. Seems like self defense on it´s own won´t cut it in their opinion.
|
On April 13 2012 03:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +
Here we have a defense that logically invalidates itself. If you're going to claim Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, then I don't see how you can deny that right to Trayvon. Here we have an aggressive armed man following an unarmed teenager around a dark street at night for reasons that would not have been apparent to Trayvon. It is unclear exactly how the situation escalated, but what is clear is that if Zimmerman can claim self defense, then Trayvon most certainly could have. If Trayvon felt his life was being threatened he had the right to defend himself, even if it would have been unwise. You have to deny Trayvon the right to defend himself to hold him up as an aggressor, which is illogical if you believe in the right to self defense to the extent that it validates a killing like this. Both of these men can't claim to be acting in the interest of self preservation, one of them is the aggressor. It is illogical to hold up the actions of a man seeking an armed confrontation for no apparent reason and then shooting and killing an unarmed teenager as self defense by misrepresenting Trayvon as the aggressor, and in doing so denying Trayvon that same right to self defense. And that's even assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which is a dubious claim in and of itself.
You mix a lot of unsupported assertions into this analysis, 1. there's nothing dubious about Zimmerman's claim save that you believe that it is dubious. 2. There are no known facts that contradict his claim that Martin attacked him. 3. There are no facts to support the contention that Zimmerman was acting aggressively, arguing that asking someone 4. "What are you doing here?" is aggressive to the point of constituting a physical threat is a far stretch. 5. Holding that Martin had the right to defend himself does not strip away Zimmerman's right to defend himself if he genuinely believed in the moment that his life was in danger. There is 6. no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman intended deadly force to be used, threatened to use it or attempted to use it until he felt his life was in danger. 7. What you're saying is little more than mental gymnastics. What is truly illogical is constructing a series of events and reasons for them with no evidence backing it up and then making claims about logic. 8. There is no evidence Zimmerman was seeking an armed confrontation for no reason.
OK, I think that virtually everything here is either wrong or inappropriate, so I'll just take it bolded sentence by bolded sentence.
1) It is dubious to believe a small 17 year old would attack a much larger aggressive armed 30 year old, in spite of the fact that it would have been his right to defend himself. It is dubious to believe that same armed 30 year old allowed himself to be overpowered to the point where lethal force was necessary. It is dubious to believe that same larger armed 30 year old was the one who cried for help with the victim dead and unable to argue that point.
2) A claim can be dubious and not have "facts to contradict it." I can claim I beat up 10 guys at once yesterday, and there may not be facts to contradict my claim. So your point is irrelevant. Notwithstanding the fact that there is about as much factual evidence to support his claim. I'll agree he has to be proven guilty, but his claim is still dubious.
3) Are you kidding me? Arming yourself with a lethal weapon, and pursuing a confrontation with someone with no backup or support in a dark street against the advice of the 9-1-1 dispatcher is virtually the definition of aggressive. Reckless too. And stupid, come to think of it.
4) Asking "What are you doing here?" isn't exactly what we're discussing is it? What we're discussing is a deliberate armed confrontation, and as you've pointed out yourself, with so many facts in doubt, it is difficult to establish if he even asked "What are you doing here?" So really all you're doing is speculating where there is a lack of evidence while denouncing me for what you consider to be the same (even though it isn't, I was outlining logic).
5) OK this is by far the most important point, and you are 100% wrong here. Let's imagine I want to kill someone. I can't aggressively confront this person with a weapon, wait until he tries to defend himself then murder him and claim I was acting in the spirit of self preservation, that is utterly ridiculous. You're getting into an indefensible area. Let's imagine Trayvon had a gun, recognized he was being aggressively pursued by an armed individual, pulled his gun to defend himself, and was shot and killed for it, regardless of how he had intended to use that gun. Who is to blame? It has to be the aggressor not the defender. Otherwise you have a set of rules that do not make sense. So if I want to kill someone I can just wait till he has a gun in his possession, aggressively follow him around, and kill him when he tries to defend himself? And I suppose if someone asks me what I was doing I can claim I was defending the neighborhood? Why has this insane man even taken up the mantle of neighborhood defender? Acts of indiscriminate armed aggression do not constitute responsible neighborhood defense.
6) He confronted someone with a gun. Your point is irrelevant. How can this logic even be applied here when it is already fully condemned elsewhere? If you confront a police officer with a gun and it gets you into a struggle where someone dies, that's your fault for being stupid and irresponsible. Nobody's going to say, "well there was no evidence he intended deadly force to be used," even as I type that it sounds ridiculous. I don't know if it matters whether he showed his gun or not, the fact remains that a man is dead as a result of his hotheaded and irresponsible stupidity. Notwithstanding the fact that, as you've pointed out before, there is no evidence for whether he did or did not present his gun, so again you're just speculating.
7) I find it hilarious that you say this is just mental gymnastics. So it's OK to call this self defense and rule the defendant innocent of murder on that basis, but presenting logic that calls that into question is merely mental gymnastics -- an delightful little exercise in futility. I think my point stands. You didn't actually refute the logic, all you did was point to an irrelevant lack of evidence (irrelevant since I'm outlining logic to undermine your position); the same lack of evidence your side is apparently willing to ignore when it speculates.
8) "There is no evidence Zimmerman was seeking an armed confrontation for no reason." You mean aside from the fact that he actually sought an armed confrontation? I'll concede one point though, and revise my statement to "no good reason."
|
On April 13 2012 04:10 dotHead wrote:
I'm so tired of race being brought in to this. He is half Hispanic, has extended family that is black. Friends of his that are black have come out in his defense, one of them being a news reporter. There are witnesses and proof that he was part of a mentoring program for black youth, and that he also actively protested, and distributed fliers to help a homeless black man that was beat up by a cop. So what everyone is saying is, that he either hid it really well from everyone, or that it's possible to just be racist against some black people and not all of them.
I wrote extensively about this in the other thread, but you CAN have a prejudice while not being completely bias against a race; it's more profiling than "traditional" racism....if it was an old black lady vs a young black male he probably would have been off to the store...sure you can say its not racism because he fit the profile, but we are supposed to have benefit of the doubt, innocence until proof of guilt; the same rights that people argue Zimmerman deserves....he did not give Martin a benefit of doubt or presumed innocence and it's evident in the 911 tapes
"these assholes, they always get away"
|
|
|
On April 13 2012 05:12 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 03:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Here we have a defense that logically invalidates itself. If you're going to claim Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, then I don't see how you can deny that right to Trayvon. Here we have an aggressive armed man following an unarmed teenager around a dark street at night for reasons that would not have been apparent to Trayvon. It is unclear exactly how the situation escalated, but what is clear is that if Zimmerman can claim self defense, then Trayvon most certainly could have. If Trayvon felt his life was being threatened he had the right to defend himself, even if it would have been unwise. You have to deny Trayvon the right to defend himself to hold him up as an aggressor, which is illogical if you believe in the right to self defense to the extent that it validates a killing like this. Both of these men can't claim to be acting in the interest of self preservation, one of them is the aggressor. It is illogical to hold up the actions of a man seeking an armed confrontation for no apparent reason and then shooting and killing an unarmed teenager as self defense by misrepresenting Trayvon as the aggressor, and in doing so denying Trayvon that same right to self defense. And that's even assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which is a dubious claim in and of itself.
You mix a lot of unsupported assertions into this analysis, 1. there's nothing dubious about Zimmerman's claim save that you believe that it is dubious. 2. There are no known facts that contradict his claim that Martin attacked him. 3. There are no facts to support the contention that Zimmerman was acting aggressively, arguing that asking someone 4. "What are you doing here?" is aggressive to the point of constituting a physical threat is a far stretch. 5. Holding that Martin had the right to defend himself does not strip away Zimmerman's right to defend himself if he genuinely believed in the moment that his life was in danger. There is 6. no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman intended deadly force to be used, threatened to use it or attempted to use it until he felt his life was in danger. 7. What you're saying is little more than mental gymnastics. What is truly illogical is constructing a series of events and reasons for them with no evidence backing it up and then making claims about logic. 8. There is no evidence Zimmerman was seeking an armed confrontation for no reason. OK, I think that virtually everything here is either wrong or inappropriate, so I'll just take it bolded sentence by bolded sentence. 1) It is dubious to believe a small 17 year old would attack a much larger aggressive armed 30 year old, in spite of the fact that it would have been his right to defend himself. It is dubious to believe that same armed 30 year old allowed himself to be overpowered to the point where lethal force was necessary. It is dubious to believe that same larger armed 30 year old was the one who cried for help with the victim dead and unable to argue that point. 2) A claim can be dubious and not have "facts to contradict it." I can claim I beat up 10 guys at once yesterday, and there may not be facts to contradict my claim. So your point is irrelevant. Notwithstanding the fact that there is about as much factual evidence to support his claim. I'll agree he has to be proven guilty, but his claim is still dubious. 3) Are you kidding me? Arming yourself with a lethal weapon, and pursuing a confrontation with someone with no backup or support in a dark street against the advice of the 9-1-1 dispatcher is virtually the definition of aggressive. Reckless too. And stupid, come to think of it. 4) Asking "What are you doing here?" isn't exactly what we're discussing is it? What we're discussing is a deliberate armed confrontation, and as you've pointed out yourself, with so many facts in doubt, it is difficult to establish if he even asked "What are you doing here?" So really all you're doing is speculating where there is a lack of evidence while denouncing me for what you consider to be the same (even though it isn't, I was outlining logic). 5) OK this is by far the most important point, and you are 100% wrong here. Let's imagine I want to kill someone. I can't aggressively confront this person with a weapon, wait until he tries to defend himself then murder him and claim I was acting in the spirit of self preservation, that is utterly ridiculous. You're getting into an indefensible area. Let's imagine Trayvon had a gun, recognized he was being aggressively pursued by an armed individual, pulled his gun to defend himself, and was shot and killed for it, regardless of how he had intended to use that gun. Who is to blame? It has to be the aggressor not the defender. Otherwise you have a set of rules that do not make sense. So if I want to kill someone I can just wait till he has a gun in his possession, aggressively follow him around, and kill him when he tries to defend himself? And I suppose if someone asks me what I was doing I can claim I was defending the neighborhood? Why has this insane man even taken up the mantle of neighborhood defender? Acts of indiscriminate armed aggression do not constitute responsible neighborhood defense. 6) He confronted someone with a gun. Your point is irrelevant. How can this logic even be applied here when it is already fully condemned elsewhere? If you confront a police officer with a gun and it gets you into a struggle where someone dies, that's your fault for being stupid and irresponsible. Nobody's going to say, "well there was no evidence he intended deadly force to be used," even as I type that it sounds ridiculous. I don't know if it matters whether he showed his gun or not, the fact remains that a man is dead as a result of his hotheaded and irresponsible stupidity. Notwithstanding the fact that, as you've pointed out before, there is no evidence for whether he did or did not present his gun, so again you're just speculating. 7) I find it hilarious that you say this is just mental gymnastics. So it's OK to call this self defense and rule the defendant innocent of murder on that basis, but presenting logic that calls that into question is merely mental gymnastics -- an delightful little exercise in futility. I think my point stands. You didn't actually refute the logic, all you did was point to an irrelevant lack of evidence (irrelevant since I'm outlining logic to undermine your position); the same lack of evidence your side is apparently willing to ignore when it speculates. 8) "There is no evidence Zimmerman was seeking an armed confrontation for no reason." You mean aside from the fact that he actually sought an armed confrontation? I'll concede one point though, and revise my statement to "no good reason."
First of all Martin is somewhere between 6 feet and 6'3 depending on which source you believe.
That makes him 3-6 inches taller than Martin who is only 5'9.
Zimmerman and Martin's girlfriend disagree about much, so someone is lying, but they both agree that it was Martin who confronted Zimmerman.
No one has come forward to claim that it was Zimmerman who originally assaulted Martin and I have seen no evidence that Zimmerman injured Martin prior to shooting him.
|
On April 13 2012 05:49 dAPhREAk wrote:here is the affidavit in the court supporting the second degree murder charge. glad to see that the state attorney's office is as willing as most forum posters to ignore inconvenient facts.http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf
Thanks for posting this. I don't understand what you mean. Please specify.
|
On April 13 2012 03:21 sevencck wrote:Here we have a defense that logically invalidates itself. If you're going to claim Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, then I don't see how you can deny that right to Trayvon. Here we have an aggressive armed man following an unarmed teenager around a dark street at night for reasons that would not have been apparent to Trayvon. It is unclear exactly how the situation escalated, but what is clear is that if Zimmerman can claim self defense, then Trayvon most certainly could have. If Trayvon felt his life was being threatened he had the right to defend himself, even if it would have been unwise. You have to deny Trayvon the right to defend himself to hold him up as an aggressor, which is illogical if you believe in the right to self defense to the extent that it validates a killing like this. Both of these men can't claim to be acting in the interest of self preservation, one of them is the aggressor. It is illogical to hold up the actions of a man seeking an armed confrontation for no apparent reason and then shooting and killing an unarmed teenager as self defense by misrepresenting Trayvon as the aggressor, and in doing so denying Trayvon that same right to self defense. And that's even assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which is a dubious claim in and of itself. Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 23:11 RCMDVA wrote:
7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. Arming yourself with a lethal weapon and pursuing someone, who is not actually doing anything wrong, with the intent of instigating a potentially deadly confrontation is an imminently dangerous act that shows very little regard for human life. This is likely the reason the 9-1-1 dispatcher advised against it. Doing so because you believe black people are guilty by virtue of being black demonstrates a depraved mind. Instigating a potentially deadly confrontation with a lethal weapon against someone that in your depravity you believe to be dangerous (and are therefore ready to shoot), killing him after you've likely given him little option but to attempt to defend himself, ignoring his rightful claim to defend himself, and subsequently claiming you were acting in the interests of self preservation demonstrates a depraved mind. People acting in the interests of self preservation do not precipitate armed conflicts. And even with that, that's still assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which may not even have been the case.
This entire post is useless nonsense. It's based on a lot of unknown assumptions, and the logic of it makes my head spin. It comes from a place that already has its mind made up, some of it is just wrong, and the rest is baseless.
Confronting someone while armed is not a dangerous act that shows little regard for human life, just like a police officer carrying a weapon doesn't show a disregard for human life.
I'm just going to go over how wrong you are about everything.
You have no idea if Zimmerman was aggressive, and Trayvon had no way of knowing he was armed. If Zimmerman's account is true, and the eyewitness account is true, then Trayvon has no self-defense claim, because being spoken to at night does not constitute imminent bodily harm.
There is no reason to believe Zimmerman was "seeking armed confrontation" on this night, but none of the other nights. Let's keep in mind this is a volunteer position he has held for a while, and he's never been accused of, or suspected of, pulling or brandishing his weapon to kids or adults, black or otherwise, around the neighborhood.
You specifically say "It's unclear how the situation escalated" and the proceed to claim that both are within their rights to self defense. How can you know that if it's unclear? You can't and don't.
Trayvon attacking Zimmerman is only a dubious claim if you make things up out of thin air. If you go by the only eyewitness, Zimmerman was being punched on the ground. If you go by Zimmerman, same thing. If you go by any information we have at all, Zimmerman being attacked isn't dubious. The reason for him being attacked is.
Trying to use racism as depravity is a big stretch in this case. You've got to PROVE he was being racist. Because the fact that Trayvon is Black is not enough.
Zimmerman called a non-emergency line. It was not a 911 dispatcher.
|
On April 13 2012 05:57 sevencck wrote:Thanks for posting this. I don't understand what you mean. Please specify.
they are selective with what facts they present to the court--indeed, at the end they refer to the fact that they are not stating all facts. they do not notify the court about the two eye witnesses (John and Austin), they do not notify the court that the father originally said it was not his son's voice, which changed later, and they certainly do not talk about facts supporting the self defense (e.g., John's testimony that Trayvon was on top punching zimmerman in the face and the injuries sustained by zimmerman).
its not terribly surprising or improper though. they just have to show there is a minimal amount of evidence that supports a murder charge to allow the case to go forward. this does set them up for a motion to dismiss though. i also understand that zimmerman can file a motion under the stand your ground law to test the basis for the prosecutor's claim that it was not in self defense. the prosecutor referred to these motions multiple times during the press conference.
|
On April 13 2012 05:12 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 03:57 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Here we have a defense that logically invalidates itself. If you're going to claim Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, then I don't see how you can deny that right to Trayvon. Here we have an aggressive armed man following an unarmed teenager around a dark street at night for reasons that would not have been apparent to Trayvon. It is unclear exactly how the situation escalated, but what is clear is that if Zimmerman can claim self defense, then Trayvon most certainly could have. If Trayvon felt his life was being threatened he had the right to defend himself, even if it would have been unwise. You have to deny Trayvon the right to defend himself to hold him up as an aggressor, which is illogical if you believe in the right to self defense to the extent that it validates a killing like this. Both of these men can't claim to be acting in the interest of self preservation, one of them is the aggressor. It is illogical to hold up the actions of a man seeking an armed confrontation for no apparent reason and then shooting and killing an unarmed teenager as self defense by misrepresenting Trayvon as the aggressor, and in doing so denying Trayvon that same right to self defense. And that's even assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which is a dubious claim in and of itself.
You mix a lot of unsupported assertions into this analysis, 1. there's nothing dubious about Zimmerman's claim save that you believe that it is dubious. 2. There are no known facts that contradict his claim that Martin attacked him. 3. There are no facts to support the contention that Zimmerman was acting aggressively, arguing that asking someone 4. "What are you doing here?" is aggressive to the point of constituting a physical threat is a far stretch. 5. Holding that Martin had the right to defend himself does not strip away Zimmerman's right to defend himself if he genuinely believed in the moment that his life was in danger. There is 6. no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman intended deadly force to be used, threatened to use it or attempted to use it until he felt his life was in danger. 7. What you're saying is little more than mental gymnastics. What is truly illogical is constructing a series of events and reasons for them with no evidence backing it up and then making claims about logic. 8. There is no evidence Zimmerman was seeking an armed confrontation for no reason. OK, I think that virtually everything here is either wrong or inappropriate, so I'll just take it bolded sentence by bolded sentence. 1) It is dubious to believe a small 17 year old would attack a much larger aggressive armed 30 year old, in spite of the fact that it would have been his right to defend himself. It is dubious to believe that same armed 30 year old allowed himself to be overpowered to the point where lethal force was necessary. It is dubious to believe that same larger armed 30 year old was the one who cried for help with the victim dead and unable to argue that point. 2) A claim can be dubious and not have "facts to contradict it." I can claim I beat up 10 guys at once yesterday, and there may not be facts to contradict my claim. So your point is irrelevant. Notwithstanding the fact that there is about as much factual evidence to support his claim. I'll agree he has to be proven guilty, but his claim is still dubious. 3) Are you kidding me? Arming yourself with a lethal weapon, and pursuing a confrontation with someone with no backup or support in a dark street against the advice of the 9-1-1 dispatcher is virtually the definition of aggressive. Reckless too. And stupid, come to think of it. 4) Asking "What are you doing here?" isn't exactly what we're discussing is it? What we're discussing is a deliberate armed confrontation, and as you've pointed out yourself, with so many facts in doubt, it is difficult to establish if he even asked "What are you doing here?" So really all you're doing is speculating where there is a lack of evidence while denouncing me for what you consider to be the same (even though it isn't, I was outlining logic). 5) OK this is by far the most important point, and you are 100% wrong here. Let's imagine I want to kill someone. I can't aggressively confront this person with a weapon, wait until he tries to defend himself then murder him and claim I was acting in the spirit of self preservation, that is utterly ridiculous. You're getting into an indefensible area. Let's imagine Trayvon had a gun, recognized he was being aggressively pursued by an armed individual, pulled his gun to defend himself, and was shot and killed for it, regardless of how he had intended to use that gun. Who is to blame? It has to be the aggressor not the defender. Otherwise you have a set of rules that do not make sense. So if I want to kill someone I can just wait till he has a gun in his possession, aggressively follow him around, and kill him when he tries to defend himself? And I suppose if someone asks me what I was doing I can claim I was defending the neighborhood? Why has this insane man even taken up the mantle of neighborhood defender? Acts of indiscriminate armed aggression do not constitute responsible neighborhood defense. 6) He confronted someone with a gun. Your point is irrelevant. How can this logic even be applied here when it is already fully condemned elsewhere? If you confront a police officer with a gun and it gets you into a struggle where someone dies, that's your fault for being stupid and irresponsible. Nobody's going to say, "well there was no evidence he intended deadly force to be used," even as I type that it sounds ridiculous. I don't know if it matters whether he showed his gun or not, the fact remains that a man is dead as a result of his hotheaded and irresponsible stupidity. Notwithstanding the fact that, as you've pointed out before, there is no evidence for whether he did or did not present his gun, so again you're just speculating. 7) I find it hilarious that you say this is just mental gymnastics. So it's OK to call this self defense and rule the defendant innocent of murder on that basis, but presenting logic that calls that into question is merely mental gymnastics -- an delightful little exercise in futility. I think my point stands. You didn't actually refute the logic, all you did was point to an irrelevant lack of evidence (irrelevant since I'm outlining logic to undermine your position); the same lack of evidence your side is apparently willing to ignore when it speculates. 8) "There is no evidence Zimmerman was seeking an armed confrontation for no reason." You mean aside from the fact that he actually sought an armed confrontation? I'll concede one point though, and revise my statement to "no good reason."
1. Why are you pretending Trayvon knew Zimmerman was armed? We want proof, not your opinion on what is "Dubious". Do you think 17 year olds have never attacked older people? I can play this game too. It is dubious a man with black friends and family who will attest to his character, who has called police dozens of times before without any confrontations initiated, would be motivated by such extreme racism that he would just gun down a teenage black man after having just called the police on himself for all effective purposes, firing only one shot, then waiting around to speak to police? Makes sense.
2. "Dubious" is not enough for a criminal conviction. You need, you know, actual proof. There is no publicly known information that would contradict Zimmerman's story. Your ability to distinguish what is dubious from what isn't is in serious question.
3. Having a gun is not illegal in the US. CCers are less likely than the general population to commit crime, in fact. Quit making unsubstantiated claims about Zimmerman "Seeking a confrontation" - you cannot prove this. You cannot prove he didn't follow the dispatcher's advice. Repeating these things does not make them true.
I won't even go further; it is obvious you won't stop making these claims without evidence.
|
On April 13 2012 03:43 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
Just a procedural point of inquiry,
Is it allowed in the US to discuss ongoing cases? Especially criminal ones?
Yes, sadly it is. TBH I assumed it was allowed in most nations. Is that not the case?
|
On April 13 2012 03:51 happyft wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 03:21 sevencck wrote:Here we have a defense that logically invalidates itself. If you're going to claim Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, then I don't see how you can deny that right to Trayvon. Here we have an aggressive armed man following an unarmed teenager around a dark street at night for reasons that would not have been apparent to Trayvon. It is unclear exactly how the situation escalated, but what is clear is that if Zimmerman can claim self defense, then Trayvon most certainly could have. If Trayvon felt his life was being threatened he had the right to defend himself, even if it would have been unwise. You have to deny Trayvon the right to defend himself to hold him up as an aggressor, which is illogical if you believe in the right to self defense to the extent that it validates a killing like this. Both of these men can't claim to be acting in the interest of self preservation, one of them is the aggressor. It is illogical to hold up the actions of a man seeking an armed confrontation for no apparent reason and then shooting and killing an unarmed teenager as self defense by misrepresenting Trayvon as the aggressor, and in doing so denying Trayvon that same right to self defense. And that's even assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which is a dubious claim in and of itself. On April 12 2012 23:11 RCMDVA wrote:
7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. Arming yourself with a lethal weapon and pursuing someone, who is not actually doing anything wrong, with the intent of instigating a potentially deadly confrontation is an imminently dangerous act that shows very little regard for human life. Doing so because you believe black people are guilty by virtue of being black demonstrates a depraved mind. Instigating a potentially deadly confrontation with a lethal weapon against someone that in your depravity you believe to be dangerous (and are therefore ready to shoot), killing him after you've likely given him little option but to attempt to defend himself, ignoring his rightful claim to defend himself, and subsequently claiming you were acting in the interests of self preservation demonstrates a depraved mind. People acting in the interests of self preservation do not precipitate armed conflicts. And even with that, that's still assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which may not even have been the case. Agreed as well. In addition, I think the mortician's analysis will probably serve as strong evidence to support the prosecution. If I recall correctly, he said there were none of the typical marks of a struggle or fight on Martin's body, and no marks on his hands or fists, which highly suggests he was not an aggressor in anyway. Also, I'm hoping a forensics team can get an idea of where the bullet was fired, where it impacted, and the distance at which Martin's body received the bullet judging from bullet impact. If it can be proven it was shot at a distance of at least a few feet, that would also point against Zimmerman's story. I'm not sure the audio samples will be all that useful, except to go against Zimmerman's claim that he was the one shouting, since if there are no audio samples of Martin, they can't show it was Martin screaming. And I'd really wish the whole issue of race was kept separate (Zimmerman allegedly whispering "fucking coons" which I believe it is pretty clear he did say). What we need is to establish the facts first, discussing the whole race issue could potential obfuscate everything. Of course we can't avoid the issue, and it certainly should be investigated as a motive, but man ... things just get so ugly with that.
i just want to point out that the state attorney's office says that he said "fucking punks" not "fucking coons."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
