|
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 14 2013 16:41 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 16:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
The fact that he had a gun is not enough to acquit. You're being ridiculous. If he reaches for what you describe is a gun, and it turns out it is a gun, you were correct. Nobody at the scene is going to dispute the former, as they are dead or fifty yards away. You're being silly.
It would depend on a lot of other factors that you aren't describing. You couldn't shoot someone in the back then claim self defense just because they had a gun. There's more to it than that.
|
On July 14 2013 16:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It would depend a lot of other factors that you aren't describing. You couldn't shoot someone in the back then claim self defense just because they had a gun. There's more to it than that.
If you're the sole close witness on a dark and raining night? You absolutely could do that. You could not do the same for people carrying (or even holding!) knives or people not carrying at all...but guns are omnidirectional.
On July 14 2013 16:47 Millitron wrote:
A) It's a hypothetical situation anyways. Hypothetically, I could say the prosecution can easily show that.
Hypothetically, it's the word of the prosecution versus the word of the sole close witness. No points for guessing who wins.
"Yeah, CCW dress failures never happen, trust us guys" ><
On July 14 2013 16:47 Millitron wrote:
B) In the time it takes you to move your hand to your holster, you'd know whether he's reaching for a gun or a wallet. Wallet? don't have to do anything. Gun? Keep going and draw yours.
If you want to bet your life that he can't draw faster than you, go ahead. If you want to bet your life thinking he could never construe you reaching for your weapon as a threat, go ahead. Your life, your call.
For better or for worse, life doesn't work like that.
On July 14 2013 16:47 Millitron wrote:
C) It's true though. Gunshot wounds are usually not immediately deadly, nor is it even certain he'd hit you.
"True" is not the opposite of "insane". Your statement is still crazy, as it's in no way an argument for letting him shoot first.
|
Reading facebook so disappointed by my college.
|
On July 14 2013 16:54 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 16:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It would depend a lot of other factors that you aren't describing. You couldn't shoot someone in the back then claim self defense just because they had a gun. There's more to it than that. If you're the sole close witness on a dark and raining night? You absolutely could do that. You could not do the same for people carrying (or even holding!) knives or people not carrying at all...but guns are omnidirectional. Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 16:47 Millitron wrote:
A) It's a hypothetical situation anyways. Hypothetically, I could say the prosecution can easily show that. Hypothetically, it's the word of the prosecution versus the word of the sole close witness. No points for guessing who wins. "Yeah, CCW dress failures never happen, trust us guys" >< Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 16:47 Millitron wrote:
B) In the time it takes you to move your hand to your holster, you'd know whether he's reaching for a gun or a wallet. Wallet? don't have to do anything. Gun? Keep going and draw yours. If you want to bet your life that he can't draw faster than you, go ahead. If you want to bet your life thinking he could never construe you reaching for your weapon as a threat, go ahead. Your life, your call. For better or for worse, life doesn't work like that. Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 16:47 Millitron wrote:
C) It's true though. Gunshot wounds are usually not immediately deadly, nor is it even certain he'd hit you. "True" is not the opposite of "insane". Your statement is still crazy.
A) You said 50 yards. Unless its in a holster not concealed at all, or in his hand already, you aren't spotting that gun. You've also said nothing of the person's body language, whether he's just walking along, or being menacing in some way.
B) Its not that I'll bet he can't draw faster than me, it's that I won't draw until I'm absolutely sure I have to. If he isn't drawing his gun, I play off moving my hand as adjusting my pants or tucking my shirt in better. If he is drawing, I draw.
C) Ok. I'm not that afraid of getting shot I guess. Hollywood blows it way out of proportion, you don't go flying back, dead by the time you hit the ground. Especially not from pistols.
|
This was a sad case, but Trayvon Martin caused his own death. He only has himself to blame, when you attack someone and beat their ass for 45 seconds straight, and the guy you're attacking has a gun, he can legally use it to defend himself.
|
On July 14 2013 17:03 Sabu113 wrote:
Reading facebook so disappointed by my college.
I always are annoyed at people giving their opinion ON EVERYTHING. Then I remember I do the same. :/
|
On July 14 2013 17:03 Sabu113 wrote:
Reading facebook so disappointed by my college.
Likewise. To be expected, given how much of the student body is idealistic political activists, but seeing graduates talk about how they hope to fight injustice like this once they get into the legal field makes me wonder what quality of education I'm actually supposed to be getting here.
I'm not so much annoyed by them having a different view as the complete lack of factual knowledge about the case and blatant sensationalization of news reports/assumptions they use.
|
I am losing faith in my government
|
I hate public and media reactions to big trial decisions. So many times it's just people venting about stuff that is of no consequence or meaning. This jury didn't deem Zimmerman a man who did everything right or condemn Trayvon as a hoodlum or something. They just couldn't, with the evidence given, convict Zimmerman of the charges set against him. The justice system did it's job, nothing more.
It's like the Casey Anthony trial. It's clear she is a piece of shit and a terrible mother, but the jury quite simply couldn't convict her of her charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
On July 14 2013 16:54 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 16:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It would depend a lot of other factors that you aren't describing. You couldn't shoot someone in the back then claim self defense just because they had a gun. There's more to it than that. If you're the sole close witness on a dark and raining night? You absolutely could do that. You could not do the same for people carrying (or even holding!) knives or people not carrying at all...but guns are omnidirectional.
You'd have a very hard time convincing a jury that your life was in immediate danger. I think you are way over estimating how easy it is to win self defense claims.
|
On July 14 2013 17:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You'd have a very hard time convincing a jury that your life was in immediate danger. I think you are way over estimating how easy it is to win self defense claims.
Fortunately, it's the prosecution that has to prove your life wasn't in peril, not the other way around. Very difficult to lose when the next closest guy is fifty yards away on a raining night.
On July 14 2013 17:05 Millitron wrote:
A) You said 50 yards. Unless its in a holster not concealed at all, or in his hand already, you aren't spotting that gun. You've also said nothing of the person's body language, whether he's just walking along, or being menacing in some way.
I said 50 yards for other witnesses other than the two antagonists.
On July 14 2013 17:05 Millitron wrote:
B) Its not that I'll bet he can't draw faster than me, it's that I won't draw until I'm absolutely sure I have to. If he isn't drawing his gun, I play off moving my hand as adjusting my pants or tucking my shirt in better. If he is drawing, I draw.
You are betting that you can draw faster than him. The betting part happens when you stop drawing, and when you pray he doesn't think you are reaching for your weapon. Because make no mistake, you are reaching for your weapon, and he would be perfectly justified in blowing your head off in response. The person who kills first, in such a case, would be the sole close witness.
And how exactly do you play off unbuttoning your holster as an innocent action -.-?
On July 14 2013 17:05 Millitron wrote:
C) Ok. I'm not that afraid of getting shot I guess. Hollywood blows it way out of proportion, you don't go flying back, dead by the time you hit the ground. Especially not from pistols.
True, you could suffer a flesh wound or no wounds whatsoever. You could also end up paralyzed from the waist down, a vegetable, or bleed out four hours later in a hospital. People should not dick around when it comes to guns.
|
France9034 Posts
Uh, oh, well I don't understand the verdict at all...
At least I'd thought he would've been condemned for something like manslaughter, even if it wasn't murder strictly speaking...
|
On July 14 2013 17:13 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 17:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You'd have a very hard time convincing a jury that your life was in immediate danger. I think you are way over estimating how easy it is to win self defense claims. Fortunately, it's the prosecution that has to prove your life wasn't in peril, not the other way around. Not difficult to win when you're the only person who could definitely see things happening.
Or they could just argue that you were the aggressor. If the victim's back was turned, that's a pretty good sign that he wasn't the aggressor. I mean really, what are you going to say? "He was totally coming at me backwards and reaching for his gun while yelling that he was going to kill me while I pleaded for him to stop! Honest!"
|
On July 14 2013 17:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Or they could just argue that you were the aggressor. If the victim's back was turned, that's a pretty good sign that he wasn't the aggressor. I mean really, what are you going to say? "He was totally coming at me backwards and reaching for his gun while yelling that he was going to kill me while I pleaded for him to stop! Honest!"
"Pretty good sign" is not "beyond reasonable doubt". There were "pretty good signs" Casey Anthony was involved with her baby and that Simpson did something despicable, but reasonable doubt did not follow.
All you have to say is that he reached for his gun and you did not want to die. Nobody on the scene is going to credibly contradict you, if you kill the other close witness; the guy "reaching for his gun".
|
The white delegation would like to remind the world that Zimmerman is Hispanic.
|
On July 14 2013 17:18 Ragnarork wrote:
Uh, oh, well I don't understand the verdict at all...
At least I'd thought he would've been condemned for something like manslaughter, even if it wasn't murder strictly speaking...
I also don't understand how you can kill someone and not get punished. Wasn't Zimmerman the start of the confrontation?
On July 14 2013 17:32 Irave wrote:
The white delegation would like to remind the world that Zimmerman is Hispanic.
He's half white, however race shouldn't matter. We're all human. The focus should be on the incident.
|
On July 14 2013 17:18 Ragnarork wrote:
Uh, oh, well I don't understand the verdict at all...
At least I'd thought he would've been condemned for something like manslaughter, even if it wasn't murder strictly speaking...
Prosecution had to prove (without doubt) that it was murder or manslaughter.
Defense tried to prove it was self defense.
Prosecution had weak evidence/testimony.
Defense had better evidence/testimony.
Jury spent hours deliberating and reached a not guilty conclusion.
Not sure what you don't understand. I'd say it takes a lot of work (watching everything, weighting the facts) for someone to think he has a better opinion than the jury that actually was at the trial and debated over multiple hours before giving a conclusion.
You know... maybe GZ really murdered the kid. I don't know, I wasn't there, neither did the media or everybody speaking on the subject. What I know is that if you want to send someone to prison you should be able to prove that he is indeed guilty of the crime according to the laws.
My guts tell me it isn't right that GZ started this by following him and someone ended dead. But as far as I understand, it wasn't illegal and may have had reasons to do so. So in regards to the law he cannot be judged on that part and was acquitted for the fight part.
|
On July 14 2013 17:32 Irave wrote:
The white delegation would like to remind the world that Zimmerman is Hispanic.
Haha, wow. I wonder how many people forgot about this.
|
On July 14 2013 17:18 Ragnarork wrote:
Uh, oh, well I don't understand the verdict at all...
At least I'd thought he would've been condemned for something like manslaughter, even if it wasn't murder strictly speaking...
Most commentators who closely watched the trial said the prosecution did a pretty bad job. Their "star witnesses" were so bad that they might have helped Zimmerman's defense. They failed both to establish convincingly that Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin or contradict Zimmerman's story that Martin was beating him up and didn't feel he had any other choice but to use his gun.
|
On July 14 2013 17:35 rezoacken wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 17:18 Ragnarork wrote:
Uh, oh, well I don't understand the verdict at all...
At least I'd thought he would've been condemned for something like manslaughter, even if it wasn't murder strictly speaking... Prosecution had to prove (without doubt) that it was murder or manslaughter. Defense tried to prove it was self defense. Prosecution had weak evidence/testimony. Defense had better evidence/testimony. Jury spent hours deliberating and reached a not guilty conclusion. Not sure what you don't understand. I'd say it takes a lot of work (watching everything, weighting the facts) for someone to think he has a better opinion than the jury that actually was at the trial and debated over multiple hours before giving a conclusion. You know... maybe GZ really murdered the kid. I don't know, I wasn't there, neither did the media or everybody speaking on the subject. What I know is that if you want to send someone to prison you should be able to prove that he is indeed guilty of the crime according to the laws.
Took the words literally out of my mouth - maybe he did deserve to be found guilty, but the prosecution certainly didn't prove it and it's not like the OJ case where there was an overwhelming amount of circumstancial evidence that everyone could draw the logical conclusion that he was guilty. We just don't know and I don't understand the outrage, the case might not have even been tried if there weren't racial undertones. So, the Martin family got the chance to see him in court at least. They are the only ones that really have a right to be upset about this and understandably so. I love all the kids that are present at the rallies and people making comments like "how am I supposed to explain this to my children?" Why the hell are you bringing kids into an adult discussion and rally? Now we will just perpetuate the vicious cycle of minority children being raised to think the world is against them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
