|
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. |
Zimmerman followed the law that allowed him to own, and carry a loaded firearm and use it in self-defense.
He claims Martin attacked him first, all evidence points to that end, and so he was right by the law of Florida and the U.S. to shoot Treyvon Martin.
I don´t get why people think this case is not related to guncontrol.
"Stand your ground law" is necessary to back up the law of carrying a gun, and the main selling point for small firearms, the "self-defense". How usefull would it be to have a gun, be attacked and afterwards eletrecuted for murder or rot in jail?
How many people would actually buy a gun if it´s a first class ticket to Jail/deathpenalty if it´s ever used in "self-defense" ?
Instead of making this actually a topic, they leave it to right-wing fox news and NRA to claim victory again.
|
United States41942 Posts
For me the gun control aspect is that GZ was clearly not able to control the situation he created due to his lack of training, experience and intelligence. Police officers have a lot of training for this kind of shit and there is a reason we call them in to handle these situations, they're simply better equipped to deal with it. But as he had a gun he felt safe to create a situation that rapidly escalated outside of his control and forced him to kill a boy who otherwise would have lived. If you are going to give yourself a tool that allows you to choose whether others live or die then you must realise that you have upped the stakes of every situation you put yourself in to the highest possible level. If you are not trained and prepared to deal with that eventuality, and I don't think anyone is arguing this was anything other than a tragedy, then you should not be carrying a lethal tool.
|
On July 15 2013 21:47 KwarK wrote:
For me the gun control aspect is that GZ was clearly not able to control the situation he created due to his lack of training, experience and intelligence. Police officers have a lot of training for this kind of shit and there is a reason we call them in to handle these situations, they're simply better equipped to deal with it. But as he had a gun he felt safe to create a situation that rapidly escalated outside of his control and forced him to kill a boy who otherwise would have lived. If you are going to give yourself a tool that allows you to choose whether others live or die then you must realise that you have upped the stakes of every situation you put yourself in to the highest possible level. If you are not trained and prepared to deal with that eventuality, and I don't think anyone is arguing this was anything other than a tragedy, then you should not be carrying a lethal tool.
I think you may give police officers too much credit. How you react in a live situation I'd say depends more on instincts than training. And we saw how well for example the LAPD handled the Dorner case.
Hindsight is easy, but if you're on the ground with a stranger sitting ontop of you wailing away at your face you'd probably count yourself lucky for carrying a lethal tool. Trayvon upped the stakes first by attacking GZ.
|
On July 15 2013 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:
Swiss and french media are doing a really shitty job of covering the case. French at least acknowledged that GZ could have been innocent, but they didn't expand at all on his version of the story and just sided directly with the manifestants. Especially the swiss media treated this almost as a failure of the justice system.
Was pretty sad to hear given what I've read in the thread, really.
That has more to do with cultural diffrences:
"Stand your Ground" WTF?!
And your justice system is really diffrent too - iirc, these are the main diffrences:
A jury which consists of people that don't need to have a clue about law? WHAT?
The Judge (which gets elected(?), is only there to lead the process? O_o
The defending/attacking attorneys are actually not required to go for the truth and don't need to share all their facts/whatever? WHAT?
Can't go to trial for the same case twice? WTF
It's all really bizarre for me...
|
On July 15 2013 22:02 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:
Swiss and french media are doing a really shitty job of covering the case. French at least acknowledged that GZ could have been innocent, but they didn't expand at all on his version of the story and just sided directly with the manifestants. Especially the swiss media treated this almost as a failure of the justice system.
Was pretty sad to hear given what I've read in the thread, really. That has more to do with cultural diffrences: "Stand your Ground" WTF?! And your justice system is really diffrent too (iirc, these are the main diffrences  A jury which consists of people that don't need to have a clue about the law? WAT? The Judge (which gets elected(?), is only there to lead the process? The defending/attacking attorneys are actually not required to go for the truth and don't need to share all their facts/whatever? WAT? Can't go to trial for the same case twice? WTF
That's just plain ignorance then. Stand your ground is pretty much irrelevant for this case, I doubt self defense laws are that much diferent in other countries and I doubt the idea of inadmissible evidence doesn't exist. I don't see how the idea of a Jury makes the trial a failure either, in this case.
The basic diference is gun control, but I would think most countries have a concept of a concealed carry permit and allow people to defend themselves with it, even if they are much stricter when giving them away.
|
On July 15 2013 05:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:43 farvacola wrote:Frankly I'm impressed with Deb's posting today. I don't think he's said "agitprop" yet, and for that he deserves a A for the day On a side note, I could not be more thankful for not having Twitter on this day. You apologist for agitprop.
I think he was giving you an A. Looks like Deb stands for DeepElemBlues
|
On July 15 2013 22:02 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:
Swiss and french media are doing a really shitty job of covering the case. French at least acknowledged that GZ could have been innocent, but they didn't expand at all on his version of the story and just sided directly with the manifestants. Especially the swiss media treated this almost as a failure of the justice system.
Was pretty sad to hear given what I've read in the thread, really. That has more to do with cultural diffrences: "Stand your Ground" WTF?! And your justice system is really diffrent too (iirc, these are the main diffrences A jury which consists of people that don't need to have a clue about the law? WAT? The Judge (which gets elected(?), is only there to lead the process? The defending/attacking attorneys are actually not required to go for the truth and don't need to share all their facts/whatever? WAT? Can't go to trial for the same case twice? WTF
No, we have an adversarial judicial system. The two sides are not cooperating to find "the truth". They each argue to the best of their ability for their side and the jury decides what is and what is not true. In the course of arguments, there is a consensus of the basic facts until you get to the snags of misinterpretation. The judge limits the discussion to keep it relevant to the issues at hand and make sure everyone is playing by the rules.
The jury consists of "ordinary citizens" who decide the case.
And you cannot go to trial for the same crime after the defendant is acquitted. The opposite is a tyranny where you can keep accusing someone of a crime until a jury finds them guilty. Since the government has essentially infinite resources, it would lead to a situation where the defendant has no hope of winning.
"Stand your ground" is a precedent set by an old case in the US where a reasonable person has no obligation to back down and retreat when confronted with physical violence. They have the right to defend themselves with appropriate force and have the right to kill in self defense if their own life is in peril.
Yes, the English law system is very different from everything that evolved on the continent.
EDIT: Stand your ground wasn't an issue in this case because Zimmerman's story, which was not challenged or refuted, was that he was never threatened with violence. Martin simply went straight to jumping him and beating him up.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 15 2013 22:21 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 22:02 Velr wrote:On July 15 2013 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:
Swiss and french media are doing a really shitty job of covering the case. French at least acknowledged that GZ could have been innocent, but they didn't expand at all on his version of the story and just sided directly with the manifestants. Especially the swiss media treated this almost as a failure of the justice system.
Was pretty sad to hear given what I've read in the thread, really. That has more to do with cultural diffrences: "Stand your Ground" WTF?! And your justice system is really diffrent too (iirc, these are the main diffrences A jury which consists of people that don't need to have a clue about the law? WAT? The Judge (which gets elected(?), is only there to lead the process? The defending/attacking attorneys are actually not required to go for the truth and don't need to share all their facts/whatever? WAT? Can't go to trial for the same case twice? WTF No, we have an adversarial judicial system. The two sides are not cooperating to find "the truth". They each argue to the best of their ability for their side and the jury decides what is and what is not true. In the course of arguments, there is a consensus of the basic facts until you get to the snags of misinterpretation. The judge limits the discussion to keep it relevant to the issues at hand and make sure everyone is playing by the rules. The jury consists of "ordinary citizens" who decide the case. And you cannot go to trial for the same crime after the defendant is acquitted. The opposite is a tyranny where you can keep accusing someone of a crime until a jury finds them guilty. Since the government has essentially infinite resources, it would lead to a situation where the defendant has no hope of winning. "Stand your ground" is a precedent set by an old case in the US where a reasonable person has no obligation to back down and retreat when confronted with physical violence. They have the right to defend themselves with appropriate force and have the right to kill in self defense if their own life is in peril. Yes, the English law system is very different from everything that evolved on the continent. EDIT: Stand your ground wasn't an issue in this case because Zimmerman's story, which was not challenged or refuted, was that he was never threatened with violence. Martin simply went straight to jumping him and beating him up.
Zimmerman waived the stand your ground law and his lawyers just argued regular self-defense so that law wasn't used.
|
On July 15 2013 22:21 coverpunch wrote:
EDIT: Stand your ground wasn't an issue in this case because Zimmerman's story, which was not challenged or refuted, was that he was never threatened with violence. Martin simply went straight to jumping him and beating him up.
I think these two sentences are the hardest to grasp for those who aren't familiar with law. It is possible that Zimmerman simply jumped Martin because he is a cold-blooded killer but there is no evidence pointing towards that scenario. So and because prosecution witnesses testified for him, there is no reason not to believe his version despite strong suspicions that he might be a stupid entitled jackass with a superiority complex and a gun. These traits of character are not punishable by law ...
|
On July 15 2013 21:57 Osmoses wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 21:47 KwarK wrote:
For me the gun control aspect is that GZ was clearly not able to control the situation he created due to his lack of training, experience and intelligence. Police officers have a lot of training for this kind of shit and there is a reason we call them in to handle these situations, they're simply better equipped to deal with it. But as he had a gun he felt safe to create a situation that rapidly escalated outside of his control and forced him to kill a boy who otherwise would have lived. If you are going to give yourself a tool that allows you to choose whether others live or die then you must realise that you have upped the stakes of every situation you put yourself in to the highest possible level. If you are not trained and prepared to deal with that eventuality, and I don't think anyone is arguing this was anything other than a tragedy, then you should not be carrying a lethal tool. I think you may give police officers too much credit. How you react in a live situation I'd say depends more on instincts than training. And we saw how well for example the LAPD handled the Dorner case. Hindsight is easy, but if you're on the ground with a stranger sitting ontop of you wailing away at your face you'd probably count yourself lucky for carrying a lethal tool. Trayvon upped the stakes first by attacking GZ.
It is a little easy to assert that it 'has gone wrong' in some specific cases and therefore police officers have too much credit. And as far as I can tell, Dorner himself has had training, which in itself makes it a special case well outside the argument Kwark is presenting. Additionally, you cannot say the police officers handled the situation worse than civilians, and the point is therefore not relevant to the argument that training is important.
I agree with Kwark, and I'd like to add as a counter statement to you: If training wasn't important, so that instinct is the only factor, then why do you have training for military and law enforcement? Besides, the training is meant to prevent 'instinctive' situations in the first place if you know what I mean. If GZ was properly trained it seems highly likely that he would have waited for backup or alternately he would have approached the situation differently.
|
On July 15 2013 22:21 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 22:02 Velr wrote:On July 15 2013 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:
Swiss and french media are doing a really shitty job of covering the case. French at least acknowledged that GZ could have been innocent, but they didn't expand at all on his version of the story and just sided directly with the manifestants. Especially the swiss media treated this almost as a failure of the justice system.
Was pretty sad to hear given what I've read in the thread, really. That has more to do with cultural diffrences: "Stand your Ground" WTF?! And your justice system is really diffrent too (iirc, these are the main diffrences A jury which consists of people that don't need to have a clue about the law? WAT? The Judge (which gets elected(?), is only there to lead the process? The defending/attacking attorneys are actually not required to go for the truth and don't need to share all their facts/whatever? WAT? Can't go to trial for the same case twice? WTF No, we have an adversarial judicial system. The two sides are not cooperating to find "the truth". They each argue to the best of their ability for their side and the jury decides what is and what is not true. In the course of arguments, there is a consensus of the basic facts until you get to the snags of misinterpretation. The judge limits the discussion to keep it relevant to the issues at hand and make sure everyone is playing by the rules. ....
See, this is my main beef with it.
Doesn't the whole thing become more of a "debating or showboating contest" than an actual search for "truth" or what is "just"?
I honestly find it pretty ridiculous and i'm really glad we have not adopted this system.
Btw: What has it to do with tyranny if someone gets accused of the same thing twice and has to defend himself twice? To reopen a case you need new facts, whiteout new facts the reopening just gets dismissed and thats that.
Well, i have neither the education nor will required to really argue all this stuff (we just slightly touched the subject in my accounting-classes which also require us to "learn" some law and I found this pretty interesting), i just wanted to answer the person that tought the media coverage here is very one sided as to why this is.
Here the outcome of this trail would probably be diffrent, he most likely wouldn't have been found 100% guilty but i'm pretty sure also not free of charge.
|
On July 15 2013 22:36 Otolia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 22:21 coverpunch wrote:
EDIT: Stand your ground wasn't an issue in this case because Zimmerman's story, which was not challenged or refuted, was that he was never threatened with violence. Martin simply went straight to jumping him and beating him up. I think these two sentences are the hardest to grasp for those who aren't familiar with law. It is possible that Zimmerman simply jumped Martin because he is a cold-blooded killer but there is no evidence pointing towards that scenario. So and because prosecution witnesses testified for him, there is no reason not to believe his version despite strong suspicions that he might be a stupid entitled jackass with a superiority complex and a gun. These traits of character are not punishable by law ...
Why would traits of character be punishable by law? You punish people for things they have done, not for the personality, anywhere in the world. The idea that he physically assaulted Martin leaving no marks or that he straight up killed him and self-inflicted his wounds isn't particularly likely either. The evidence points to Martin starting or escalating the conflict. If there is one things this trial showed is that second degree murder was a joke of a charge.
|
The Rev. Al Sharpton is calling for a “Justice for Trayvon National Day of Action” on Saturday and say demonstrations are planned in more than 100 cities nationwide.
Saying there would not have been a trial in Florida without pressure from activists, Sharpton was confident that continued pressure would result in a federal civil rights case.
“When they’re telling you today, ‘I don’t know if they’re going to get a civil rights trial:’ We will. And we will get a civil trial,” Sharpton said on the “Tom Joyner Morning Show” on Monday morning. “What we’ve watched the last several weeks was not the system correcting itself, it was the people correcting the system. Now we’ve got to finish the job.”
National Action Network is organizing the protests at federal court buildings to press the Justice Department to bring a civil rights case against George Zimmerman, who was found not guilty in the death of teenager Trayvon Martin by a Florida jury on Saturday.
Sharpton said his National Action Network intends to keep the pressure on until a civil rights case is brought, insisting the protests will show the national anger over the verdict is not a “two- or three-day” thing.
“It’s not over. And we are going to make sure it’s not over, that’s why we’re calling people to … organize in your city. I don’t care if it’s 20 people, we want to show the nation that over 100 cities a week later is still demanding justice. We’re not having a fit, we’re having a movement,” Sharpton said.
The event will also help begin a four-week countdown to the 50th anniversary event for the March on Washington on August 24, which will include Martin Luther King III, and which Sharpton said will be centered on Trayvon Martin and the Voting Rights Act.
Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/al-sharpton-travyon-martin-george-zimmerman-94149.html#ixzz2Z7aPfAtx
|
On July 15 2013 22:39 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 22:21 coverpunch wrote:On July 15 2013 22:02 Velr wrote:On July 15 2013 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:
Swiss and french media are doing a really shitty job of covering the case. French at least acknowledged that GZ could have been innocent, but they didn't expand at all on his version of the story and just sided directly with the manifestants. Especially the swiss media treated this almost as a failure of the justice system.
Was pretty sad to hear given what I've read in the thread, really. That has more to do with cultural diffrences: "Stand your Ground" WTF?! And your justice system is really diffrent too (iirc, these are the main diffrences A jury which consists of people that don't need to have a clue about the law? WAT? The Judge (which gets elected(?), is only there to lead the process? The defending/attacking attorneys are actually not required to go for the truth and don't need to share all their facts/whatever? WAT? Can't go to trial for the same case twice? WTF No, we have an adversarial judicial system. The two sides are not cooperating to find "the truth". They each argue to the best of their ability for their side and the jury decides what is and what is not true. In the course of arguments, there is a consensus of the basic facts until you get to the snags of misinterpretation. The judge limits the discussion to keep it relevant to the issues at hand and make sure everyone is playing by the rules. .... See, this is my main beef with it. Doesn't the whole thing become more of a "debating or showboating contest" than an actual search for "truth" or what is "just"? I honestly find it pretty ridiculous and i'm really glad we have not adopted this system. Btw: What has it to do with tyranny if someone gets accused of the same thing twice and has to defend himself twice? To reopen a case you need new facts, whiteout new facts the reopening just gets dismissed and thats that. Well, i have neither the education nor will required to really argue all this stuff (we just slightly touched the subject in my accounting-classes which also require us to "learn" some law and I found this pretty interesting), i just wanted to answer the person that tought the media coverage here is very one sided as to why this is. Here the outcome of this trail would probably be diffrent, he most likely wouldn't have been found 100% guilty but i'm pretty sure also not free of charge.
That's one way to look at it. The other is that each side should just fight for their side and not worry what the other side wants. That gives each side much more flexibility and less bias to try to please or cooperate with the other. Of course, this assumes standards of professional behavior and courtesy.
It is tyrannical to charge someone twice for the same crime because the defendant is fighting life imprisonment if they lose. The pressure is enormous and it is outrageous to ask for a new trial after it has already been decided, barring some strange situations of course.
The coverage has been pretty one-sided because it is easier to believe the "white guy kills a black kid" story than the "unfortunate confrontation leads to tragedy". Part of the problem with the adversarial system is that we're looking for someone to blame.
|
I'm currently debating this with my friend and he made this claim.
"the fact that he has a documented history - entered into evidence, mind you - of making numerous police reports about imaginary black dudes and nothing but imaginary black dudes chilling in his gated community"
Wasn't an African-American actually caught and arrested within the community a few months prior to the Trayvon shooting? I honestly remember seeing that somewhere, but I just cannot find it now. Maybe I am incorrectly remembering.
|
On July 15 2013 23:20 Krohm wrote:
I'm currently debating this with my friend and he made this claim.
"the fact that he has a documented history - entered into evidence, mind you - of making numerous police reports about imaginary black dudes and nothing but imaginary black dudes chilling in his gated community"
Wasn't an African-American actually caught and arrested within the community a few months prior to the Trayvon shooting? I honestly remember seeing that somewhere, but I just cannot find it now. Maybe I am incorrectly remembering.
Your friend is wrong. He made plenty of calls not about black dudes, imaginary or not.
Not the first time someone claims that, for some reason:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=324498¤tpage=209#4172
I have no idea why he thinks they are imaginary people either.
|
On July 15 2013 23:22 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 23:20 Krohm wrote:
I'm currently debating this with my friend and he made this claim.
"the fact that he has a documented history - entered into evidence, mind you - of making numerous police reports about imaginary black dudes and nothing but imaginary black dudes chilling in his gated community"
Wasn't an African-American actually caught and arrested within the community a few months prior to the Trayvon shooting? I honestly remember seeing that somewhere, but I just cannot find it now. Maybe I am incorrectly remembering. Your friend is wrong. He made plenty of calls not about black dudes, imaginary or not. Not the first time someone claims that, for some reason: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=324498¤tpage=209#4172I have no idea why he thinks they are imaginary people either.
Yeah I found a court transcript from someone in Zimmerman's community.
+ Show Spoiler +OLIVIA BERTALAN, ZIMMERMAN'S FORMER NEIGHBOR: -- t-a-l-a-n.
O'MARA: And at one point back in February of actually early 2012, did you live in the retreat at Twin Lakes area?
BERTALAN: Yes.
O'MARA: Have you since moved out.
BERTALAN: Yes, I have.
O'MARA: Are you married?
BERTALAN: Yes, I am.
O'MARA: Do you have any children?
BERTALAN: Two.
O'MARA: Their ages?
BERTALAN: Two and a half, and 4 months. O'MARA: OK. Going back, then, to when you still lived at retreat view circle, did an event happen at your residence where a crime was committed?
BERTALAN: Yes.
O'MARA: Could you explain to the jury what happened with that?
BERTALAN: I was home on a Wednesday with my son. He was, I think, 9 months at the time and I heard someone ring my doorbell repeatedly. So I went to check upstairs because I didn't have a peephole. And I saw two young African-American guys ring my doorbell repeatedly and they kept on looking up at the window.
I called my mom because I didn't know what to do. They left. Then after a while, I went back upstairs to check one more time and they were walking in front of my house. One came towards my house and I called -- I was on the phone with my mom at the time. I started crying. I called the police. They broke into my house.
I heard some bangs downstairs. The dispatcher told me to grab any weapon I had because I had my son in my arms. He had woken up and just prepared to use it if I had to. The guy was it -- I was locked in my son's bedroom.
He was shaking the doorknob trying to get in. I was sitting there with a pair of rusty scissors and my son in one arm and the police came and they ended up leaving.
O'MARA: Do you recall approximately when this happened?
BERTALAN: August 3rd of 2011.
O'MARA: And did you then take a place of refuge or hiding while this was occurring?
BERTALAN: Yes, I did.
O'MARA: Where did you go to hide?
BERTALAN: My son's upstairs bedroom.
O'MARA: In the closet?
BERTALAN: I wasn't in the closet. I was in the far corner because the closet was closer to the door. She said to get away -- as far away from the door as possible.
O'MARA: Did you have your son with you during that time?
BERTALAN: Yes, I did.
O'MARA: When -- did the people who were downstairs at some point, did they leave the house?
BERTALAN: Yes. I guess they escaped before the cops got there. O'MARA: Did they take any items with them?
BERTALAN: Yes, they did.
O'MARA: What did they take?
BERTALAN: My camera, our laptop. They tried to get our TV. It was unhooked. But he had it hooked up to our computer so they couldn't get it off. I think there was something else. I can't remember what it was, definitely our camera and my laptop.
O'MARA: At some point, then, one of those people -- at least one of those people were arrested and found and arrested and charged with that crime?
BERTALAN: Yes.
O'MARA: And do you know what happened? Do you know the person's name?
BERTALAN: His name was Emanuel Burgess.
O'MARA: And is that the reason why you moved from that area?
BERTALAN: Yes.
O'MARA: Nothing further, your honor.
tl;dr version two African-American's broke into her house while she was home, they stole a few things. One of them was eventually caught for it.
|
On July 15 2013 17:37 FatChicksUnited wrote:
What 16-year old male doesn't like guns and fighting, and tried a little weed?.
Non-scum. Guess it's pretty rare in the US.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 16 2013 00:09 Microchaton wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 17:37 FatChicksUnited wrote:
What 16-year old male doesn't like guns and fighting, and tried a little weed?. Non-scum. Guess it's pretty rare in the US.
When I was 16, I was so busy training for fencing(I guess that is kind of like fighting), cycling, and chasing girls that I didn't even have time to break in to someones house, much less smoke weed. Weed was something the bad kids on tv did.
|
On July 16 2013 00:15 dotHead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 00:09 Microchaton wrote:On July 15 2013 17:37 FatChicksUnited wrote:
What 16-year old male doesn't like guns and fighting, and tried a little weed?. Non-scum. Guess it's pretty rare in the US. When I was 16, I was so busy training for fencing(I guess that is kind of like fighting), cycling, and chasing girls that I didn't even have time to break in to someones house, much less smoke weed. Weed was something the bad kids on tv did.
I did bad stuff when I was 17, but I don't think I ever would have gotten into a fight with a grown man or let it get to the point that Martin and GZ got to. I got in a few fights and lost as many as I won, but they all ended with me being winded and not fearing for my life.
But I'm not going to judge Martin based on my experiences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
