|
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 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. User was warned for this post
It's kind of ignorant spiteful comments like these that piss me off. If I wanted to follow every criminal trial in say, Peru (just to throw out a random country) and then call everyone in the country of Peru scum based on the people in the criminal trials I would not only look like a jack-ass with a bizarre grudge, I would be demonstrating a clear logical fallacy. I guess if you do it with the U.S. it's just standard anti-American behavior.
|
|
|
Zimmerman, sometime soon, can get his gun and his vest and go driving around looking for more of "them." He can continue to instigate confrontations and then end them with his gun. This is legal in his state.
It sounds like a warped system of justice to me.
|
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 ...
This is pretty much what it comes down to. Well said.
Personally my whole issue with this case is the fact that it was a case forced by the media and the black community claiming it was racial profiling. They skewed the entire situation to try and make it just that. Fuck the media and the lemmings that follow every word they say. Honestly I'm disappointed in the amount of outcry of "injustice". The evidence and the results of the case prove that it was merely a stupid pointless situation where someone attacked the other and in self defense someone was killed. That's it.
In other news...
http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/21321808-418/gun-violence-kills-5-wounds-16-since-friday-night.html
|
On July 16 2013 00:29 MeLlamoSatan wrote:
Zimmerman, sometime soon, can get his gun and his vest and go driving around looking for more of "them." He can continue to instigate confrontations and then end them with his gun. This is legal in his state.
It sounds like a warped system of justice to me.
Its sorta funny but mostly just sad how people like you are completely incapable of parsing out the various nuances of a given situation. You look at the case, make your assumptions and conclusions based on your own biases, and then you use those conclusions to make broad generalizations. Good job.
|
On July 16 2013 00:29 MeLlamoSatan wrote:
Zimmerman, sometime soon, can get his gun and his vest and go driving around looking for more of "them." He can continue to instigate confrontations and then end them with his gun. This is legal in his state.
It sounds like a warped system of justice to me.
Exept he can't and thats now what happened in this case. Instigating confrontations is still illegal, with or without a gun. Self Defense cannot be used as a defense while commiting another criminal act. You can't go around harassing people and shoot them when they try to make you leave them alone.
|
This is a good verdict. I lean toward the notion that Zimmerman's story probably wasn't completely accurate, and that the killing of Martin had some kind of injustice to it (on top of being a tragedy, no matter what happened) but the justice system needs to be held to a standard, or else it loses all credibility. Sometimes that means that injustices go unacknowledged, but that's not because the legal system is evil; it's because the legal system needs to worry more about protecting the innocent than catching the guilty.
As it is, I think Z was maybe a bit of an overconfident, blustering fool, but that's not punishable by law, so this verdict makes sense.
|
On July 16 2013 00:35 stratmatt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 00:29 MeLlamoSatan wrote:
Zimmerman, sometime soon, can get his gun and his vest and go driving around looking for more of "them." He can continue to instigate confrontations and then end them with his gun. This is legal in his state.
It sounds like a warped system of justice to me. Its sorta funny but mostly just sad how people like you are completely incapable of parsing out the various nuances of a given situation. You look at the case, make your assumptions and conclusions based on your own biases, and then you use those conclusions to make broad generalizations. Good job.
Exactly. Like I stated before, most people are just a bunch of lemmings. They can't actually look at the case the way they should be; based on the evidence and laws.
|
It's amazing how much the general opinion has changed since the thread was primarily people that kept up with the trial to now when Internet warriors of justice who didn't keep up with the trial come to interject their opinion. There is nothing terribly unique about this case, and other self-defense situations happen, and there is no outcry. No in depth analysis of the inadequacy of self-defense laws. No demonization of the defendant, because there is very little coverage of the trial. What's so special about this case? Basically, when it comes down to it, the media decided Zimmerman was a trigger happy racist before the police investigation had even concluded. People jumped on this story, and by the time police determined it was a self-defense killing the mob was already demanding Zimmerman's arrest. Luckily we have a justice system to prevent mob justice, and Zimmerman was again found to have acted in self-defense in his trial. Still people who did not feel it necessary to follow the trial are eager to share their views of why Zimmerman acted improperly. Where was this passion for other instances of self-defense?
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2010/03/top_10_selfdefense_killings.html
|
On July 16 2013 00:41 Shiori wrote:
This is a good verdict. I lean toward the notion that Zimmerman's story probably wasn't completely accurate, and that the killing of Martin had some kind of injustice to it (on top of being a tragedy, no matter what happened) but the justice system needs to be held to a standard, or else it loses all credibility. Sometimes that means that injustices go unacknowledged, but that's not because the legal system is evil; it's because the legal system needs to worry more about protecting the innocent than catching the guilty.
As it is, I think Z was maybe a bit of an overconfident, blustering fool, but that's not punishable by law, so this verdict makes sense.
Just when I read a comment from someone that I think is perfect another one comes around.
|
On July 16 2013 00:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 00:29 MeLlamoSatan wrote:
Zimmerman, sometime soon, can get his gun and his vest and go driving around looking for more of "them." He can continue to instigate confrontations and then end them with his gun. This is legal in his state.
It sounds like a warped system of justice to me. Exept he can't and thats now what happened in this case. Instigating confrontations is still illegal, with or without a gun. Self Defense cannot be used as a defense while commiting another criminal act. You can't go around harassing people and shoot them when they try to make you leave them alone.
The problem is that, even if in this exact instance Zimmerman wasn't guilty of any crime, this entire situation makes it seem like the exact situation that you are describing could actually be likely with how ridiculous Florida's law is. It seems rather plausible that someone could be in a similar situation; instigate a confrontation, and then, if the facts aren't clear enough (like they were with this case; no witnesses, victim dead, no video records, etc.), then the instigator could just shoot the guy he's harassing and then claim self-defense.
Thank God I don't live in that state. Really not a whole lot of positives about Florida at this point.
|
On July 16 2013 00:35 stratmatt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 00:29 MeLlamoSatan wrote:
Zimmerman, sometime soon, can get his gun and his vest and go driving around looking for more of "them." He can continue to instigate confrontations and then end them with his gun. This is legal in his state.
It sounds like a warped system of justice to me. Its sorta funny but mostly just sad how people like you are completely incapable of parsing out the various nuances of a given situation. You look at the case, make your assumptions and conclusions based on your own biases, and then you use those conclusions to make broad generalizations. Good job.
Cool ad homs with no contribution. Can you go call people names elsewhere?
I'm pretty sure he stalked the kid and was confronted about it and then the kid died at his hands. Do you care to refute those "nuances?"
I'd argue instigating the confrontation stems from him stalking the person (after being told not to by authorities).
People cry self-defense when he clearly created the situation.
"They always get away"
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Frankly, I think self-defense laws are pretty prone to abuse in general. I understand why they exist, but I honestly don't really think that they should be invoked very often, because it seems to me like there's rarely ever a reason to use lethal force defending yourself unless you've already done something provocative. Not saying that's what happened here, but I confess that I always raise an eyebrow when someone pleads self defense in the case of a killing. It's very tricky when there's only one person's story.
|
On July 16 2013 00:42 BRaegO wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 00:35 stratmatt wrote:On July 16 2013 00:29 MeLlamoSatan wrote:
Zimmerman, sometime soon, can get his gun and his vest and go driving around looking for more of "them." He can continue to instigate confrontations and then end them with his gun. This is legal in his state.
It sounds like a warped system of justice to me. Its sorta funny but mostly just sad how people like you are completely incapable of parsing out the various nuances of a given situation. You look at the case, make your assumptions and conclusions based on your own biases, and then you use those conclusions to make broad generalizations. Good job. Exactly. Like I stated before, most people are just a bunch of lemmings. They can't actually look at the case the way they should be; based on the evidence and laws.
To be fair, the reporting on this case has been terrible. You have to really want to get informed on the case and dig deep to get anything real or solid. Finding any news report that even references John Good is nearly impossible and most of them don't talk about the witnesses at all. Even the misreporting on the DOJ and that they provided "aid"(by aid, there are some travel expense vouchers used by a DOJ offical back some time ago when the arrest was made, who likely visited the state to check on reports of racial profiling, which is part of the DOJ's job) to protesters is so bad it is depressing.
|
On July 16 2013 00:45 MeLlamoSatan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 00:35 stratmatt wrote:On July 16 2013 00:29 MeLlamoSatan wrote:
Zimmerman, sometime soon, can get his gun and his vest and go driving around looking for more of "them." He can continue to instigate confrontations and then end them with his gun. This is legal in his state.
It sounds like a warped system of justice to me. Its sorta funny but mostly just sad how people like you are completely incapable of parsing out the various nuances of a given situation. You look at the case, make your assumptions and conclusions based on your own biases, and then you use those conclusions to make broad generalizations. Good job. I'm pretty sure he stalked the kid and was confronted about it and then the kid died at his hands. Do you care to refute those "nuances?" I'd argue instigating the confrontation stems from him stalking the person (after being told not to by authorities). People cry self-defense when he clearly created the situation.
It's entirely true that Zimmerman created the situation unnecessarily which led to Martin's death. However, under Florida law, he did nothing wrong.
This is why it feels like there can be no justice in this situation; Zimmerman did nothing wrong under Florida law, but Florida law allows for holes like this where kids end up killed unnecessarily. How do you punish either parties?
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 16 2013 00:45 MeLlamoSatan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 00:35 stratmatt wrote:On July 16 2013 00:29 MeLlamoSatan wrote:
Zimmerman, sometime soon, can get his gun and his vest and go driving around looking for more of "them." He can continue to instigate confrontations and then end them with his gun. This is legal in his state.
It sounds like a warped system of justice to me. Its sorta funny but mostly just sad how people like you are completely incapable of parsing out the various nuances of a given situation. You look at the case, make your assumptions and conclusions based on your own biases, and then you use those conclusions to make broad generalizations. Good job. I'm pretty sure he stalked the kid and was confronted about it and then the kid died at his hands. Do you care to refute those "nuances?" I'd argue instigating the confrontation stems from him stalking the person (after being told not to by authorities). People cry self-defense when he clearly created the situation.
two problems with your statement. First, he wasn't stalking, he was following. Definition for stalking is in the OP. Following is legal so he didn't do anything wrong there if you follow the law. Second, the dispatcher didn't give him an order. It was a recommendation that he was under no obligation to follow. The dispatcher testified to that in court. Did he instigate? we don't know who started it. Last thing we know is that Zimmerman finished the call and he alleges that he went to check a street name then Trayvon came back. Is it the truth? no one knows. One thing is certain though and that is if Zimmerman truly felt his life was in danger, then using his gun and pleading self defense is a fair point. Majority of the evidence in the case has pointed towards his self-defense argument.
|
On July 16 2013 00:47 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 00:45 MeLlamoSatan wrote:On July 16 2013 00:35 stratmatt wrote:On July 16 2013 00:29 MeLlamoSatan wrote:
Zimmerman, sometime soon, can get his gun and his vest and go driving around looking for more of "them." He can continue to instigate confrontations and then end them with his gun. This is legal in his state.
It sounds like a warped system of justice to me. Its sorta funny but mostly just sad how people like you are completely incapable of parsing out the various nuances of a given situation. You look at the case, make your assumptions and conclusions based on your own biases, and then you use those conclusions to make broad generalizations. Good job. I'm pretty sure he stalked the kid and was confronted about it and then the kid died at his hands. Do you care to refute those "nuances?" I'd argue instigating the confrontation stems from him stalking the person (after being told not to by authorities). People cry self-defense when he clearly created the situation. It's an indisputable fact that Zimmerman created the situation unnecessarily which led to Martin's death. However, under Florida law, he did nothing wrong. This is why it feels like there is no justice in this situation; Zimmerman did nothing wrong under Florida law, but Florida law allows for holes like this where kids end up killed unnecessarily.
I'm not claiming he is or should be guilty of murder. I'm insisting he is, at least, partially responsible for the results of a situation he created.
|
On July 16 2013 00:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 00:37 Plansix wrote:On July 16 2013 00:29 MeLlamoSatan wrote:
Zimmerman, sometime soon, can get his gun and his vest and go driving around looking for more of "them." He can continue to instigate confrontations and then end them with his gun. This is legal in his state.
It sounds like a warped system of justice to me. Exept he can't and thats now what happened in this case. Instigating confrontations is still illegal, with or without a gun. Self Defense cannot be used as a defense while commiting another criminal act. You can't go around harassing people and shoot them when they try to make you leave them alone. The problem is that, even if in this exact instance Zimmerman wasn't guilty of any crime, this entire situation makes it seem like the exact situation that you are describing could actually be likely with how ridiculous Florida's law is. It seems rather plausible that someone could be in a similar situation; instigate a confrontation, and then, if the facts aren't clear enough (like they were with this case; no witnesses, victim dead, no video records, etc.), then the instigator could just shoot the guy he's harassing and then claim self-defense. Thank God I don't live in that state. Really not a whole lot of positives about Florida at this point.
But that can't happen. For self defense to work, you need to have and be able to prove a "reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm", which is not easy to prove. The person would also need provide reasons why they were doing what they were doing and why they confronted the person in question that they shot. They would also take into account if the person that was shot was violent or it is reasonable to think they would be violent.
Its not as easy as a lot of people think and generally the police are good at cutting through the BS and finding out if a crime took place.
|
On July 16 2013 00:49 MeLlamoSatan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 00:47 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 16 2013 00:45 MeLlamoSatan wrote:On July 16 2013 00:35 stratmatt wrote:On July 16 2013 00:29 MeLlamoSatan wrote:
Zimmerman, sometime soon, can get his gun and his vest and go driving around looking for more of "them." He can continue to instigate confrontations and then end them with his gun. This is legal in his state.
It sounds like a warped system of justice to me. Its sorta funny but mostly just sad how people like you are completely incapable of parsing out the various nuances of a given situation. You look at the case, make your assumptions and conclusions based on your own biases, and then you use those conclusions to make broad generalizations. Good job. I'm pretty sure he stalked the kid and was confronted about it and then the kid died at his hands. Do you care to refute those "nuances?" I'd argue instigating the confrontation stems from him stalking the person (after being told not to by authorities). People cry self-defense when he clearly created the situation. It's an indisputable fact that Zimmerman created the situation unnecessarily which led to Martin's death. However, under Florida law, he did nothing wrong. This is why it feels like there is no justice in this situation; Zimmerman did nothing wrong under Florida law, but Florida law allows for holes like this where kids end up killed unnecessarily. I'm not claiming he is or should be guilty of murder. I'm insisting he is, at least, partially responsible for the results of a situation he created.
Maybe in civil court, but not in criminal court. The evidence does not support that claim and even if he made some poor choices, the response from Martin was so violent that it made GZ have a "reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm". That is a huge burden to overcome in court without overwhelming evidence, which the defense had in this case.
GZ did some dumb shit, no one will argue, but that is not a crime.
|
On July 16 2013 00:45 MeLlamoSatan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 00:35 stratmatt wrote:On July 16 2013 00:29 MeLlamoSatan wrote:
Zimmerman, sometime soon, can get his gun and his vest and go driving around looking for more of "them." He can continue to instigate confrontations and then end them with his gun. This is legal in his state.
It sounds like a warped system of justice to me. Its sorta funny but mostly just sad how people like you are completely incapable of parsing out the various nuances of a given situation. You look at the case, make your assumptions and conclusions based on your own biases, and then you use those conclusions to make broad generalizations. Good job. I'm pretty sure he stalked the kid and was confronted about it and then the kid died at his hands. Do you care to refute those "nuances?" I'd argue instigating the confrontation stems from him stalking the person (after being told not to by authorities). People cry self-defense when he clearly created the situation.
The situation you are refering to is what exactly? Stalking? No. Following? Yes, but that is not grounds for someone to attack and pummel somebody. The only eye-witness testified that it was Trayvon on top of and pummeling Zimmerman. Martin also had no other visible injuries that resulted from a "fight," which could possibly suggest that Zimmerman never even got a blow in. It was an unfortunate situation, but there is no evidence at all to suggest that Zimmerman ever physically assaulted Martin until he had to pull his gun out in self-defense. You can cry that he profiled Martin all you want, but profiling happens all day every day all over the world and it is a fact of life that you are not immune to yourself.
Also, there is ZERO evidence to suggest that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after an OPERATOR suggested he not do so. Zimmerman said "ok" and you cannot prove he lied.
Once again, you are making assumptions and jumping to conclusions not supported by evidence but rather based on your own biases. Luckily, shit like that doesn't convict somebody of something as serious as 2nd degree murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
