EPTSelf-defense is not an easy defense. Zimmerman just had a lot of evidence in his favor.
Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 476
| Forum Index > General Forum |
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Self-defense is not an easy defense. Zimmerman just had a lot of evidence in his favor. | ||
|
HardlyNever
United States1258 Posts
On July 16 2013 01:33 Feartheguru wrote: How is that difference beneficial to your argument? If I wanted someone dead I'd rather conceal and get away with it then be in GZ's position. GZ's position seems pretty exceptional for these kinds of cases (read some of the linked self defense cases above). Most of these cases seem to fly under the radar. The media just picked this one up for various reasons ("stand your ground" issues, racial profiling, etc.). I think the issue is the precedent such a high profile case might have set which is "self-defense is a really hard argument to refute." Anyhow, I'm just trying to explain why some people are having a hard time with the verdict of the case (especially if they didn't follow it closely). If I were on the jury, with the evidence presented, I would have found GZ not guilty. The evidence just isn't there for that kind of conviction. That still doesn't remove the feeling that GZ might have gotten away with murder, or at least some form of manslaughter (very similar to the OJ Simpson case, I'd say). | ||
|
Yacobs
United States846 Posts
On July 16 2013 01:41 HardlyNever wrote:That still doesn't remove the feeling that GZ might have gotten away with murder, or at least some form of manslaughter (very similar to the OJ Simpson case, I'd say). It's not similar at all. OJ Simpson brutally murdered two people with a knife, most likely pre-meditated it, and got away with it despite everyone on the planet knowing he was guilty. The likelihood that GZ is that level of sociopath is pretty slim, even if he is more guilty than the prosecution was able to prove. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 16 2013 01:49 Yacobs wrote: It's not similar at all. OJ Simpson brutally murdered two people with a knife, most likely pre-meditated it, and got away with it despite everyone on the planet knowing he was guilty. The likelihood that GZ is that level of sociopath is pretty slim, even if he is more guilty than the prosecution was able to prove. Also, the OJ Simpson case was filled with bad evidnce and the police shooting themselves in the foot. That was police error more than an error in law. If the police suck at their job, no one goes to jail. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On July 16 2013 01:35 sc2superfan101 wrote: It's a really complex question. Amusingly, only one of the three reasons you gave is plausible (not being raised correctly, although I'd say "effectively" rather than correctly, since "correct parenting" is meaningless). Entitlement/lack of exposure to consequences are not the reasons people do bad things. Overwhelming research supports the notion that the chief causes of crime are problematic family situations and poverty. It has nothing to do with arrogance, lmao. Martin wasn't a Wall Street banked who thought he was better than everyone. Also, stop using the word thug, because I have no idea what you think it means and it just sounds like a buzzword of some kind.Why do little thugs go around attacking people? It's a complex question. People attack other people because they haven't been raised correctly, haven't been exposed to consequences for their actions, and have an inflated sense of entitlement. And to be perfectly honest, I don't give one shit if some punk who wants to attack people who annoy him feels like the legal system is mean for protecting his victims. You're being deliberately obtuse. But how do you think someone who comes from a shitty family and lives in an impoverished neighbourhood fraught with illegal activity and abuses is going to react to your picture of the legal system? Why should that person find anything noble about that system, when all it seems to be is a more powerful version of the criminal organizations within his neighbourhood (criminals, say, kill people who break their rules; you're going to try to appeal to people from crime-ridden neighbourhoods who haven't yet committed any crimes by scaring them with the exact same tactics????) If someone wants to physically assault people for no reason other than they feel like it than they should be afraid of the consequences, which include that person they are assaulting fighting back. We have absolutely no way to tell why Martin did anything. It's impossible to deduce a clear motive like the one you're suggesting (which might be true or might not be) from a person who isn't even able to testify on account of being dead. This idea that we need to coddle people who refuse to act like civilized human beings is utterly ridiculous, almost as absurd as the idea that they are only attacking people because we haven't coddled them. We don't need to coddle them. We need to teach them why they should act like civilized human beings, because there has to be a reason that they aren't currently acting like one (and I'm willing to bet it's not because they have a self of entitlement, given how poor a lot of criminals are). Fighting violence with more violence, or making punitive measures to deter criminals, just makes it easier to see the justice system as something that's more interested in punishing than creating a better society. Fear, in this situation, is a perfectly reasonable motivator to prevent attacks. If you just want to flex your nuts, you'll very quickly decide it's not worth it if you know your potential victim is armed and has the right (and the knowledge of said right) to defend himself from your assaults. First off, nobody is labouring under the delusion that you can't defend yourself if you're attacked. Secondly, I'm not sure what school of sociology you come from, but it might interest you to know that people don't generally commit crimes to "flex their nuts." That is so astronomically stereotypical and ridiculous that I'm amazed you seriously uttered such a thing. *Characterizing Martin as a "little thug" based on the evidence that was presented in this trial is incredibly disingenuous. It's inflammatory, vitriolic, vengeful, and biased, and you hurt your own cause by demonizing in such fashion. Martin was at a point in his life where he was about to make a decision whether he would become a thug or not. We will never know which way he would have decided to go, and in all possibility he would have just grown up to be a perfectly responsible and honest and great citizen. Um, what? What is a thug? Why is there one specific moment where one chooses to be forever a "thug" or not? This makes no sense. Or maybe he would have followed the path he was on and become a monster, attacking people for no reason. The path he was on? What, aside from this case, evidence do we have to suggest that Martin was on some long path toward becoming a monster? We literally have zero evidence of his motivations because he is dead. I'm not saying his motivation was good, but to claim that he was doing it for some reason or another (or "no reason") is not a claim you can make since there's no actual evidence about Martin's motives being that he is dead. All I know is that on that night, according to the evidence, he decided to be a thug and decided to attack another man for no reason whatsoever. You do not know any of these things. This trial did not establish any of these things. This trial established that there is no evidence or not enough evidence to conclude that Zimmerman acted aggressively and that, in light of that, his assertion that he acted in self-defense is consistent with the evidence (but not implied by the evidence; there is a crucial difference here that you're pretending doesn't exist). Let me say that again: this trial was not about Martin's motives. This trial was not about Martin's motives. It was about showing whether the evidence can prove that Martin's motives were definitely not aggressive. Since that could not be proved, there is no reason to convict Zimmerman. There is also no reason to assume any particular motive is responsible for Martin's actions, though, because that wasn't the point of the trial. It is not vitriolic to say that he was acting like a little thug when he jumped another man and proceeded to beat him down. That is what a little thug does, and whether or not Martin was like that all the time is irrelevant. On that night, at that time, that's what he was. ????????????????????????????? I still don't understand why you're using the phrase "little thug." Nobody is trying to claim that Martin did nothing wrong, or that this verdict is wrong. All people are saying is that your ridiculous assertion that somehow this case is monumental in establishing that self defense is not illegal (despite it already being codified in the frickin' law) and that it'll strike fear into the hearts of all these "little thugs" nationwide who apparently just like to attack people for literally no reason. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure the reason I don't attack people is because attacking people is wrong, not because I'm scared of being punished. There was no evidence that Zimmerman's story was not basically true, and great evidence that it was true. We have no opposing narrative, but we do have the fact that all the physical evidence corroborated Zimmerman's story. There was no realistic narrative that was put forward that implicated Zimmerman. If Zimmerman's story is true, and it is very likely that it was, than Martin attacked him for no reason and kept up the attack with a pretty wanton disregard for Zimmerman's safety or well-being. All physical evidence was consistent with Zimmerman's story, yes. Nobody is disputing that. There was no realistic narrative put forth that implicated Zimmerman, which is why nobody is arguing that this verdict was wrong. But your final sentence doesn't follow because Zimmerman's speculations about why Martin attacked him, in addition to the particulars of Zimmerman's narrative, do not necessarily have corresponding physical evidence. It is literally unknowable as to what Martin's reason for attacking Zimmerman was. If physical evidence was sufficient for acquittal/conviction, we wouldn't bother asking for testimony. As it is, physical evidence can only disprove narratives; it can't actually prove the truth of any overall narrative that extends beyond the scope of physical evidence (shit regarding motivations, the details of the fight etc. etc.; we have literally no way to know any of these things in complete detail based on physical evidence so stop making absolutist assertions about converses). Here's a parallel: suppose someone is found murdered in the ditch across the street from my house. Suppose the body evidences the cause of death as being the severing of the jugular (with a sharp object e.g. a knife). Suppose people often throw trash into this ditch because that's what people do. Suppose, in the crime scene investigation, a pair of gloves with my DNA on them are found underneath the body; as such, they have portions of the deceased's DNA on them as well. Suppose the time of death is judged to have been around 2-3 weeks previous. The gloves are impossible to date since there are too many external factors affecting them and because gloves don't decompose as readily as flesh, but suppose someone discovers that there is a tear in one of the gloves which appears to have been caused by a sharp object in a manner plausibly consistent with accidentally gripping a large knife improperly. Obviously, I get questioned. I tell the detectives, and testify, that I threw the gloves away because I snagged them on a jagged piece of metal while I was working in my workshop. I say that I threw the gloves away about a month ago, which is plausible given their physical condition. There is insufficient evidence to convict me of any wrongdoing, since the physical evidence does not establish that I committed a crime, and it is consistent with my story. That said, it's entirely possible that I actually am the murderer, but that there just isn't enough physical evidence to convict me. The moral of the story is that evidence eliminates narratives but doesn't usually produce an airtight one. My analogy is not exact, so bear with me. | ||
|
HardlyNever
United States1258 Posts
On July 16 2013 01:49 Yacobs wrote: It's not similar at all. OJ Simpson brutally murdered two people with a knife, most likely pre-meditated it, and got away with it despite everyone on the planet knowing he was guilty. The likelihood that GZ is that level of sociopath is pretty slim, even if he is more guilty than the prosecution was able to prove. You and I have different ideas of "similar." I'm not saying GZ is the "level of sociopath" OJ is. I'm saying the trial ended with the feeling that he probably did something wrong (in the GZ case, some form of manslaughter or reckless endangerment), but got off because the evidence isn't there to convict him (and that someone in the justice is system isn't doing their job right, in the GZ case, the prosecutor overreached on what evidence was available). To me, "similar" doesn't mean "identical." | ||
|
phoenix`down
49 Posts
On July 16 2013 01:27 HardlyNever wrote: The difference is one is a crime that you then conceal and try to get away with (murder), while the other is something you can openly admit to, and walk away scott-free. I'm not saying it is something I would do, but there are a lot of bizarre things I wouldn't do that other people do. And I don't think the circumstances are that hard to fake. But getting into specifics about hypothetical scenarios can be pretty difficult. You seem to have a problem with self-defense in general. I really don't understand these comments like, "I'm glad I don't live there." and "These laws are messed up." I think almost everywhere allows you to defend yourself since most people consider it a basic human right. I have also noticed a lot of judgmental comments directed to both George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin in this thread, ranging from drug-dealing, fighting, thieving, thug for Trayvon to monstrous, racist, fat, bumbling, wannabe, idiot for George Zimmerman and I don't feel that either set of characterizations are fair. Even if every negative rumor about Trayvon is true, it is entirely possible he was just being a rebellious teenager. Similarly for George Zimmerman, if you give credence to his story and the testimony from the trial, it is hard to find fault with the things he did. Speculation is great, but I think it is unfair to judge them based upon it. This is probably my last post in this thread so I want to express my appreciation for the posters that made this thread enlightening and informative; in particular: Kaitlin, xDaunt, and dAPhREAk. | ||
|
HardlyNever
United States1258 Posts
On July 16 2013 02:01 phoenix`down wrote: You seem to have a problem with self-defense in general. I really don't understand these comments like, "I'm glad I don't live there." and "These laws are messed up." I think almost everywhere allows you to defend yourself since most people consider it a basic human right. I never said any of those things. | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On July 16 2013 01:58 HardlyNever wrote: You and I have different ideas of "similar." I'm not saying GZ is the "level of sociopath" OJ is. I'm saying the trial ended with the feeling that he probably did something wrong (in the GZ case, some form of manslaughter or reckless endangerment), but got off because the evidence isn't there to convict him (and that someone in the justice is system isn't doing their job right, in the GZ case, the prosecutor overreached on what evidence was available). To me, "similar" doesn't mean "identical." Oh he absolutely did things wrong. He was reckless, negligent, probably racist, and probably had some delusions of grandeur. But none of those things are criminal. That feeling that most people have is that it's not quite clicking that doing something wrong != doing something criminal. | ||
|
phoenix`down
49 Posts
I didn't mean to imply that you did, I responded to your post in particular because it was the most recent that expressed a similar sentiment. | ||
|
Thrax
Canada1755 Posts
On July 16 2013 01:41 LegalLord wrote: I'd like to link this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat Self-defense is not an easy defense. Zimmerman just had a lot of evidence in his favor. There is no duty to retreat here. This is actually from the instructions given to the jury: If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. An article from 2002 about this and relating to this case: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/21/opinion/bellin-stand-your-ground-law | ||
|
MrCon
France29748 Posts
Also wasn't allowed the fact that he was involved with some burglary, but he escaped being charged because the office who should have "prosecuted" him cheated to have good end year statistics :/ Without this corruption he would perhaps have been in jail or whatever and never ended up dead. After reading those articles, it's hard to think about Martin as a kid, even if he was. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On July 16 2013 02:12 Thrax wrote: There is no duty to retreat here. This is actually from the instructions given to the jury: An article from 2002 about this and relating to this case: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/21/opinion/bellin-stand-your-ground-law That's a pretty big "if" IMO. | ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
On July 16 2013 02:20 MrTortoise wrote: #i dont really think the result of this trial matters ... the lesson here is that the legal system is a fucking joke. Join the chorus of people who also didn't watch the trial | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On July 16 2013 02:20 MrTortoise wrote: #i dont really think the result of this trial matters ... the lesson here is that the legal system is a fucking joke. Why? | ||
|
ey215
United States546 Posts
On July 16 2013 02:20 MrTortoise wrote: #i dont really think the result of this trial matters ... the lesson here is that the legal system is a fucking joke. And how is it a joke? With the exception of Zimmerman being overcharged the system worked exactly like it's supposed to. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. As others, elsewhere, have pointed out in these jury instructions, it's interesting to substitute George Zimmerman's name with Trayvon Martin's. "If Trayvon Martin was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." What if Trayvon had survived the shooting? That'd have made things a lot more complicated for GZ in court I think. It's disturbingly simpler for GZ to just kill him outright, as that seems to make self-defense a completely one-sided issue. It no longer becomes a question of who was actually defending themselves, just was GZ defending himself, which is a simpler question. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 16 2013 02:20 MrTortoise wrote: #i dont really think the result of this trial matters ... the lesson here is that the legal system is a fucking joke. Backing that up with some solid reasoning I see. So you think people should be convicted of crimes based on public opinion? There was a term for that back in the day: "Mob Justice". | ||
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
On July 16 2013 02:23 Leporello wrote: As others, elsewhere, have pointed out in these jury instructions, it's interesting to substitute George Zimmerman's name with Trayvon Martin's. "If Trayvon Martin was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." What if Trayvon had survived the shooting? That'd have made things a lot more complicated for GZ in court I think. It's disturbingly simpler for GZ to just kill him outright, as that seems to make self-defense a completely one-sided issue. It no longer becomes a question of who was actually defending themselves, just was GZ defending himself, which is a simpler question. Trayvon Martin - no injuries George Zimmerman - multiple injuries That argument just doesn't work. You're trying to reverse a situation as if Martin and Zimmerman's situation is interchangeable, when the evidence disagrees. EDIT: obviously Martin had a fatal gunshot wound, but I think it should be pretty clear that Zimmerman sustained his injuries before the fatal gunshot wound, and the fatal gunshot wound was a result of the injuries Martin inflicted on Zimmerman. | ||
| ||
