On July 16 2013 14:32 LegalLord wrote: Self-defense is not an easy argument. There are many technicalities you can be convicted on, and you do have to justify yourself to a pretty large extent. Zimmerman had a VERY strong case for his position; that's why he got out of it. One major fuck-up and the result may have been way different.
This is not true according to the jury instructions. In Florida the defendant has to prove NOTHING relating to his defense assertion. The prosecution has to prove with certainty that it absolutely could not have been self defense. Take a second to think about how that is even possible without witnesses or recordings of the event. It may be possible to cast doubt but it is nearly impossible to disprove in a fight like this.
If Zimmerman had no injuries at all would he have lost? If he had shot Tayvon in the face would he have lost? Nope, not unless the jury ignored their instructions. The key is that whatever the defense says is accepted fact, no matter how unlikely or unsupported until the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
You exaggerate. Absolute certainty and reasonable doubt are not the same.
Also, juries are not legal experts. A good winning formula for a prosecution is something like this: conviction = reasonable account of events that make the defendant appear guilty + star witness + lying to police + assorted bonus talking points
Juries eat it up when you feed them a story like that. They really do. It doesn't take too much evidence to put together a winning formula like that if you have a half-decent case.
I don't think I exaggerate when it comes to the letter of the law. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not absolute certainty but it is the highest possible standard for understanding anything that can't be directly observed. If you need to rely on manipulating juries toward irrational judgements, no matter how reliable this method is, to moderate the application of this type of "justice" then we need to rework the rules.
As the law stands, the only things standing between us and gross murderous abuse is the incompetence of criminals and the incompetence of juries. Sad thought.
On a side note it is good to see that different states have different ways of tackling the balance between victims rights and vigilante justice.
In almost every single criminal case, the defendant is pretty clearly guilty and they are treated as such by the prosecution. I wouldn't say the system is broken because of a few false positives.
Doesn't that fly in the face of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing?
On July 16 2013 14:32 LegalLord wrote: Self-defense is not an easy argument. There are many technicalities you can be convicted on, and you do have to justify yourself to a pretty large extent. Zimmerman had a VERY strong case for his position; that's why he got out of it. One major fuck-up and the result may have been way different.
This is not true according to the jury instructions. In Florida the defendant has to prove NOTHING relating to his defense assertion. The prosecution has to prove with certainty that it absolutely could not have been self defense. Take a second to think about how that is even possible without witnesses or recordings of the event. It may be possible to cast doubt but it is nearly impossible to disprove in a fight like this.
If Zimmerman had no injuries at all would he have lost? If he had shot Tayvon in the face would he have lost? Nope, not unless the jury ignored their instructions. The key is that whatever the defense says is accepted fact, no matter how unlikely or unsupported until the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
You exaggerate. Absolute certainty and reasonable doubt are not the same.
Also, juries are not legal experts. A good winning formula for a prosecution is something like this: conviction = reasonable account of events that make the defendant appear guilty + star witness + lying to police + assorted bonus talking points
Juries eat it up when you feed them a story like that. They really do. It doesn't take too much evidence to put together a winning formula like that if you have a half-decent case.
I don't think I exaggerate when it comes to the letter of the law. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not absolute certainty but it is the highest possible standard for understanding anything that can't be directly observed. If you need to rely on manipulating juries toward irrational judgements, no matter how reliable this method is, to moderate the application of this type of "justice" then we need to rework the rules.
As the law stands, the only things standing between us and gross murderous abuse is the incompetence of criminals and the incompetence of juries. Sad thought.
On a side note it is good to see that different states have different ways of tackling the balance between victims rights and vigilante justice.
In almost every single criminal case, the defendant is pretty clearly guilty and they are treated as such by the prosecution. I wouldn't say the system is broken because of a few false positives.
Doesn't that fly in the face of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing?
Not really. Most who are not guilty are not prosecuted, most who are guilty are convicted by what the police can dig up. Some people are convicted and acquitted unfairly, but that's a rare case, and that's what appeals courts are for.
On July 16 2013 15:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So looks like another night of violent 'protests" in Oakland, and LA.
i was watching them paint over the "fuck the police" graffiti that was all over the courthouse this morning before my hearing. i bet those painters are going to be mad if they have to do it again tomorrow.
On July 16 2013 14:32 LegalLord wrote: Self-defense is not an easy argument. There are many technicalities you can be convicted on, and you do have to justify yourself to a pretty large extent. Zimmerman had a VERY strong case for his position; that's why he got out of it. One major fuck-up and the result may have been way different.
This is not true according to the jury instructions. In Florida the defendant has to prove NOTHING relating to his defense assertion. The prosecution has to prove with certainty that it absolutely could not have been self defense. Take a second to think about how that is even possible without witnesses or recordings of the event. It may be possible to cast doubt but it is nearly impossible to disprove in a fight like this.
If Zimmerman had no injuries at all would he have lost? If he had shot Tayvon in the face would he have lost? Nope, not unless the jury ignored their instructions. The key is that whatever the defense says is accepted fact, no matter how unlikely or unsupported until the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
You exaggerate. Absolute certainty and reasonable doubt are not the same.
Also, juries are not legal experts. A good winning formula for a prosecution is something like this: conviction = reasonable account of events that make the defendant appear guilty + star witness + lying to police + assorted bonus talking points
Juries eat it up when you feed them a story like that. They really do. It doesn't take too much evidence to put together a winning formula like that if you have a half-decent case.
I don't think I exaggerate when it comes to the letter of the law. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not absolute certainty but it is the highest possible standard for understanding anything that can't be directly observed. If you need to rely on manipulating juries toward irrational judgements, no matter how reliable this method is, to moderate the application of this type of "justice" then we need to rework the rules.
As the law stands, the only things standing between us and gross murderous abuse is the incompetence of criminals and the incompetence of juries. Sad thought.
On a side note it is good to see that different states have different ways of tackling the balance between victims rights and vigilante justice.
In almost every single criminal case, the defendant is pretty clearly guilty and they are treated as such by the prosecution. I wouldn't say the system is broken because of a few false positives.
Doesn't that fly in the face of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing?
If the State doesn't believe someone is guilty and pushes a prosecution, the people making the decisions are liable up the ying-yang for that. It's an Abuse of Power straight and simple.
The Court, however, and the Jury are setup in a manner that forces the State to prove that the defendant committed an offense. This is why they have to show "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant did something. If that wasn't presumed, they could simply toss people in prison for zero reason. (Which is exactly why the system is designed in the way; just tossing people in prison is a classic thing governments like to do)
To the outside world, you're "innocent until proven guilty", which is why news reports always have to use "allegedly". To the State that is presuing the case, they have to assume the person they are charging is guilty otherwise they're abusing their power. However, in the way the Laws themselves are now set, pretty much *everyone* is guilty of something just by being investigated. You're seeing this abused by more actors these days and its an integral part of the "Chicago Way", as well.
I think this case is a vindication of the trial by jury system, considering to what extend the media had already convicted him as a racist vigilante. Doctor audio tapes, gin up race charges, the timeline is so crazy to look back on. Ship in a prosecutor because it was clear to the resident county prosecutor that he didn't have a case. The judge's behavior in court interrupting and allowing some outlandish things from the prosecutor (11th hour child abuse charge, manslaughter). It was the jury of peers that saw through the haze and concluded that the state couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had not shot in self defense.
The shadow of doubt when somebody is tried for a crime is lamentable. False rape accusations, murder charges, all that ruins lives and careers of those involved. Duke lacrosse case a few years ago is George Zimmerman now.
On July 16 2013 13:46 HardlyNever wrote: Of course, it is what you can convince a jury what was actually happening whether or not you'll get convicted. The problem is a lot of these laws put the burden of proof that it was not self defense on the state. So the state not only has to prove that someone killed a person, but also that it wasn't self defense.
That does seem backwards. Shouldn't it be the shooter who has to justify the shooting? It's one thing to require the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant shot the deceased; it's quite another to require them to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't OK to do so. The default position should be that killing people is not okay, hence the shooter's need to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances...
I don't know enough about standards of evidence.
Self-defense is an affirmative defense. The burden is on the defense.
Zimmerman was able to convince the jurors that he was in a significantly threatened position through things like the injuries he sustained at the time, the audio of someone calling for help (that apparently most jurors believed was Zimmerman), and how the testimony from various witnesses overlaid with other evidence (such the bullet trajectory/wound).
You cannot simply say it was self-defense and force the prosecution to refute you; you must present enough evidence to convince the jury.
I'm not au fait with the specifics of Florida law, but a) I'm a criminal defence lawyer here in Aus, and b) I read the jury directions from the OP.
There is no burden upon the defence to prove self-defence. This would have the effect of shifting the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused. This very rarely occurs in any western jurisdiction (and I would guess in other legal jurisdictions, though I have no experience with them). Once the defence has raised self-defence as an issue it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove firstly the elements of the offence charged, and secondly that the person's actions were not covered by the law relevant to self-defence whether it is based upon common law or statute (an example would include showing that the accused's actions were not proportionate or reasonable, i.e. you can't stab someone 50 times for slapping you in the face once).
If nothing else, this case is instructive of the fact that many of you who are not lawyers don't actually know much about the law and should really do yourselves a favour by researching many of these issues before spouting off in an authoritative tone.
We, as in humans, despite the fact that computers and electricity and the like are relatively recent inventions, have been very intelligent for a very long time. Self-defence and most other settled legal concepts have developed through centuries of argument and application by people who are, frankly, probably more intelligent than us. It's rather frustrating to see so many short-sighted and ill-considered arguments being trumpeted about in this thread...
On July 16 2013 13:46 HardlyNever wrote: Of course, it is what you can convince a jury what was actually happening whether or not you'll get convicted. The problem is a lot of these laws put the burden of proof that it was not self defense on the state. So the state not only has to prove that someone killed a person, but also that it wasn't self defense.
That does seem backwards. Shouldn't it be the shooter who has to justify the shooting? It's one thing to require the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant shot the deceased; it's quite another to require them to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't OK to do so. The default position should be that killing people is not okay, hence the shooter's need to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances...
I don't know enough about standards of evidence.
Self-defense is an affirmative defense. The burden is on the defense.
Zimmerman was able to convince the jurors that he was in a significantly threatened position through things like the injuries he sustained at the time, the audio of someone calling for help (that apparently most jurors believed was Zimmerman), and how the testimony from various witnesses overlaid with other evidence (such the bullet trajectory/wound).
You cannot simply say it was self-defense and force the prosecution to refute you; you must present enough evidence to convince the jury.
I'm not au fait with the specifics of Florida law, but a) I'm a criminal defence lawyer here in Aus, and b) I read the jury directions from the OP.
There is no burden upon the defence to prove self-defence. This would have the effect of shifting the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused. This very rarely occurs in any western jurisdiction (and I would guess in other legal jurisdictions, though I have no experience with them). Once the defence has raised self-defence as an issue it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove firstly the elements of the offence charged, and secondly that the person's actions were not covered by the law relevant to self-defence whether it is based upon common law or statute (an example would include showing that the accused's actions were not proportionate or reasonable, i.e. you can't stab someone 50 times for slapping you in the face once).
If nothing else, this case is instructive of the fact that many of you who are not lawyers don't actually know much about the law and should really do yourselves a favour by researching many of these issues before spouting off in an authoritative tone.
We, as in humans, despite the fact that computers and electricity and the like are relatively recent inventions, have been very intelligent for a very long time. Self-defence and most other settled legal concepts have developed through centuries of argument and application by people who are, frankly, probably more intelligent than us. It's rather frustrating to see so many short-sighted and ill-considered arguments being trumpeted about in this thread...
While you are correct about the state of affairs in this case, it is absolutely untrue that this is a settled matter. A quick google search shows that in Ohio the burden of proving self defense is ENTIRELY on the defendant. There are completely rational reasons to fall on either side of this argument and the law reflects our lack of solidarity.
Most people just apply their logic and assume the law is approximate to their reasoning. I second your call to correct this unfortunate misconception.
On July 16 2013 13:46 HardlyNever wrote: Of course, it is what you can convince a jury what was actually happening whether or not you'll get convicted. The problem is a lot of these laws put the burden of proof that it was not self defense on the state. So the state not only has to prove that someone killed a person, but also that it wasn't self defense.
That does seem backwards. Shouldn't it be the shooter who has to justify the shooting? It's one thing to require the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant shot the deceased; it's quite another to require them to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't OK to do so. The default position should be that killing people is not okay, hence the shooter's need to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances...
I don't know enough about standards of evidence.
Self-defense is an affirmative defense. The burden is on the defense.
Zimmerman was able to convince the jurors that he was in a significantly threatened position through things like the injuries he sustained at the time, the audio of someone calling for help (that apparently most jurors believed was Zimmerman), and how the testimony from various witnesses overlaid with other evidence (such the bullet trajectory/wound).
You cannot simply say it was self-defense and force the prosecution to refute you; you must present enough evidence to convince the jury.
I'm not au fait with the specifics of Florida law, but a) I'm a criminal defence lawyer here in Aus, and b) I read the jury directions from the OP.
There is no burden upon the defence to prove self-defence. This would have the effect of shifting the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused. This very rarely occurs in any western jurisdiction (and I would guess in other legal jurisdictions, though I have no experience with them). Once the defence has raised self-defence as an issue it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove firstly the elements of the offence charged, and secondly that the person's actions were not covered by the law relevant to self-defence whether it is based upon common law or statute (an example would include showing that the accused's actions were not proportionate or reasonable, i.e. you can't stab someone 50 times for slapping you in the face once).
If nothing else, this case is instructive of the fact that many of you who are not lawyers don't actually know much about the law and should really do yourselves a favour by researching many of these issues before spouting off in an authoritative tone.
We, as in humans, despite the fact that computers and electricity and the like are relatively recent inventions, have been very intelligent for a very long time. Self-defence and most other settled legal concepts have developed through centuries of argument and application by people who are, frankly, probably more intelligent than us. It's rather frustrating to see so many short-sighted and ill-considered arguments being trumpeted about in this thread...
While you are correct about the state of affairs in this case, it is absolutely untrue that this is a settled matter. A quick google search shows that in Ohio the burden of proving self defense is ENTIRELY on the defendant. There are completely rational reasons to fall on either side of this argument and the law reflects our lack of solidarity.
Most people just apply their logic and assume the law is approximate to their reasoning. I second your call to correct this unfortunate misconception.
I didn't exclude the fact that the shift in the burden of proof occurs in some jurisdictions. It happens. Despite that, outliers, in my view, do not indicate that a matter is unsettled.
In any event, I was never trying to suggest that to fall on either side of the argument is irrational. If I did that, then I perhaps failed in my communication. What I was trying to suggest however is that people should avoid emotionally or ego-driven arguments. It would be more beneficial to discussion if people were to first investigate the elements of self-defence law (edit: and their application to evidence) and secondly to understand the reasons why those laws have developed before injecting themselves into arguments and trying to convince others based on what are, again in my view given the relevant legal theory, irrelevant or emotional considerations.
This isn't all specific to Craton by the way, in case they think I'm piling on them right now. It's more a reaction to much of the last quarter or so of the thread.
On July 16 2013 04:15 Shiori wrote: Uh...no? What evidence do you have to suggest that "entitlement," which is a loaded word to begin with, is the result of impoverished family situations??? If anything, it makes more sense that wealthy families would be able to protect their children from the consequences of their actions, spoil them, and make them feel like they're better than others. How the hell does being poor and abused by one's parents make one entitled or unaware of consequences? Like, what? Also, assaulting someone because you got annoyed/insulted is indicative of an anger or impulse-control issue, not an entitlement one...
Entitlement can be the result of many things. And going too deeply into it here would lead us pretty off-topic, but suffice it to say that there are many humble wealthy people and many arrogant, entitled poor people. Some people who grew up in perfectly healthy homes are perfectly healthy, and some people who grew up in broken homes are very unhealthy. The converse is also true. It is not out of the realm to say that growing up in a broken home, in a poor situation, with bad influences all around and a somewhat rejecting system wouldn't lead to entitlement issues. Also, you've only focused on one of many reasons why people attack others, which makes me wonder if you're really concerned about the reason whatsoever, or are just concerned with attacking the notion that thugs are thugs because they like to hurt people, and not because we haven't coddled them enough.
You act as if, prior to this ruling, there was some cabal of "little thugs" (your choice of words betrays your bias :/) who were sitting around just waiting to beat up people for literally no reason other than to...satisfy their entitlement? Flex their nuts? And now, suddenly, they're going to be scared stiff? A group of people who you claim care so little about consequences or human life that they're literally going to kill someone for annoying them (such is their entitlement!) are going to be totally petrified because someone got shot and the shooter wasn't jailed? Uh, that's a pretty fantastic leap in logic. What difference would it make to you if you're one of these alleged thugs and you discover that Zimmerman was acquitted? The hypothetical deterrent isn't that the law won't convict the guy who shoots you...it's that the guy is going to shoot you. In that respect, the deterrent has more to do with whatever gun carrying laws the state has than with its self defense laws (which, I remind you, existed and were enforced prior to this case, ergo this case has literally no bearing on deterring people since self-defense was already quite generously permitted by the law...)
That's a pretty interesting resource to find out about gangs, who are responsible for a shocking amount of violent/major crime, and in some cases have literally taken over the city/area they reside in. Part of why gangs flourish is that the people around them are afraid, and are incapable of defending themselves. You are sadly mistaken if you believe that the thugs who fill these gangs are so stupid that they can't put one and one together and come up with two. If they know that the person who they are about to victimized is armed, they will be less likely to victimize that person. If they know that the person who is armed is also not scared of being unfairly prosecuted for defending himself/herself, they will know that the person who is armed is more likely to defend himself/herself. Are they scared stiff? Probably not. Will this one event shake the very foundations upon which they run themselves? Of course not. I never suggested either. I simply pointed out that this was a very public affirmation for the right to self-defense, and that very public affirmations of that right can, and will, lead to a difference in behavior whether these thugs make all the logical connections or not.
You're making a pretty bold claim if your'e trying to assert that the poorer someone is, the more entitlement they have,
I have never made that suggestion and never would. Do not continue this obvious misinterpreting of what I am saying or I will be forced to ignore you and whatever point it is that you think you're making.
What do you mean? You're the one making a positive claim. It's up to you to back it up. Go ahead and prove, using sources, that crime is basically just a bunch of obnoxious, entitled (but also poor, apparently...) kids killing time, satiating their entitlement, and attacking people to relieve stress or whatever "flex your nuts" is supposed to mean.
What in god's name are you talking about? Do you have any idea where the term "flex nuts" comes from? Do you have any idea what it means?
You pretty much did when you stated that this was some critical moment in Martin's life whereby he's going to go down some tragic path into becoming, and I quote, a "monster" versus the polar opposite of becoming a good, law-abiding citizens who's just awesome and volunteers with kids and waves the flag on the 4th of July and so on and so forth.
The problem with ivory tower bullshit is that it leads people into making very binary arguments and seeing everything in extremes. As I've said before, I quickly tire of trying to correct someone who refuses to actually argue my points and instead, in service to their agenda, uses the strawman technique. I am neither impressed nor intellectually intimidated by your wholesale slaughter of scarecrows.
Maybe I'm missing something, but as far as I can tell, aside from the incident with Zimmerman, we have evidence of the following: Martin was suspended from school for non-violent defiance like graffiti and truancy, that Martin possessed a marijuana pipe and probably smoked marijuana, and he was found to have several pieces of jewelry on his person (no evidence exists to suggest that this jewelry was stolen, and since you esteem the legal system so much, I expect you to respect their assessment in this case as well), along with a screwdriver which was, for some reason, labeled a burglary device.
You forgot to add fighting and possibly assaulting a bus driver. And I have to say, if I see a 17 year old boy who gets caught with jewelry that isn't his and a screwdriver in his backpack, I'll probably think burglary. Will I be able to prove it? No. Does that mean I have to shut my brain off and pretend that some fairy just put those things in his backpack? Nope. Taking into account all those things, we have a kid that was not very law-abiding and was definitely on the wrong track in life. Whether he would stay on that track or not is entirely unknowable. One thing that is knowable is that people who engage in criminal behaviors almost always escalate. It is not a stretch to say that Martin would probably have begun escalating into worse behaviors soon.
Because the alternative would be for you to pretend that you're better at understanding the evidence than the entire legal apparatus of Florida, which is pretty dumb, and undermines your general point about Martin's guilt/Zimmerman's true testimony (if the legal system didn't understand the evidence as well as you, a random person on the internet, then maybe they were wrong about how true Zimmerman's testimony was! You can't have both).
What? The trial had nothing to do with Martin... except for that he was the victim. At what point did the entire legal apparatus of Florida issue a proclamation that Martin did not attack George Zimmerman?
Thus is slang. It doesn't have any particularly concise meaning, which is why I'm asking you for a precise definition. Actually you did say that thugs are going to have something to fear, so...
Ah, so the problem is you have no idea what "fear of [consequence]" means...
Martin attacked Zimmerman for "absolutely no reason" = discussing Martin's motives = a statement you have made. So you brought it up, not me.
No good reason. And that's not really discussing his "motive", that's just saying that whatever motive it was, it obviously wasn't legitimate.
You forgot to add fighting and possibly assaulting a bus driver. And I have to say, if I see a 17 year old boy who gets caught with jewelry that isn't his and a screwdriver in his backpack, I'll probably think burglary. Will I be able to prove it? No. Does that mean I have to shut my brain off and pretend that some fairy just put those things in his backpack? Nope. Taking into account all those things, we have a kid that was not very law-abiding and was definitely on the wrong track in life. Whether he would stay on that track or not is entirely unknowable. One thing that is knowable is that people who engage in criminal behaviors almost always escalate. It is not a stretch to say that Martin would probably have begun escalating into worse behaviors soon.
I agree with most of what you said, but this entire passage is based on conjecture, and every part of this is either without context, or pure speculation. Assassinating the character of a dead, innocent child (yes he is innocent, legally), as the video says above, seems very immoral to me, specifically in this case because it ignores the law. The law very clearly states that Martin was innocent. He was not a convicted criminal. Simple.
How do you arrive at the conclusion that the kid was 'not very law-abiding'? The law decides this, not you.
You forgot to add fighting and possibly assaulting a bus driver. And I have to say, if I see a 17 year old boy who gets caught with jewelry that isn't his and a screwdriver in his backpack, I'll probably think burglary. Will I be able to prove it? No. Does that mean I have to shut my brain off and pretend that some fairy just put those things in his backpack? Nope. Taking into account all those things, we have a kid that was not very law-abiding and was definitely on the wrong track in life. Whether he would stay on that track or not is entirely unknowable. One thing that is knowable is that people who engage in criminal behaviors almost always escalate. It is not a stretch to say that Martin would probably have begun escalating into worse behaviors soon.
I agree with most of what you said, but this entire passage is based on conjecture, and every part of this is either without context, or pure speculation. Assassinating the character of a dead, innocent child (yes he is innocent, legally), as the video says above, seems very immoral to me, specifically in this case because it ignores the law. The law very clearly states that Martin was innocent. He was not a convicted criminal. Simple.
How do you arrive at the conclusion that the kid was 'not very law-abiding'? The law decides this, not you.
It is indisputable that Martin was fighting. It is indisputable that he was caught with jewelry in his backpack and a screwdriver, for which his excuse was: "Those aren't mine".
That doesn't sound like a law-abiding person. Was he ever convicted of a crime? Not that I know of. Does that mean he never broke the law? Of course not. He openly admitted to breaking the law. I think it's rather foolish of us to pretend that Trayvon wasn't aware enough of his own actions that he mistakenly bragged about fighting to his friends. He thought they meant "writing", I suppose, not "fighting".
It's not assassinating the character of someone to say that they did bad things in their life-time when they did bad things in their life-time. Assassinating his character would be if I made up something about Trayvon being in a gang, or said that he was probably the one who broke into all those houses. Saying that his own text messages probably came from him, and that he was probably aware of whether he had actually been in a fight or not, is not assassinating his character. I also made it quite clear that, to my knowledge, he had yet to engage in very serious criminal behavior and could easily have grown out of it very soon had he lived. Unfortunately, he will never receive the chance to do so.
On July 16 2013 12:10 Taf the Ghost wrote: The only person involved in the case that might be a racist was Trayvon,
Trayvon wasn't in the business of calling the cops on people for no reason, or calling them a-holes, or accusing "them" of "always getting away with it".
That the sentence for Tayvon's actions was death as sanctioned by the state through these laws seems excessive.
What seems excessive to me is expecting innocent citizens to take a beating and fear for their lives without having recourse to defend themselves.
There is a simple solution for all parties involved here.... Don't assault people. Don't get on top of them and punch them and bang their head into the concrete. Then you shouldn't have much fear of getting legally shot. Very simple.
I've said this before -- but this isn't a court room. In the court room, we give the defendent every benefit of the doubt, as we should. But here, I think we should try giving some of that benefit of the doubt to Trayvon.
We do not have to believe this story that Trayvon simply jumped and assaulted Zimmerman without provocation, or without even being assaulted himself, anymore than we have to believe any other story about that evening coming from a biased source. No one saw this fight start. It could have happened exactly as GZ said it did -- but it could also have been something else. Did GZ try to restrain Zimmerman, or worse? Even if Zimmerman was just trying to restrain him, that could be disturbing to a highschool boy to be restrained by some stranger following you in the night. Then maybe Trayvon either sees or feels GZ's gun tucked behind his back, and decides he needs to fight for his life.
We don't know. Let's not assume either way.
On July 16 2013 10:12 Shiori wrote: Basically this case showed that you should always do the safe thing when you encounter some bizarre situation. Yes, Zimmerman was clearly paranoid, probably racist, and weirdly suspicious, but Trayvon made the worst possible decision by trying to actually fight with him. If someone is following you, either he wants to follow you or it's a coincidence. In the latter case, nothing happens, whereas in the former case there's a small chance he might attack you. Why increase that chance to 100% by attacking him first? Just run away, or walk away, or just ask him what he wants and then leave if he makes you feel uncomfortable. If a fight does occur (regardless of who started it, since such things are pretty much impossible to tell after the fact) you have a chance of being killed, since guns are apparently pretty common, so try to avoid getting into one.
You've been reasonable in all your posts, so I'm not trying to be antagonizing, but I think it's important to remember this:
Partial transcript of GZ's phone call to the police Dispatcher: Yeah we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.
Zimmerman: Okay. These (expletive) they always get away. Yep. When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the clubhouse.
Dispatcher: So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?
Zimmerman: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left, uh, you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. (expletive) he's running.
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance…(expletive)(unclear)
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Trayvon not only tried to avoid this situation at a point, he actually ran, and was pursued, which is a lot more than anyone can say for Zimmerman. It's one of the few real facts we have on the case. That Trayvon waited to ambush Zimmerman and beat him for almost no reason -- that is not a fact, that is just a possibility that makes for reasonable doubt.
On July 16 2013 09:52 Taf the Ghost wrote: The only thing to take from this trial is 1 important lesson:
If you're 65 yards from your home and you're concerned someone is following you, you go home.
There is no point about profiling. There is no point about race. (Zimmerman being "black" by most definitions, as well, though he would generally be regarded as Hispanic) There is no point about gun laws, as Zimmerman's gun wasn't even drawn. There is no point about Self-Defense laws, as we have unimpeached testimony of Martin on top of Zimmerman swinging at him.
From the information that we have confirmed, Martin waited for Zimmerman. Either openly or hidden. Considering the attendant physical evidence, it's safe to conclude that Martin escalated their interaction into a fight. And that got him dead. Thus, you keep walking home, if you're walking home. Which is why that's the only lesson you take from this case.
So wrong.
Trayvon was supposed to just go home, hmm? It's not his right to walk down a public street when someone decides to profile him as a criminal (not for racial reasons, I'm sure...)?
Okay. So read the transcript I posted. Trayvon ran. And then he was chased. But the problem isn't that he was profiled as a criminal, or that he was chased... no, by your statements, his fault was not just going home when GZ decided that Trayvon didn't belong there, for no reason that has ever been made clear.
Incredible that so few posters in this thread call out this heinous, disgusting logic.
It annoys me to no end how this turned into a "black and white" thing especially considering freaking Zimmerman identifies and IS HIspanic... Please someone explain to me how so many people can truly believe whole heatedly in Zimmerman's guilt despite all the evidence that points to the contrary. and why the hell is this a race issue.... dear god
On July 16 2013 12:10 Taf the Ghost wrote: The only person involved in the case that might be a racist was Trayvon,
Trayvon wasn't in the business of calling the cops on people for no reason, or calling them a-holes, or accusing "them" of "always getting away with it".
Calling the cops... so heinous, so disgusting... so horrible. I can't believe anyone would have the nerve to call the cops. It's a sign of the times I suppose. That dismal tide...
We do not have to believe this story that Trayvon simply jumped and assaulted Zimmerman without provocation, or without even being assaulted himself, anymore than we have to believe any other story about that evening coming from a biased source. No one saw this fight start. It could have happened exactly as GZ said it did -- but it could also have been something else. Did GZ try to restrain Zimmerman, or worse? Even if Zimmerman was just trying to restrain him, that could be disturbing to a highschool boy to be restrained by some stranger following you in the night. Then maybe Trayvon either sees or feels GZ's gun tucked behind his back, and decides he needs to fight for his life.
We don't know. Let's not assume either way.
You assumed that Zimmerman was calling the cops for no reason, you assumed that he chased Trayvon, and then you came up with all kinds of ridiculous scenarios that do not fit with the evidence. Yes... let's stop assuming.
Trayvon not only tried to avoid this situation at a point, he actually ran, and was pursued, which is a lot more than anyone can say for Zimmerman. It's one of the few real facts we have on the case.
On July 16 2013 12:10 Taf the Ghost wrote: The only person involved in the case that might be a racist was Trayvon,
Trayvon wasn't in the business of calling the cops on people for no reason, or calling them a-holes, or accusing "them" of "always getting away with it".
Calling the cops... so heinous, so disgusting... so horrible. I can't believe anyone would have the nerve to call the cops. It's a sign of the times I suppose. That dismal tide...
We do not have to believe this story that Trayvon simply jumped and assaulted Zimmerman without provocation, or without even being assaulted himself, anymore than we have to believe any other story about that evening coming from a biased source. No one saw this fight start. It could have happened exactly as GZ said it did -- but it could also have been something else. Did GZ try to restrain Zimmerman, or worse? Even if Zimmerman was just trying to restrain him, that could be disturbing to a highschool boy to be restrained by some stranger following you in the night. Then maybe Trayvon either sees or feels GZ's gun tucked behind his back, and decides he needs to fight for his life.
We don't know. Let's not assume either way.
You assumed that Zimmerman was calling the cops for no reason, you assumed that he chased Trayvon, and then you came up with all kinds of ridiculous scenarios that do not fit with the evidence. Yes... let's stop assuming.
Then please tell me what Trayvon did that Zimmerman called the cops on him for. We have the whole phone transcript -- we KNOW why Zimmerman called the cops -- he saw a guy wearing a hoodie. That's it.
So either wearing a hoodie is a sure-sign of criminality, or Zimmerman has other criteria for calling people suspicious which he doesn't like to mention even to the police.
Zimmerman told police This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
That's why he called the cops. Because he didn't like the look of him. And, yes, in my personal opinion, bothering the police with crap like that is absolutely disgusting. If I call the police, it's because I'm aware of someone actually in need of help, not to satisfy my random knee-jerk first-impressions of people walking on the street.
I don't assume Zimmerman chased after Trayvon -- it's in the phone transcript. It happened. No offense, but did you even read the part of the transcript I posted? It's perfectly apparent, in that transcript, and in Zimmerman's words on other occasions, that GZ pursued Trayvon. That is a fact. Trayvon ran from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman pursued, by Zimmerman's own recorded admission...
And yes, I make an alternative scenario, as is obvious. You may not like or believe that scenario, but it's a possible series of events, just as GZ's take of what happened is a possible series of events. I see several people in this thread blaming Trayvon for events that we don't know actually happened. You don't know what the word "assume" means.
On July 16 2013 12:10 Taf the Ghost wrote: The only person involved in the case that might be a racist was Trayvon,
Trayvon wasn't in the business of calling the cops on people for no reason, or calling them a-holes, or accusing "them" of "always getting away with it".
Calling the cops... so heinous, so disgusting... so horrible. I can't believe anyone would have the nerve to call the cops. It's a sign of the times I suppose. That dismal tide...
We do not have to believe this story that Trayvon simply jumped and assaulted Zimmerman without provocation, or without even being assaulted himself, anymore than we have to believe any other story about that evening coming from a biased source. No one saw this fight start. It could have happened exactly as GZ said it did -- but it could also have been something else. Did GZ try to restrain Zimmerman, or worse? Even if Zimmerman was just trying to restrain him, that could be disturbing to a highschool boy to be restrained by some stranger following you in the night. Then maybe Trayvon either sees or feels GZ's gun tucked behind his back, and decides he needs to fight for his life.
We don't know. Let's not assume either way.
You assumed that Zimmerman was calling the cops for no reason, you assumed that he chased Trayvon, and then you came up with all kinds of ridiculous scenarios that do not fit with the evidence. Yes... let's stop assuming.
Then please tell me what Trayvon did that Zimmerman called the cops on him for. We have the whole phone transcript -- we KNOW why Zimmerman called the cops -- he saw a guy wearing a hoodie. That's it.
So either wearing a hoodie is a sure-sign of criminality, or Zimmerman has other criteria for calling people suspicious which he doesn't like to mention even to the police.
He saw a guy wearing a hoodie, walking slowly and seemingly without purpose, looking around at the houses, walking in between houses, and it was raining. He felt the guy was suspicious so he did his job (neighborhood watch) and called the cops. How is that a problem?
I don't assume Zimmerman chased after Trayvon -- it's in the phone transcript. It happened. No offense, but did you even read the part of the transcript I posted? It's perfectly apparent, in that transcript, and in Zimmerman's words on other occasions, that he pursued Zimmerman. That is a fact. Trayvon ran from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman pursued, by Zimmerman's own recorded admission...
He followed Trayvon for like... five seconds. You're acting like it was some ten minute chase where Trayvon just couldn't outrun fat Zimmerman and finally had to give up when he could run no more. Zimmerman saw Trayvon dart away and he got out of his car to see where he went: what the operator testified it was possible he thought he had been asked to do.
And yes, I make an alternative scenario, as is obvious. You may not like or believe that scenario, but it's a possible series of events, just as GZ's take of what happened is a possible series of events. I see several people in this thread blaming Trayvon for events that we don't know actually happened. You don't know what the word "assume" means.
Your scenarios are so unlikely, given the evidence, that they can be rejected out of hand.
On July 16 2013 21:18 Leporello wrote: I don't assume Zimmerman chased after Trayvon -- it's in the phone transcript. It happened. No offense, but did you even read the part of the transcript I posted? It's perfectly apparent, in that transcript, and in Zimmerman's words on other occasions, that he pursued Zimmerman. That is a fact. Trayvon ran from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman pursued, by Zimmerman's own recorded admission...
Yes he chased after Trayvon. Yes Trayvon ran but then you eagerly forget what we know happend after. We know Zimmerman lost sight of Trayvon. We know Zimmerman stopped following him after the dispatcher told him not to. There is a 4 minute gap between Zimmerman losing sight of Trayvon after he started running and the fight happening. Trayvon wasnt far away from his gf's home which I believe he was going to. So why again did Trayvon and Zimmerman get into a fight? He got away. He was almost home and yet he didnt. he purposefully turned around to confront Zimmerman.
Stop ignoring half the facts to paint the picture that you want to see.
On July 16 2013 12:10 Taf the Ghost wrote: The only person involved in the case that might be a racist was Trayvon,
Trayvon wasn't in the business of calling the cops on people for no reason, or calling them a-holes, or accusing "them" of "always getting away with it".
Calling the cops... so heinous, so disgusting... so horrible. I can't believe anyone would have the nerve to call the cops. It's a sign of the times I suppose. That dismal tide...
We do not have to believe this story that Trayvon simply jumped and assaulted Zimmerman without provocation, or without even being assaulted himself, anymore than we have to believe any other story about that evening coming from a biased source. No one saw this fight start. It could have happened exactly as GZ said it did -- but it could also have been something else. Did GZ try to restrain Zimmerman, or worse? Even if Zimmerman was just trying to restrain him, that could be disturbing to a highschool boy to be restrained by some stranger following you in the night. Then maybe Trayvon either sees or feels GZ's gun tucked behind his back, and decides he needs to fight for his life.
We don't know. Let's not assume either way.
You assumed that Zimmerman was calling the cops for no reason, you assumed that he chased Trayvon, and then you came up with all kinds of ridiculous scenarios that do not fit with the evidence. Yes... let's stop assuming.
Then please tell me what Trayvon did that Zimmerman called the cops on him for. We have the whole phone transcript -- we KNOW why Zimmerman called the cops -- he saw a guy wearing a hoodie. That's it.
So either wearing a hoodie is a sure-sign of criminality, or Zimmerman has other criteria for calling people suspicious which he doesn't like to mention even to the police.
He saw a guy wearing a hoodie, walking slowly and seemingly without purpose, looking around at the houses, walking in between houses, and it was raining. He felt the guy was suspicious so he did his job (neighborhood watch) and called the cops. How is that a problem?
I don't assume Zimmerman chased after Trayvon -- it's in the phone transcript. It happened. No offense, but did you even read the part of the transcript I posted? It's perfectly apparent, in that transcript, and in Zimmerman's words on other occasions, that he pursued Zimmerman. That is a fact. Trayvon ran from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman pursued, by Zimmerman's own recorded admission...
He followed Trayvon for like... five seconds. You're acting like it was some ten minute chase where Trayvon just couldn't outrun fat Zimmerman and finally had to give up when he could run no more. Zimmerman saw Trayvon dart away and he got out of his car to see where he went: what the operator testified it was possible he thought he had been asked to do.
And yes, I make an alternative scenario, as is obvious. You may not like or believe that scenario, but it's a possible series of events, just as GZ's take of what happened is a possible series of events. I see several people in this thread blaming Trayvon for events that we don't know actually happened. You don't know what the word "assume" means.
Your scenarios are so unlikely, given the evidence, that they can be rejected out of hand.
You assume Zimmerman certainly didn't racially profile Trayvon, Trayvon was just being obviously suspicious to the point that police needed to be called. Because he was walking in the rain. I mean, who walks in the rain?? After all, we all have cars, don't we?
You assume Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman without provocation, or that Trayvon was never in any fear for his own safety at any point leading to the fight. He just wanted to fight.
Sorry, but I don't find the scenario I put forth much more implausible than the stuff you're suggesting.
EPT
