|
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 17 2013 03:32 Douillos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. self defense law originally comes from europe. america got it from england--although it has been slightly modified over hundreds of years. i am really curious about how self defense works in other countries because people seem to think america has weird laws, but my understanding is that its pretty universal. On July 16 2013 22:13 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 22:09 AgentW wrote:On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. To my understanding, it is the same across all states. As for the first poster's original comment, he did fear for either his life or some great bodily harm, which certainly seems "proportionate" to his action. EDIT: Is this different in your respective countries? Netherlands for example your only allowed to use proportional violence to defend yourself. So im not allowed to stab someone if hes beating me with his fists. The biggest deal tho is that were not allowed to walk around with knives/guns so it is much less likely that a situation of self defense results in a death. same in america. you cant escalate, only react proportionally. You can't use a gun on an unarmed individual. That is not considered self defense in most of Europe.
Really? There's an assumption that you can't die by punches or strangulation?
|
On July 17 2013 03:32 Douillos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. self defense law originally comes from europe. america got it from england--although it has been slightly modified over hundreds of years. i am really curious about how self defense works in other countries because people seem to think america has weird laws, but my understanding is that its pretty universal. On July 16 2013 22:13 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 22:09 AgentW wrote:On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. To my understanding, it is the same across all states. As for the first poster's original comment, he did fear for either his life or some great bodily harm, which certainly seems "proportionate" to his action. EDIT: Is this different in your respective countries? Netherlands for example your only allowed to use proportional violence to defend yourself. So im not allowed to stab someone if hes beating me with his fists. The biggest deal tho is that were not allowed to walk around with knives/guns so it is much less likely that a situation of self defense results in a death. same in america. you cant escalate, only react proportionally. You can't use a gun on an unarmed individual. That is not considered self defense in most of Europe.
What if they a weight lifter and they are choking me to death? Or attacking my 105 pound girlfriend? Can we use guns then, or that that not allowed in Europe too?
|
On July 17 2013 03:32 Douillos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. self defense law originally comes from europe. america got it from england--although it has been slightly modified over hundreds of years. i am really curious about how self defense works in other countries because people seem to think america has weird laws, but my understanding is that its pretty universal. On July 16 2013 22:13 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 22:09 AgentW wrote:On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. To my understanding, it is the same across all states. As for the first poster's original comment, he did fear for either his life or some great bodily harm, which certainly seems "proportionate" to his action. EDIT: Is this different in your respective countries? Netherlands for example your only allowed to use proportional violence to defend yourself. So im not allowed to stab someone if hes beating me with his fists. The biggest deal tho is that were not allowed to walk around with knives/guns so it is much less likely that a situation of self defense results in a death. same in america. you cant escalate, only react proportionally. You can't use a gun on an unarmed individual. That is not considered self defense in most of Europe.
so, assuming trayvon was in fact trying to kill zimmerman (assumption people) by bashing his head against the concrete and zimmerman's only recourse was to shoot him then in europe he would go to prison despite the fact that it was his only recourse? what a fucked up law.
|
On July 17 2013 03:39 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:32 Douillos wrote:On July 17 2013 03:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. self defense law originally comes from europe. america got it from england--although it has been slightly modified over hundreds of years. i am really curious about how self defense works in other countries because people seem to think america has weird laws, but my understanding is that its pretty universal. On July 16 2013 22:13 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 22:09 AgentW wrote:On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. To my understanding, it is the same across all states. As for the first poster's original comment, he did fear for either his life or some great bodily harm, which certainly seems "proportionate" to his action. EDIT: Is this different in your respective countries? Netherlands for example your only allowed to use proportional violence to defend yourself. So im not allowed to stab someone if hes beating me with his fists. The biggest deal tho is that were not allowed to walk around with knives/guns so it is much less likely that a situation of self defense results in a death. same in america. you cant escalate, only react proportionally. You can't use a gun on an unarmed individual. That is not considered self defense in most of Europe. so, assuming trayvon was in fact trying to kill zimmerman (assumption people) by bashing his head against the concrete and zimmerman's only recourse was to shoot him then in europe he would go to prison despite the fact that it was his only recourse? what a fucked up law.
Your not allowed to defend yourself in Europe, they are to progressive for that. If you couldn't find a non-violent solution to the property, its your fault for getting involved in the first place. They live by the mantra: "If you can't be part of the solution, you deserve to be killed"
I think they are going to outlaw shouting next.
|
On July 17 2013 03:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 02:33 Fusa wrote:what you all fail to realize is the moment zimmerman "stalked" treyvon, was the moment he was the aggressor. The argument is such that treyvon could have simply just "walked away", well he was actively walking away the whole time. It a pretty f***** up world when I can run down someone, confront them, begin to defend/attack rather then avoiding confrontation, begin to lose the mutual combat, then shoot the person to death 300 meters away from where I started running after the kid. Did you just make all that up as you went? That isn't the facts of the case at all. You need to read up on it, rather than just believing what other people tell you. "About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]" Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is a untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. Why would just it be illegal? If I think someone going to do something bad, why shouldn't I follow them?
Because you're not a cop? This whole neighborhood-watch thing sounds totally stupid to me. If something suspicious is going on, call the police. I would probably freak out if every bored neighbor would start running around armed trying to hunt bad guys because he has nothing better to do in his free time. It's not the job of civilians to execute the law.
I think they are going to outlaw shouting next.
Just because we don't put anyone in prison for stealing a bottle of beer for 20 years doesn't mean you are not allowed to defend yourself. You are also allowed to defend your own home. The difference is we don't define our home as "where you currently stand" so that everyone can go around and play cowboy.
|
On July 17 2013 03:39 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:32 Douillos wrote:On July 17 2013 03:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. self defense law originally comes from europe. america got it from england--although it has been slightly modified over hundreds of years. i am really curious about how self defense works in other countries because people seem to think america has weird laws, but my understanding is that its pretty universal. On July 16 2013 22:13 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 22:09 AgentW wrote:On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. To my understanding, it is the same across all states. As for the first poster's original comment, he did fear for either his life or some great bodily harm, which certainly seems "proportionate" to his action. EDIT: Is this different in your respective countries? Netherlands for example your only allowed to use proportional violence to defend yourself. So im not allowed to stab someone if hes beating me with his fists. The biggest deal tho is that were not allowed to walk around with knives/guns so it is much less likely that a situation of self defense results in a death. same in america. you cant escalate, only react proportionally. You can't use a gun on an unarmed individual. That is not considered self defense in most of Europe. so, assuming trayvon was in fact trying to kill zimmerman (assumption people) by bashing his head against the concrete and zimmerman's only recourse was to shoot him then in europe he would go to prison despite the fact that it was his only recourse? what a fucked up law.
Not to mention Zimmermann's version that Martin was attempting to grab his gun, which would lead to his own shooting. His sentence is probally not exactly correct either, a random ass quote I found said:
If a victim shoots a burglar they believe is armed, in their house at night this would be seen as a legitimate use of reasonable force, even if the burglar is wounded or worse and is subsequently found to be carrying only a toy.
http://www.connexionfrance.com/french-law-on-self-defence-10494-news-article.html
I'm sure there are cases when you are allowed to shoot people that aren't actually armed, even if special circumstances are necessary.
It does have some oddities from what I could see:
Do not be tempted however to store a shotgun ready to hand as that could be seen as advanced planning.
|
On July 17 2013 03:43 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:33 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 02:33 Fusa wrote:what you all fail to realize is the moment zimmerman "stalked" treyvon, was the moment he was the aggressor. The argument is such that treyvon could have simply just "walked away", well he was actively walking away the whole time. It a pretty f***** up world when I can run down someone, confront them, begin to defend/attack rather then avoiding confrontation, begin to lose the mutual combat, then shoot the person to death 300 meters away from where I started running after the kid. Did you just make all that up as you went? That isn't the facts of the case at all. You need to read up on it, rather than just believing what other people tell you. "About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]" Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is a untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. Why would just it be illegal? If I think someone going to do something bad, why shouldn't I follow them? Because you're not a cop? This whole neighborhood-watch thing sounds totally stupid to me. If something suspicious is going on, call the police. I would probably freak out if every bored neighbor would start running around armed trying to hunt bad guys because he has nothing better to do in his free time. It's not the job of civilians to execute the law.
So if I see someone being threatened with assault or rape, I should just call the cops and then leave. What if I saw someone holding a gallon of gas walknig behind someones house? Should I try and stop them from burning place down or just wait around for the police because I dont' want to esclate the issue?
What about these two 15 year old kids who followed around a car that they thought was a kidnapper's? Do you think they shoud have waited for the cops?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/hero-teens-chase-kidnapper-bikes-article-1.1398831
|
On July 17 2013 03:32 dAPhREAk wrote:
Florida doesnt have involuntary manslaughter.
Okay, just manslaughter then. That's even one of the choices the judge allowed the jury to pick.
|
On July 17 2013 03:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:43 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:33 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 02:33 Fusa wrote:
[quote]
what you all fail to realize is the moment zimmerman "stalked" treyvon, was the moment he was the aggressor. The argument is such that treyvon could have simply just "walked away", well he was actively walking away the whole time.
It a pretty f***** up world when I can run down someone, confront them, begin to defend/attack rather then avoiding confrontation, begin to lose the mutual combat, then shoot the person to death 300 meters away from where I started running after the kid. Did you just make all that up as you went? That isn't the facts of the case at all. You need to read up on it, rather than just believing what other people tell you. "About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]" Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is a untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. Why would just it be illegal? If I think someone going to do something bad, why shouldn't I follow them? Because you're not a cop? This whole neighborhood-watch thing sounds totally stupid to me. If something suspicious is going on, call the police. I would probably freak out if every bored neighbor would start running around armed trying to hunt bad guys because he has nothing better to do in his free time. It's not the job of civilians to execute the law. So if I see someone being threatened with assault or rape, I should just call the cops and then leave. What if I saw someone holding a gallon of gas walknig behind someones house? Should I try and stop them from burning place down or just wait around for the police because I dont' want to esclate the issue? What about these two 15 year old kids who followed around a car that they thought was a kidnapper's? Do you think they shoud have waited for the cops? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/hero-teens-chase-kidnapper-bikes-article-1.1398831
I see your point, but realistically, a couple teenagers probably would've been better off waiting for the police...Don't know if it's a fantastic idea to encourage kids and teens to confront kidnappers.
|
On July 17 2013 03:32 Douillos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. self defense law originally comes from europe. america got it from england--although it has been slightly modified over hundreds of years. i am really curious about how self defense works in other countries because people seem to think america has weird laws, but my understanding is that its pretty universal. On July 16 2013 22:13 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 22:09 AgentW wrote:On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. To my understanding, it is the same across all states. As for the first poster's original comment, he did fear for either his life or some great bodily harm, which certainly seems "proportionate" to his action. EDIT: Is this different in your respective countries? Netherlands for example your only allowed to use proportional violence to defend yourself. So im not allowed to stab someone if hes beating me with his fists. The biggest deal tho is that were not allowed to walk around with knives/guns so it is much less likely that a situation of self defense results in a death. same in america. you cant escalate, only react proportionally. You can't use a gun on an unarmed individual. That is not considered self defense in most of Europe.
That's interesting. How does a small woman go about defending herself against a larger assailant? Do they carry non-lethal devices?
|
glove have come off.
Zimmerman's lawyer calls prosecutors 'disgrace' to profession
George Zimmerman's chief defense lawyer on Monday called Florida prosecutors "a disgrace to my profession" for holding back evidence for months and pledged a new effort to impose sanctions against them.
Mark O'Mara and co-counsel Don West argued the self-defense case that helped Zimmerman win an acquittal of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges on Saturday for the 2012 shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin.
The law requires prosecutors to share evidence with defense attorneys, especially if it helps exonerate defendants. The requirement is known as the Brady disclosure.
O'Mara accused prosecutors of several Brady violations, which were heard by Judge Debra Nelson before the trial. Nelson postponed some of her decisions on sanctions until after trial, saying the process was time-consuming.
"This is not acceptable, and is not going to be tolerated in any case that I'm involved in," O'Mara told Reuters in New York on Monday, accusing special prosecutor Angela Corey and lead trial attorney Bernie de la Rionda of Brady violations.
"They are a disgrace to my profession," O'Mara said, referring specifically to de la Rionda and Corey. "They said my client was 'lucky' to have been acquitted. Really?"
Corey responded that O'Mara's comments were unprofessional and challenged him to point to any judge's ruling that her office improperly withheld evidence.
"Our office adhered to the highest standards of ethical behavior," Corey told Reuters in a telephone interview. "Our rules of professional conduct regulate comments like that. I don't think those are the kind of comments that are appropriate."
Her office confirmed last week that it had fired its information technology director, Ben Kruidbos, who had testified in a pre-trial hearing that files he created with text messages and images he retrieved from Martin's phone were not handed to the defense.
Kruidbos testified last month that he found embarrassing photos on Martin's phone that included pictures of a clump of jewelry on a bed, underage nude females, marijuana plants and a hand holding a semi-automatic pistol.
O'Mara said he intends to amend his request for sanctions against the prosecutors in light of testimony from the trial, calling prosecutors' failure to turn over data from Martin's phone records for months "an undeniable Brady violation."
Prosecutors handed over raw data from Martin's phone, but O'Mara accused them of withholding additional data that had been extracted by Kruidbos. Corey countered that the judge determined the defense was in possession.
O'Mara has quarreled with the prosecutors since they charged Zimmerman last year and has become increasingly aggressive in his criticism of the prosecution since his client's acquittal.
A jury in Sanford, Florida, found Zimmerman not guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter after a three-week trial in which defense lawyers argued that the neighborhood watch volunteer, shot Martin in self-defense.
http://news.yahoo.com/zimmermans-lawyer-calls-prosecutors-disgrace-profession-025529776.html
|
On July 17 2013 03:43 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:33 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 02:33 Fusa wrote:what you all fail to realize is the moment zimmerman "stalked" treyvon, was the moment he was the aggressor. The argument is such that treyvon could have simply just "walked away", well he was actively walking away the whole time. It a pretty f***** up world when I can run down someone, confront them, begin to defend/attack rather then avoiding confrontation, begin to lose the mutual combat, then shoot the person to death 300 meters away from where I started running after the kid. Did you just make all that up as you went? That isn't the facts of the case at all. You need to read up on it, rather than just believing what other people tell you. "About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]" Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is a untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. Why would just it be illegal? If I think someone going to do something bad, why shouldn't I follow them? Because you're not a cop? This whole neighborhood-watch thing sounds totally stupid to me. If something suspicious is going on, call the police. I would probably freak out if every bored neighbor would start running around armed trying to hunt bad guys because he has nothing better to do in his free time. It's not the job of civilians to execute the law.
The neighborhood watch doesn't enforce the law - they just notify the police. Zimmerman was most likely just keeping an eye on Trayvon so he could update the police on his location. It's not much different than a shopkeep following a thief into the parking lot so he can tell the police where the guy / girl ran off to.
|
On July 17 2013 03:51 SilverLeagueElite wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:32 Douillos wrote:On July 17 2013 03:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. self defense law originally comes from europe. america got it from england--although it has been slightly modified over hundreds of years. i am really curious about how self defense works in other countries because people seem to think america has weird laws, but my understanding is that its pretty universal. On July 16 2013 22:13 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 22:09 AgentW wrote:On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. To my understanding, it is the same across all states. As for the first poster's original comment, he did fear for either his life or some great bodily harm, which certainly seems "proportionate" to his action. EDIT: Is this different in your respective countries? Netherlands for example your only allowed to use proportional violence to defend yourself. So im not allowed to stab someone if hes beating me with his fists. The biggest deal tho is that were not allowed to walk around with knives/guns so it is much less likely that a situation of self defense results in a death. same in america. you cant escalate, only react proportionally. You can't use a gun on an unarmed individual. That is not considered self defense in most of Europe. That's interesting. How does a small woman go about defending herself against a larger assailant?
They aren't. They are expected to take their clothes off for the rapist and then turn around and bend over.
Self-defense = immoral in a lot of places in Europe.
|
On July 17 2013 03:51 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:48 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:43 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:33 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Did you just make all that up as you went? That isn't the facts of the case at all. You need to read up on it, rather than just believing what other people tell you. "About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]" Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is a untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. Why would just it be illegal? If I think someone going to do something bad, why shouldn't I follow them? Because you're not a cop? This whole neighborhood-watch thing sounds totally stupid to me. If something suspicious is going on, call the police. I would probably freak out if every bored neighbor would start running around armed trying to hunt bad guys because he has nothing better to do in his free time. It's not the job of civilians to execute the law. So if I see someone being threatened with assault or rape, I should just call the cops and then leave. What if I saw someone holding a gallon of gas walknig behind someones house? Should I try and stop them from burning place down or just wait around for the police because I dont' want to esclate the issue? What about these two 15 year old kids who followed around a car that they thought was a kidnapper's? Do you think they shoud have waited for the cops? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/hero-teens-chase-kidnapper-bikes-article-1.1398831 I see your point, but realistically, a couple teenagers probably would've been better off waiting for the police...Don't know if it's a fantastic idea to encourage kids and teens to confront kidnappers.
I am not going to tell people they can't try to help. Those kids likely saved that girls life. Cops are just people too and they mess up as well.
|
On July 17 2013 03:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:43 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:33 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 02:33 Fusa wrote:
[quote]
what you all fail to realize is the moment zimmerman "stalked" treyvon, was the moment he was the aggressor. The argument is such that treyvon could have simply just "walked away", well he was actively walking away the whole time.
It a pretty f***** up world when I can run down someone, confront them, begin to defend/attack rather then avoiding confrontation, begin to lose the mutual combat, then shoot the person to death 300 meters away from where I started running after the kid. Did you just make all that up as you went? That isn't the facts of the case at all. You need to read up on it, rather than just believing what other people tell you. "About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]" Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is a untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. Why would just it be illegal? If I think someone going to do something bad, why shouldn't I follow them? Because you're not a cop? This whole neighborhood-watch thing sounds totally stupid to me. If something suspicious is going on, call the police. I would probably freak out if every bored neighbor would start running around armed trying to hunt bad guys because he has nothing better to do in his free time. It's not the job of civilians to execute the law. So if I see someone being threatened with assault or rape, I should just call the cops and then leave. What if I saw someone holding a gallon of gas walknig behind someones house? Should I try and stop them from burning place down or just wait around for the police because I dont' want to esclate the issue? What about these two 15 year old kids who followed around a car that they thought was a kidnapper's? Do you think they shoud have waited for the cops? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/hero-teens-chase-kidnapper-bikes-article-1.1398831
Yes, these people should have waited for the police. Especially those 15 year old kids. Of course this ended up as a nice heroic story, but in 9 out of 10 cases this is probably not going to end well.
If there's immediate danger and there is really no other way than to intervene, yes then it's probably justified to act yourself, but in 95% of the cases it's probably not a good idea.
(And also this has nothing to do with the Trayvon case anymore, as there was no one who could've been kidnapped)
|
On July 17 2013 03:51 SilverLeagueElite wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:32 Douillos wrote:On July 17 2013 03:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. self defense law originally comes from europe. america got it from england--although it has been slightly modified over hundreds of years. i am really curious about how self defense works in other countries because people seem to think america has weird laws, but my understanding is that its pretty universal. On July 16 2013 22:13 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 22:09 AgentW wrote:On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. To my understanding, it is the same across all states. As for the first poster's original comment, he did fear for either his life or some great bodily harm, which certainly seems "proportionate" to his action. EDIT: Is this different in your respective countries? Netherlands for example your only allowed to use proportional violence to defend yourself. So im not allowed to stab someone if hes beating me with his fists. The biggest deal tho is that were not allowed to walk around with knives/guns so it is much less likely that a situation of self defense results in a death. same in america. you cant escalate, only react proportionally. You can't use a gun on an unarmed individual. That is not considered self defense in most of Europe. That's interesting. How does a small woman go about defending herself against a larger assailant?
Aren't there a ton of existing alternatives, electric gun for instance. If you can fire a gun you can fire an shocking gun.
Self defense isn't immoral at all in europe. Guns are immoral.
Obviously in USA you need a gun for self defense as everyone and their mother has a kalashnikov at home. In most other countries you don't.
|
On July 17 2013 03:43 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:33 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 02:33 Fusa wrote:what you all fail to realize is the moment zimmerman "stalked" treyvon, was the moment he was the aggressor. The argument is such that treyvon could have simply just "walked away", well he was actively walking away the whole time. It a pretty f***** up world when I can run down someone, confront them, begin to defend/attack rather then avoiding confrontation, begin to lose the mutual combat, then shoot the person to death 300 meters away from where I started running after the kid. Did you just make all that up as you went? That isn't the facts of the case at all. You need to read up on it, rather than just believing what other people tell you. "About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]" Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is a untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. Why would just it be illegal? If I think someone going to do something bad, why shouldn't I follow them? Because you're not a cop? This whole neighborhood-watch thing sounds totally stupid to me. If something suspicious is going on, call the police. I would probably freak out if every bored neighbor would start running around armed trying to hunt bad guys because he has nothing better to do in his free time. It's not the job of civilians to execute the law. Just because we don't put anyone in prison for stealing a bottle of beer for 20 years doesn't mean you are not allowed to defend yourself. You are also allowed to defend your own home. The difference is we don't define our home as "were you currently stand" so that everyone can go around and play cowboy.
You obviously have a poor understanding of how law enforcement works, so let me shed some light. Police have a response time. If you call the police, they do not show up instantaneously to help you with your problem. This is why the most efficient form of law enforcement is prevention, and why police have patrols. Just maintaining a presence can be enough to deter crime in a lot of cases. However, there are so many sprawling, suburban neighborhoods in this country that it is impossible for police to patrol them all. Think about it this way, if you see a man steal a woman's purse and run off, and you call the police, what do you think is going to happen? 9 times out of 10 they won't catch that guy assuming he doesn't do anything stupid.
To be fair, to my knowledge it is not standard at all for neighborhood watch to carry a gun because their role is strictly to observe and report, which from all indications is exactly what Zimmerman was doing until the fight broke out, observing and reporting. I also do not think it is unreasonable, however, because it is legal for Zimmerman to be carrying a gun, it is legal, and understandable considering he is part of the neighborhood watch, for him to follow Trayvon if he thought he was suspicious, and based on the evidence presented in this case it is a good thing he was carrying a weapon, for his own sake. Things may have gone down differently, but there is no evidence to support that.
Why do you assume he was "playing cowboy?" Read the article up above about the PA teens who saved a little girl from a terrible fate by following someone they thought was suspicious. I would call it my civic duty to not look the other way if I saw someone I thought might be up to no good. And the evidence suggests thats exactly what Zimmerman was doing until the fight started, which seems more likely, again based on evidence, to have been started by Martin.
|
On July 17 2013 01:36 Leporello wrote:
What if Trayvon had punched or head-slammed George Zimmerman harder than he did, and George Zimmerman died as a result?
Keep everything else the same, with all the facts, evidence, and testimony presented in this case. Would Trayvon not be the one walking free out of the courtroom, having been found Not Guilty on grounds of self-defense?
All he has to do is claim GZ threatened his life directly and reached for his gun, so Trayvon felt he had to tackle him and assault GZ until he was certain he wasn't going to get shot at. None of the evidence would refute his claim, GZ's gun and phone dispatch recording would both confirm Trayvon's story. You'd have to give Trayvon the benefit of the doubt, that he was defending himself with what he had against a man with a gun (and an actually clear motive), and he'd walk free.
It's a sad and unfortunate fact that, given our justice system, once the fight had started, Trayvon would've been better off not in just subduing George Zimmerman or beating him up, but in actually beating George Zimmerman to death, Trayvon would've ensured himself the best outcome, legally speaking.
It's an unavoidable circumstance of a wonderful premise -- that we don't punish anyone who could at all possibly be innocent. But it's just something to keep in mind.
there are certainly circumstances where trayvon could have killed zimmerman and he would have been acquitted. just not under the facts of this case given John Good's testimony that trayvon was on top, MMA style and zimmerman was screaming, the fact that he had 4:00 to get home, the fact that zimmerman had called the police, the fact that there were no injuries on trayvon, the fact that .... etc. etc.
|
On July 17 2013 03:57 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:48 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:43 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:33 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Did you just make all that up as you went? That isn't the facts of the case at all. You need to read up on it, rather than just believing what other people tell you. "About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]" Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is a untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. Why would just it be illegal? If I think someone going to do something bad, why shouldn't I follow them? Because you're not a cop? This whole neighborhood-watch thing sounds totally stupid to me. If something suspicious is going on, call the police. I would probably freak out if every bored neighbor would start running around armed trying to hunt bad guys because he has nothing better to do in his free time. It's not the job of civilians to execute the law. So if I see someone being threatened with assault or rape, I should just call the cops and then leave. What if I saw someone holding a gallon of gas walknig behind someones house? Should I try and stop them from burning place down or just wait around for the police because I dont' want to esclate the issue? What about these two 15 year old kids who followed around a car that they thought was a kidnapper's? Do you think they shoud have waited for the cops? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/hero-teens-chase-kidnapper-bikes-article-1.1398831 Yes, these people should have waited for the police. Especially those 15 year old kids. Of course this ended up as a nice heroic story, but in 9 out of 10 cases this is probably not going to end well. If there's immediate danger and there is really no other way than to intervene, yes then it's probably justified to act yourself, but in 95% of the cases it's probably not a good idea. (And also this has nothing to do with the Trayvon case anymore, as there was no one who could've been kidnapped)
Of course its unsafe, thats why it called brave. If it was safe, we woudn't call it that.
And your law in unrealistic and short sighted. You are basicly making illegal to help of fear that some else bad will happen. If I see someone rob a car, I have to sit back and call the police. I can't follow the person in my car or anything else, because I might make it worse.
|
On July 17 2013 03:58 MrCon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:51 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On July 17 2013 03:32 Douillos wrote:On July 17 2013 03:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. self defense law originally comes from europe. america got it from england--although it has been slightly modified over hundreds of years. i am really curious about how self defense works in other countries because people seem to think america has weird laws, but my understanding is that its pretty universal. On July 16 2013 22:13 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 22:09 AgentW wrote:On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. To my understanding, it is the same across all states. As for the first poster's original comment, he did fear for either his life or some great bodily harm, which certainly seems "proportionate" to his action. EDIT: Is this different in your respective countries? Netherlands for example your only allowed to use proportional violence to defend yourself. So im not allowed to stab someone if hes beating me with his fists. The biggest deal tho is that were not allowed to walk around with knives/guns so it is much less likely that a situation of self defense results in a death. same in america. you cant escalate, only react proportionally. You can't use a gun on an unarmed individual. That is not considered self defense in most of Europe. That's interesting. How does a small woman go about defending herself against a larger assailant? Aren't there a ton of existing alternatives, electric gun for instance. If you can fire a gun you can fire an shocking gun. Self defense isn't immoral at all in europe. Guns are immoral. Obviously in USA you need a gun to self defense as everyone and their mother has a kalashnikov at home. In most other countries you don't.
Yeah, quite a lot of women are carrying pepper spray around. That's probably also the better option because it's way easier to use if you get assaulted, compared to a gun, and you're not risking to get the weapon turned on yourself.
And your law in unrealistic and short sighted. You are basicly making illegal to help of fear that some else bad will happen. If I see someone rob a car, I have to sit back and call the police. I can't follow the person in my car or anything else, because I might make it worse.
I wouldn't call it unrealistic,because that's just how it works here. I have never seen a neighborhood watch anywhere in Germany.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
