|
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 20 2012 00:26 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2012 23:20 farvacola wrote:On July 19 2012 15:44 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 19 2012 15:26 BroodKingEXE wrote:On July 19 2012 15:08 Talack wrote:On July 19 2012 13:38 0neder wrote:On July 19 2012 12:55 natrus wrote:
Well his life was NOT in danger is my point. Never taken a beating before??? And from what I have seen. VERY small damage was done to Zimmerman's head. Do you really think Martin was going to end Zimmerman's life? Or even close?
With all due respect, it's a pretty gray area as to when your life becomes 'in danger.' If someone is being violent enough to make it ambiguous to someone else, then both parties are in grave danger. When it comes to self defense, the pragmatic policy is 'better safe than sorry,' within reason, of course. It is my understanding that many US soldiers experience unnecessary casualties for related reasons, because the lawyers have taken control of the DoD and now there are extremely complex and restrictive rules of engagement that are not necessarily practical, and which, if disobeyed, can make your government turn on you, but if heeded could endanger your own life. Yeah Natrus post is so full of ignorance it's amazing. This wasn't some bar-brawl or some high-school fight. This was some random dude that you're scared of already on the street starting to kick the shit out of you, regardless of his fighting experience that is a terrifying thing to be happening for anyone. You don't know if he has a knife, or a gun on him already. You don't know if he's going to be stopping or if he's really going to beat you to death. You don't know if someone is going to help you or if you won't be permanently injured for life, you're scared for your life. If this was in some back-alley and zimmerman was having the shit kicked out of him by some 6''6 280 pound guy and he saved himself by shooting the attacker then we'd all be praising his ability to save his life. But because hind-sight is 20-20 everyone knows exactly what "they would have done' in that situation. Saying that it was just some regular fight is just stupid, flat out stupid. Your wrong about that. Zimmerman was the aggressor, Martin was minding his own business when Zimmerman started following him. Zimmerman started the engagement, so therefore it wasn't an act of self-defense. Martin didn't deserve to be shot, if Zimmerman went after him Martin was acting in self-defense. The fact that Zimmerman was carrying a loaded gun I feel is more suspicious (was he looking for trouble)? Than Martin walking around in the rain. even assuming that zimmerman was the aggressor for following him--something i find ridiculous given the circumstances--being the initial aggressor does not mean you cant claim self defense. if you want to educate yourself as to why, the jury instructions on this very issue are on the first page. Given that you are a lawyer and the supposed neutral arbiter of information as OP, I'm surprised your bias towards Zimmerman's story is so transparent, especially considering the unlikelihood of you being paid by the defense. Why exactly is Zimmerman's unabated following of Martin after being told to cease and desist a "ridiculous" ground on which to show aggression on his part? i dont consider following someone an "aggressor" under self defense law--even assuming he was following trayvon, which he has denied. if you actually think about what people are saying then you will see how ridiculous it is as well. the mere act of following someone is not an aggressive act that triggers the right in another to attack you, which is what you are saying when you define him as an "aggressor." the problem may be that people are confusing a legal term with a lay term. if you read the jury instructions, you will understand better i hope.
I agree with you generally, however the nature of Florida's stand your ground law changes the standards by which an individual is meant to ascertain threat and react accordingly, meaning that a sufficient showing on the part of the prosecution in terms of Martin reasonably believing he faced imminent bodily harm when being followed by a strange man seems a proper way to go about prosecuting. In other words, the stand your ground law indirectly elevates the potential severity of a given encounter, so much so that a seemingly benign occurence can instead turn justifiably deadly in short order.
|
Trayvon Martin’s parents reject George Zimmerman’s apology
The parents of Trayvon Martin say they have a hard time accepting George Zimmerman's nationally televised apology.
Last night, in his first interview since killing the unarmed 17-year-old, the former neighborhood watch volunteer said the shooting death must have been part of "God's plan" and that he prays for the Martin family daily.
"I simply really don't know what God George Zimmerman is worshipping because there's no way that the God that I serve had in his plans for George Zimmerman to murder my son," Tracy Martin, the teen's dad told CBS News.
Zimmerman, a licensed gun carrier in Florida, shot and killed Martin in February during a confrontation in the gated neighborhood where Zimmerman lived and Martin was visiting a family friend. Zimmerman said he thought Martin looked suspicious and was following him so he could give police his whereabouts.
But before officers arrived, Zimmerman, 28, says the black teen physically attacked him and that he was forced to shoot in self defense. The incident has polarized the country, with some calling the killing a hate crime.
"I'm not a racist and I'm not a murderer," said Zimmerman, who is white and Hispanic.
Zimmerman maintained his innocence during the Fox News interview, but did ask for forgiveness for any pain he's caused.
"I want to tell everyone, my wife, my family, my parents, my grandmother, the Martins, the city of Sanford and America, that I'm sorry that this happened," he said, staring into the camera lens. "I hate to think that because of this incident, because of my actions, it's polarized and divided America. And I'm truly sorry."
Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon's mother, told CBS News she doesn't believe what he says.
"He also said that he doesn't regret anything that he did that night," Fulton said. "I don't think God would have him, in his plan, to murder an innocent child."
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/trayvon-martin-parents-reject-george-zimmerman-apology-130326614.html
|
On July 20 2012 00:40 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2012 00:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 19 2012 23:20 farvacola wrote:On July 19 2012 15:44 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 19 2012 15:26 BroodKingEXE wrote:On July 19 2012 15:08 Talack wrote:On July 19 2012 13:38 0neder wrote:On July 19 2012 12:55 natrus wrote:
Well his life was NOT in danger is my point. Never taken a beating before??? And from what I have seen. VERY small damage was done to Zimmerman's head. Do you really think Martin was going to end Zimmerman's life? Or even close?
With all due respect, it's a pretty gray area as to when your life becomes 'in danger.' If someone is being violent enough to make it ambiguous to someone else, then both parties are in grave danger. When it comes to self defense, the pragmatic policy is 'better safe than sorry,' within reason, of course. It is my understanding that many US soldiers experience unnecessary casualties for related reasons, because the lawyers have taken control of the DoD and now there are extremely complex and restrictive rules of engagement that are not necessarily practical, and which, if disobeyed, can make your government turn on you, but if heeded could endanger your own life. Yeah Natrus post is so full of ignorance it's amazing. This wasn't some bar-brawl or some high-school fight. This was some random dude that you're scared of already on the street starting to kick the shit out of you, regardless of his fighting experience that is a terrifying thing to be happening for anyone. You don't know if he has a knife, or a gun on him already. You don't know if he's going to be stopping or if he's really going to beat you to death. You don't know if someone is going to help you or if you won't be permanently injured for life, you're scared for your life. If this was in some back-alley and zimmerman was having the shit kicked out of him by some 6''6 280 pound guy and he saved himself by shooting the attacker then we'd all be praising his ability to save his life. But because hind-sight is 20-20 everyone knows exactly what "they would have done' in that situation. Saying that it was just some regular fight is just stupid, flat out stupid. Your wrong about that. Zimmerman was the aggressor, Martin was minding his own business when Zimmerman started following him. Zimmerman started the engagement, so therefore it wasn't an act of self-defense. Martin didn't deserve to be shot, if Zimmerman went after him Martin was acting in self-defense. The fact that Zimmerman was carrying a loaded gun I feel is more suspicious (was he looking for trouble)? Than Martin walking around in the rain. even assuming that zimmerman was the aggressor for following him--something i find ridiculous given the circumstances--being the initial aggressor does not mean you cant claim self defense. if you want to educate yourself as to why, the jury instructions on this very issue are on the first page. Given that you are a lawyer and the supposed neutral arbiter of information as OP, I'm surprised your bias towards Zimmerman's story is so transparent, especially considering the unlikelihood of you being paid by the defense. Why exactly is Zimmerman's unabated following of Martin after being told to cease and desist a "ridiculous" ground on which to show aggression on his part? i dont consider following someone an "aggressor" under self defense law--even assuming he was following trayvon, which he has denied. if you actually think about what people are saying then you will see how ridiculous it is as well. the mere act of following someone is not an aggressive act that triggers the right in another to attack you, which is what you are saying when you define him as an "aggressor." the problem may be that people are confusing a legal term with a lay term. if you read the jury instructions, you will understand better i hope. I agree with you generally, however the nature of Florida's stand your ground law changes the standards by which an individual is meant to ascertain threat and react accordingly, meaning that a sufficient showing on the part of the prosecution in terms of Martin reasonably believing he faced imminent bodily harm when being followed by a strange man seems a proper way to go about prosecuting. In other words, the stand your ground law indirectly elevates the potential severity of a given encounter, so much so that a seemingly benign occurence can instead turn justifiably deadly in short order.
for future reference, this is the so-called "aggressor" standard straight from the jury instructions: "initially provoked the use of force against himself." i do not think following someone--by itself--meets that standard. i also do not think that the dispatcher telling him they dont need him to follow trayvon is particularly relevant to whether "following him" provoked an assault because trayvon was not aware of what the dispatcher said and could not have used that information in determining whether to engage in the assault.
|
Hey dAPhREAk,
Could carrying a weapon influence the definition of "aggressor" in any way, shape or form?
|
On July 20 2012 03:35 Zorkmid wrote:
Hey dAPhREAk,
Could carrying a weapon influence the definition of "aggressor" in any way, shape or form?
Exercising Constitutional Rights can't be used against you. Similar to juries being instructed to not let a defendant, who chooses not to testify, affect their decision.
|
On July 20 2012 03:35 Zorkmid wrote:
Hey dAPhREAk,
Could carrying a weapon influence the definition of "aggressor" in any way, shape or form?
I think so, but there's no reason to believe Trayvon knew he had it. And even then, if its just on him, in a holster, that's technically fine and legal, though it could probably be argued, under the circumstances, that that makes the encounter much scarier.
|
On July 20 2012 03:35 Zorkmid wrote:
Hey dAPhREAk,
Could carrying a weapon influence the definition of "aggressor" in any way, shape or form?
this is a factual (not legal) question as far as i know, and the answer (in my mind) is yes because it can influence whether the other individual (in this case trayvon) perceived a threat that required him to react. however, if its a concealed weapon then the answer would be no because the other individual would not know about the weapon.
for example, if zimmerman pulled his gun and started following trayvon, and trayvon saw the gun and punched zimmerman in reaction to seeing the gun, i would consider zimmerman the "aggressor" since brandishing the gun and following trayvon "initially provoked the use of force against himself."
however, if zimmerman merely followed trayvon with a concealed gun, and trayvon did not see the gun but nevertheless punched zimmerman in reaction to being followed, i would not consider zimmerman the "aggressor" since merely following trayvon doesn't "initially provoked the use of force against himself."
of course, these are just hypotheticals to answer your question, and these are my opinions of how the facts play out.
|
Personally, I believe the girlfriend's story (Zimmerman following and confronting Martin) over Zimmermans (not knowing the streets names in his own hood and looking for them to tell the operator) because she doesnt have much to gain from lying. And Zimmerman on the other hand has his life at stake. And there was also the lying about his finances thing that backs me up even more. What do you guys think?
ADD: Who doesn't know the streets around where they live??
|
On July 20 2012 06:44 natrus wrote:
ADD: Who doesn't know the streets around where they live??
I don't. I know a couple of the major streets but once you hit the neighborhoods, ha, yeah right.
|
On July 20 2012 06:44 natrus wrote:
Personally, I believe the girlfriend's story (Zimmerman following and confronting Martin) over Zimmermans (not knowing the streets names in his own hood and looking for them to tell the operator) because she doesnt have much to gain from lying. And Zimmerman on the other hand has his life at stake. And there was also the lying about his finances thing that backs me up even more. What do you guys think?
ADD: Who doesn't know the streets around where they live??
you mean the girlfriend who refused to talk to the police and gave her information through the family's attorney weeks after the fact? zimmerman has plenty of reasons to lie (as you correctly point out), but the girlfriend's testimony is suspect in my mind. plus, she was on the phone, she didnt see what was happening. not to get too technical, but there are hearsay issues for anything trayvon allegedly said to her on the phone. also, her testimony really isnt that inconsistent with zimmerman's account of what happened.
zimmerman didn't lie at the hearing, his wife allegedly did. he just stayed quiet while it happened.
edit: forgot the address thing, he said he was looking for the number for the houses. i certainly don't know the numbers of the houses around my neighborhood off the top of my head.
|
|
|
i dont think you understand that some people don't know the streets in their neighborhood. I know major streets (some) and my own street. I live on barbarita ave., I don't know the street names for any other street in my neighborhood, north, west, east or south. I know the next major street to the east or west at 1 mile intervals. I only know the next maybe 2-3 streets north, and about 4-5 south. I don't think it's unreasonable for Zimmerman (or anyone) to not know the streets in their very own neighborhood, because I don't.
Anyway, this is off topic anyhow, just wanted to point out that it's not unfathomable for people not to know.
|
United States5162 Posts
That is really close by, but then again, I can't name more than 2 side roads that connect with the road I lived on for 24 years, so I can't say it's very noteworthy.
|
...and zimmerman was acting as a neighborhood watch. at that moment maybe the names didnt came to his mind which very possible but, not knowing them is not.
|
On July 20 2012 07:05 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2012 06:44 natrus wrote:
Personally, I believe the girlfriend's story (Zimmerman following and confronting Martin) over Zimmermans (not knowing the streets names in his own hood and looking for them to tell the operator) because she doesnt have much to gain from lying. And Zimmerman on the other hand has his life at stake. And there was also the lying about his finances thing that backs me up even more. What do you guys think?
ADD: Who doesn't know the streets around where they live?? you mean the girlfriend who refused to talk to the police and gave her information through the family's attorney weeks after the fact? zimmerman has plenty of reasons to lie (as you correctly point out), but the girlfriend's testimony is suspect in my mind. plus, she was on the phone, she didnt see what was happening. not to get too technical, but there are hearsay issues for anything trayvon allegedly said to her on the phone. also, her testimony really isnt that inconsistent with zimmerman's account of what happened. zimmerman didn't lie at the hearing, his wife allegedly did. he just stayed quiet while it happened. edit: forgot the address thing, he said he was looking for the number for the houses. i certainly don't know the numbers of the houses around my neighborhood off the top of my head.
In this video he clearly says that he gets out o his truck to look for a street sign at about the 6:30 -7:00 mark. Sorry I am nit picking.
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2012/06/21/us/100000001620280/zimmerman-reenactment.html
|
On July 20 2012 07:27 natrus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2012 07:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 20 2012 06:44 natrus wrote:
Personally, I believe the girlfriend's story (Zimmerman following and confronting Martin) over Zimmermans (not knowing the streets names in his own hood and looking for them to tell the operator) because she doesnt have much to gain from lying. And Zimmerman on the other hand has his life at stake. And there was also the lying about his finances thing that backs me up even more. What do you guys think?
ADD: Who doesn't know the streets around where they live?? you mean the girlfriend who refused to talk to the police and gave her information through the family's attorney weeks after the fact? zimmerman has plenty of reasons to lie (as you correctly point out), but the girlfriend's testimony is suspect in my mind. plus, she was on the phone, she didnt see what was happening. not to get too technical, but there are hearsay issues for anything trayvon allegedly said to her on the phone. also, her testimony really isnt that inconsistent with zimmerman's account of what happened. zimmerman didn't lie at the hearing, his wife allegedly did. he just stayed quiet while it happened. edit: forgot the address thing, he said he was looking for the number for the houses. i certainly don't know the numbers of the houses around my neighborhood off the top of my head. In this video he clearly says that he gets out o his truck to look for a street sign at about the 6:30 -7:00 mark. Sorry I am nit picking. http://video.nytimes.com/video/2012/06/21/us/100000001620280/zimmerman-reenactment.html
not to nitpick, but he says he wants to give them an address, he says he doesnt know an address, apparently gave his own address and then he thinks to get out to look for a street sign. there is no street sign, then he is looking for an address, but they arent on the buildings.
we can go on and on about this. it doesnt even matter.
|
On July 20 2012 06:44 natrus wrote:
ADD: Who doesn't know the streets around where they live??
I know the street I live on, and one street over. If I was told street names, I'd recognize them, but I wouldn't be able to tell you the streets surrounding my homestreet. It's really not unusual.
It's the same as asking "how many people don't know their own phone number?". It really depends on how often you use the information.
|
On July 20 2012 06:44 natrus wrote:
Personally, I believe the girlfriend's story (Zimmerman following and confronting Martin) over Zimmermans (not knowing the streets names in his own hood and looking for them to tell the operator) because she doesnt have much to gain from lying. And Zimmerman on the other hand has his life at stake. And there was also the lying about his finances thing that backs me up even more. What do you guys think?
ADD: Who doesn't know the streets around where they live??
Oh man, in Florida some of these gated communities are huge. I've been delivering food for 5 years and I still don't know them all. I can name 5 out of the 10 in my neighborhood. A neighborhood like sand lake hills is huge. I can't name any of them.
I'm unsure as to how big this neighborhood is, but I'll be in Sanford tomorrow, so I'll stop by
|
On July 19 2012 15:26 BroodKingEXE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2012 15:08 Talack wrote:On July 19 2012 13:38 0neder wrote:On July 19 2012 12:55 natrus wrote:
Well his life was NOT in danger is my point. Never taken a beating before??? And from what I have seen. VERY small damage was done to Zimmerman's head. Do you really think Martin was going to end Zimmerman's life? Or even close?
With all due respect, it's a pretty gray area as to when your life becomes 'in danger.' If someone is being violent enough to make it ambiguous to someone else, then both parties are in grave danger. When it comes to self defense, the pragmatic policy is 'better safe than sorry,' within reason, of course. It is my understanding that many US soldiers experience unnecessary casualties for related reasons, because the lawyers have taken control of the DoD and now there are extremely complex and restrictive rules of engagement that are not necessarily practical, and which, if disobeyed, can make your government turn on you, but if heeded could endanger your own life. Yeah Natrus post is so full of ignorance it's amazing. This wasn't some bar-brawl or some high-school fight. This was some random dude that you're scared of already on the street starting to kick the shit out of you, regardless of his fighting experience that is a terrifying thing to be happening for anyone. You don't know if he has a knife, or a gun on him already. You don't know if he's going to be stopping or if he's really going to beat you to death. You don't know if someone is going to help you or if you won't be permanently injured for life, you're scared for your life. If this was in some back-alley and zimmerman was having the shit kicked out of him by some 6''6 280 pound guy and he saved himself by shooting the attacker then we'd all be praising his ability to save his life. But because hind-sight is 20-20 everyone knows exactly what "they would have done' in that situation. Saying that it was just some regular fight is just stupid, flat out stupid. Your wrong about that. Zimmerman was the aggressor, Martin was minding his own business when Zimmerman started following him. Zimmerman started the engagement, so therefore it wasn't an act of self-defense. Martin didn't deserve to be shot, if Zimmerman went after him Martin was acting in self-defense. The fact that Zimmerman was carrying a loaded gun I feel is more suspicious (was he looking for trouble)? Than Martin walking around in the rain.
Did Zimmerman throw the first punch? No? Then he wasn't the aggressor. Everyone who says that Martin had a right to be there is correct, but so did Zimmerman. All Zimmerman did was walk up and ask Martin what he was doing there. That's not aggression, at all. Also, Zimmerman legally has the right to carry a loaded weapon.
|
I think Zimmerman's "God's plan" was soooooo poorly worded and totally insensitive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
