|
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 15 2013 04:39 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:36 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:31 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:28 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:15 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:14 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:11 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:02 SKC wrote:
[quote]
There was no case for that. He was acquited because of self defense, which protects him from manslaughter charges as well. Perhaps if the prosecution had argued for manslaughter their case would have been more compelling, but the jury did consider manslaughther charges and found him innocent. That just makes no sense for me, he was negligent. He ignored sound advice from the dispatcher, he was trying to be a police officer so he should've been aware of the dangers of his actions. Him being found not guilty of negligent manslaughter even seems like it opens up a whole new door for harassment and murder. There was no proof he was "trying to be a police officer", whatever that is supposed to mean in legal terms, and ignoring sound advice is not illegal, else we would have a lot more people behind bars. There is a difference between being negligent and criminally negligent. There are laws regarding what negligent manslaughter actually is. I mean he was actually trying to become a police officer for his job, but was rejected. Not that he was attempting to be an officer in this situation. I don't know why that would make him criminally negligent then. What I am implying is that since he was trying to be a police officer, he should have some knowledge of what his actions could cause. He would've been aware that he may have needed to use his gun if he decided to approach Martin. Because of that and the fact that he ignored sound advice he was taking an unreasonable risk that resulted in Martin dying. I mean, people get hit with negligent homicide for seemingly less. If you are a parent and you accidentally leave the door open and your child walks into the street and gets hit by a car, you are guilty. You are not doing a good job connecting all that with the actual laws though. Yes, his previous experience could mean his actions were slightly "dumber" than they would be for some else, but that doesn't mean they are any more illegal. This is my understanding of what criminally negligent manslaughter is: Criminally Negligent Manslaughter A homicide resulting from the taking of an unreasonable and high degree of risk is usually considered criminally negligent manslaughter. Jurisdictions are divided on the question of whether the defendant must be aware of the risk. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk, although, under some codes, the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious homicide. Given his knowledge and experience, then it should be understood that there was a high degree of risk when he followed and approached Martin. It is common knowledge that you don't follow strangers around at night, and even more common knowledge that you don't follow strangers that you suspect to be criminals (a burglar) and feel the need to call the police about. Even if that applied, which I don't think it does, you would first have to prove that Zimmermann was following him (which he says he wasn't), and that he intended a confrontation (which is very unlikely). Just following someone can't possibly apply. Either way, that is far too general. You would some more specific like the jury instructions to be able to say something more meaningful. Wasn't Martin recorded as saying "Why are you following me?" over the phone? And while he may not have intended a confrontation, that doesn't explain why he got out of his car in the first place. I just think that if a parent can serve time for leaving a door open, then Zimmerman should have been serving at least some time.
According to Miss Cursive, Treyvon said "Why are you following me for?".. and then she heard someone (Not Treyvon) say "What are you doing out here?".
Having run in to my local neighborhood town watch, asking someone who you think is suspicious or don't know "What are you doing here?", or trying to help them in some way isn't out of the ordinary. How hard was it for Treyvon to say "My dad lives here, I'm visiting.". It's kind of like when people who are innocent run from the police, and they end up getting hurt. When you run, I think guilt is assumed.
|
On July 15 2013 04:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Now you are understanding, and it goes without saying that it's not enforceable. However it's relevant because Zimmerman, assuming standard social competence, reasonably understood that the officer was not trying to debate with him as he called the police for instructions.
Guess what? Even assuming that you're right that the officer "ordered" Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon, it still is basically irrelevant as to whether Zimmerman is guilty of murder. Following Trayvon, in and of itself, is not a criminal act -- regardless of what a police officer says.
|
On July 15 2013 04:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:31 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:28 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:15 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:14 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:11 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:02 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:00 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I am most disappointed that they prosecuted for 2nd degree murder. I cant understand why they thought they had the evidence for that much.
Can anybody explain to me why they didnt go for negligent manslaughter or if there was a case for that? There was no case for that. He was acquited because of self defense, which protects him from manslaughter charges as well. Perhaps if the prosecution had argued for manslaughter their case would have been more compelling, but the jury did consider manslaughther charges and found him innocent. That just makes no sense for me, he was negligent. He ignored sound advice from the dispatcher, he was trying to be a police officer so he should've been aware of the dangers of his actions. Him being found not guilty of negligent manslaughter even seems like it opens up a whole new door for harassment and murder. There was no proof he was "trying to be a police officer", whatever that is supposed to mean in legal terms, and ignoring sound advice is not illegal, else we would have a lot more people behind bars. There is a difference between being negligent and criminally negligent. There are laws regarding what negligent manslaughter actually is. I mean he was actually trying to become a police officer for his job, but was rejected. Not that he was attempting to be an officer in this situation. I don't know why that would make him criminally negligent then. What I am implying is that since he was trying to be a police officer, he should have some knowledge of what his actions could cause. He would've been aware that he may have needed to use his gun if he decided to approach Martin. Because of that and the fact that he ignored sound advice he was taking an unreasonable risk that resulted in Martin dying. I mean, people get hit with negligent homicide for seemingly less. If you are a parent and you accidentally leave the door open and your child walks into the street and gets hit by a car, you are guilty. You are not doing a good job connecting all that with the actual laws though. Yes, his previous experience could mean his actions were slightly "dumber" than they would be for some else, but that doesn't mean they are any more illegal. This is my understanding of what criminally negligent manslaughter is: Criminally Negligent Manslaughter A homicide resulting from the taking of an unreasonable and high degree of risk is usually considered criminally negligent manslaughter. Jurisdictions are divided on the question of whether the defendant must be aware of the risk. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk, although, under some codes, the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious homicide. Given his knowledge and experience, then it should be understood that there was a high degree of risk when he followed and approached Martin. It is common knowledge that you don't follow strangers around at night, and even more common knowledge that you don't follow strangers that you suspect to be criminals (a burglar) and feel the need to call the police about. You're not interpreting manslaughter appropriately. For an act to constitute manslaughter, it must actually kill the victim. Following someone is not manslaughter because it doesn't kill. Shooting a gun can be manslaughter. Stabbing someone can be manslaughter. Punching someone fatally can be manslaughter. Following someone will never be manslaughter because another act is required to cause the killing.
I guess I just disagree with the law then. I think that the acts leading up to the event should matter just as much as the event itself.
On July 15 2013 04:44 rasnj wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:39 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:36 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:31 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:28 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:15 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:14 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:11 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:
[quote]
That just makes no sense for me, he was negligent. He ignored sound advice from the dispatcher, he was trying to be a police officer so he should've been aware of the dangers of his actions. Him being found not guilty of negligent manslaughter even seems like it opens up a whole new door for harassment and murder. There was no proof he was "trying to be a police officer", whatever that is supposed to mean in legal terms, and ignoring sound advice is not illegal, else we would have a lot more people behind bars. There is a difference between being negligent and criminally negligent. There are laws regarding what negligent manslaughter actually is. I mean he was actually trying to become a police officer for his job, but was rejected. Not that he was attempting to be an officer in this situation. I don't know why that would make him criminally negligent then. What I am implying is that since he was trying to be a police officer, he should have some knowledge of what his actions could cause. He would've been aware that he may have needed to use his gun if he decided to approach Martin. Because of that and the fact that he ignored sound advice he was taking an unreasonable risk that resulted in Martin dying. I mean, people get hit with negligent homicide for seemingly less. If you are a parent and you accidentally leave the door open and your child walks into the street and gets hit by a car, you are guilty. You are not doing a good job connecting all that with the actual laws though. Yes, his previous experience could mean his actions were slightly "dumber" than they would be for some else, but that doesn't mean they are any more illegal. This is my understanding of what criminally negligent manslaughter is: Criminally Negligent Manslaughter A homicide resulting from the taking of an unreasonable and high degree of risk is usually considered criminally negligent manslaughter. Jurisdictions are divided on the question of whether the defendant must be aware of the risk. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk, although, under some codes, the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious homicide. Given his knowledge and experience, then it should be understood that there was a high degree of risk when he followed and approached Martin. It is common knowledge that you don't follow strangers around at night, and even more common knowledge that you don't follow strangers that you suspect to be criminals (a burglar) and feel the need to call the police about. Even if that applied, which I don't think it does, you would first have to prove that Zimmermann was following him (which he says he wasn't), and that he intended a confrontation (which is very unlikely). Just following someone can't possibly apply. Either way, that is far too general. You would some more specific like the jury instructions to be able to say something more meaningful. Wasn't Martin recorded as saying "Why are you following me?" over the phone? And while he may not have intended a confrontation, that doesn't explain why he got out of his car in the first place. I just think that if a parent can serve time for leaving a door open, then Zimmerman should have been serving at least some time. I don't recall that particular quote. He got out of his car to get directions for the police (you may doubt this, but no evidence so far has suggested it is false so it would be stupid to argue with it without any kind of new evidence). Also there is no option of "some time". It was a 20 year minimum or something like that if he had been found guilty. You may take issue with Florida law, but 20 years was the mild alternative for doing something stupid. While it is sad that TM ended up dead there is no way GZ could have anticipated that outcome so I don't think we should punish him as though it was predictable.
He lives in that neighborhood yet has to get out of his car to get directions? Lame excuse, but it is the only word we have to go off of =\
Also, it looks like it is 9 1/4 years for manslaughter
http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/homicide/manslaughter.html
Then they can always open up early parole or something, right?
|
On July 15 2013 04:48 rasnj wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 04:38 rasnj wrote:On July 15 2013 04:37 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 04:34 Hryul wrote:On July 15 2013 04:16 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 04:11 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 04:03 DemigodcelpH wrote:
He did not directly disobey a police order. Stop saying he did.
Yes he did. It was just non-admissible as there was no legal authority involved. Sorry, did you miss the part where a dispatcher is not a member of the police? It is a non-sworn civilian position. Saying that he disobeyed a police order is factually untrue, even if your subjective interpretation of a "suggestion" as an "order" is taken as fact. Dispatchers are considered a part of the "family" by the cops and know all of the police secrets even if the title is different. You are trying to argue something without sense. Commonly a "police order" is a right for a "police officer" granted by the lawmaker. If you resist police orders, police officers have the right to enforce them. This is not equivalent to something a member of a policing-organization said to you over the phone. As a member of policing-organization it is still an implied order from said member, albeit specifically distinguished from an official one. This distinction has been made clear from the very beginning. There is no such thing as an implied police order from a non-police officer. You are just using your own personal definition of the word order to make it seem like the advice from the operator was something that it was not: an authorative command. Don't twist words. It was an implied order from a member of a policing-organization. This is under strict adhere to dictionary definitions. An order, implied or not, sugar-coated or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X". What is an order to you? Would you mind giving the dictionary definition, because for me it is something like "An authorative command." When the person giving it has no authority then it is at best a command, but when it is just "we don't need you to do that", then it is a non-authorative suggestion or advice. What was given was advice, and there is not even any evidence that he disobeyed that. He went outside his car to get directions, not to follow TM.
Yes. By definition an order is synonymous with a command, and you do not need authority (or even merit) to make commands. In this situation it was a implied-command stated casually. This is logically supported by the fact that Zimmerman called the police for further instructions, and that the dispatcher actively asked if Zimmerman was doing a dangerous activity directly prior, received confirmation on said dangerous activity, and then immediately issued his statement to Zimmerman — in this situation it's abundantly clear that, while worded politely, the dispatcher was not looking to debate the issue.
On July 15 2013 04:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Now you are understanding, and it goes without saying that it's not enforceable. However it's relevant because Zimmerman, assuming standard social competence, reasonably understood that the officer was not trying to debate with him as he called the police for instructions.
Following Trayvon, in and of itself, is not a criminal act -- regardless of what a police officer says.
I'm well aware of this.
|
On July 15 2013 04:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:44 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2013 04:31 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:28 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:15 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:14 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:11 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:02 SKC wrote:
[quote]
There was no case for that. He was acquited because of self defense, which protects him from manslaughter charges as well. Perhaps if the prosecution had argued for manslaughter their case would have been more compelling, but the jury did consider manslaughther charges and found him innocent. That just makes no sense for me, he was negligent. He ignored sound advice from the dispatcher, he was trying to be a police officer so he should've been aware of the dangers of his actions. Him being found not guilty of negligent manslaughter even seems like it opens up a whole new door for harassment and murder. There was no proof he was "trying to be a police officer", whatever that is supposed to mean in legal terms, and ignoring sound advice is not illegal, else we would have a lot more people behind bars. There is a difference between being negligent and criminally negligent. There are laws regarding what negligent manslaughter actually is. I mean he was actually trying to become a police officer for his job, but was rejected. Not that he was attempting to be an officer in this situation. I don't know why that would make him criminally negligent then. What I am implying is that since he was trying to be a police officer, he should have some knowledge of what his actions could cause. He would've been aware that he may have needed to use his gun if he decided to approach Martin. Because of that and the fact that he ignored sound advice he was taking an unreasonable risk that resulted in Martin dying. I mean, people get hit with negligent homicide for seemingly less. If you are a parent and you accidentally leave the door open and your child walks into the street and gets hit by a car, you are guilty. You are not doing a good job connecting all that with the actual laws though. Yes, his previous experience could mean his actions were slightly "dumber" than they would be for some else, but that doesn't mean they are any more illegal. This is my understanding of what criminally negligent manslaughter is: Criminally Negligent Manslaughter A homicide resulting from the taking of an unreasonable and high degree of risk is usually considered criminally negligent manslaughter. Jurisdictions are divided on the question of whether the defendant must be aware of the risk. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk, although, under some codes, the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious homicide. Given his knowledge and experience, then it should be understood that there was a high degree of risk when he followed and approached Martin. It is common knowledge that you don't follow strangers around at night, and even more common knowledge that you don't follow strangers that you suspect to be criminals (a burglar) and feel the need to call the police about. You're not interpreting manslaughter appropriately. For an act to constitute manslaughter, it must actually kill the victim. Following someone is not manslaughter because it doesn't kill. Shooting a gun can be manslaughter. Stabbing someone can be manslaughter. Punching someone fatally can be manslaughter. Following someone will never be manslaughter because another act is required to cause the killing. I guess I just disagree with the law then. I think that the acts leading up to the event should matter just as much as the event itself. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:44 rasnj wrote:On July 15 2013 04:39 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:36 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:31 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:28 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:15 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:14 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:11 SKC wrote:
[quote]
There was no proof he was "trying to be a police officer", whatever that is supposed to mean in legal terms, and ignoring sound advice is not illegal, else we would have a lot more people behind bars. There is a difference between being negligent and criminally negligent. There are laws regarding what negligent manslaughter actually is. I mean he was actually trying to become a police officer for his job, but was rejected. Not that he was attempting to be an officer in this situation. I don't know why that would make him criminally negligent then. What I am implying is that since he was trying to be a police officer, he should have some knowledge of what his actions could cause. He would've been aware that he may have needed to use his gun if he decided to approach Martin. Because of that and the fact that he ignored sound advice he was taking an unreasonable risk that resulted in Martin dying. I mean, people get hit with negligent homicide for seemingly less. If you are a parent and you accidentally leave the door open and your child walks into the street and gets hit by a car, you are guilty. You are not doing a good job connecting all that with the actual laws though. Yes, his previous experience could mean his actions were slightly "dumber" than they would be for some else, but that doesn't mean they are any more illegal. This is my understanding of what criminally negligent manslaughter is: Criminally Negligent Manslaughter A homicide resulting from the taking of an unreasonable and high degree of risk is usually considered criminally negligent manslaughter. Jurisdictions are divided on the question of whether the defendant must be aware of the risk. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk, although, under some codes, the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious homicide. Given his knowledge and experience, then it should be understood that there was a high degree of risk when he followed and approached Martin. It is common knowledge that you don't follow strangers around at night, and even more common knowledge that you don't follow strangers that you suspect to be criminals (a burglar) and feel the need to call the police about. Even if that applied, which I don't think it does, you would first have to prove that Zimmermann was following him (which he says he wasn't), and that he intended a confrontation (which is very unlikely). Just following someone can't possibly apply. Either way, that is far too general. You would some more specific like the jury instructions to be able to say something more meaningful. Wasn't Martin recorded as saying "Why are you following me?" over the phone? And while he may not have intended a confrontation, that doesn't explain why he got out of his car in the first place. I just think that if a parent can serve time for leaving a door open, then Zimmerman should have been serving at least some time. I don't recall that particular quote. He got out of his car to get directions for the police (you may doubt this, but no evidence so far has suggested it is false so it would be stupid to argue with it without any kind of new evidence). Also there is no option of "some time". It was a 20 year minimum or something like that if he had been found guilty. You may take issue with Florida law, but 20 years was the mild alternative for doing something stupid. While it is sad that TM ended up dead there is no way GZ could have anticipated that outcome so I don't think we should punish him as though it was predictable. He lives in that neighborhood yet has to get out of his car to get directions? Lame excuse, but it is the only word we have to go off of =\ Also, it looks like it is 9 1/4 years for manslaughter http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/homicide/manslaughter.htmlThen they can always open up early parole or something, right?
I personally don't know every street name close to my house by memory, and I know plenty of people that don't. It's really not that crazy.
|
On July 15 2013 04:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:44 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2013 04:31 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:28 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:15 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:14 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:11 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:02 SKC wrote:
[quote]
There was no case for that. He was acquited because of self defense, which protects him from manslaughter charges as well. Perhaps if the prosecution had argued for manslaughter their case would have been more compelling, but the jury did consider manslaughther charges and found him innocent. That just makes no sense for me, he was negligent. He ignored sound advice from the dispatcher, he was trying to be a police officer so he should've been aware of the dangers of his actions. Him being found not guilty of negligent manslaughter even seems like it opens up a whole new door for harassment and murder. There was no proof he was "trying to be a police officer", whatever that is supposed to mean in legal terms, and ignoring sound advice is not illegal, else we would have a lot more people behind bars. There is a difference between being negligent and criminally negligent. There are laws regarding what negligent manslaughter actually is. I mean he was actually trying to become a police officer for his job, but was rejected. Not that he was attempting to be an officer in this situation. I don't know why that would make him criminally negligent then. What I am implying is that since he was trying to be a police officer, he should have some knowledge of what his actions could cause. He would've been aware that he may have needed to use his gun if he decided to approach Martin. Because of that and the fact that he ignored sound advice he was taking an unreasonable risk that resulted in Martin dying. I mean, people get hit with negligent homicide for seemingly less. If you are a parent and you accidentally leave the door open and your child walks into the street and gets hit by a car, you are guilty. You are not doing a good job connecting all that with the actual laws though. Yes, his previous experience could mean his actions were slightly "dumber" than they would be for some else, but that doesn't mean they are any more illegal. This is my understanding of what criminally negligent manslaughter is: Criminally Negligent Manslaughter A homicide resulting from the taking of an unreasonable and high degree of risk is usually considered criminally negligent manslaughter. Jurisdictions are divided on the question of whether the defendant must be aware of the risk. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk, although, under some codes, the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious homicide. Given his knowledge and experience, then it should be understood that there was a high degree of risk when he followed and approached Martin. It is common knowledge that you don't follow strangers around at night, and even more common knowledge that you don't follow strangers that you suspect to be criminals (a burglar) and feel the need to call the police about. You're not interpreting manslaughter appropriately. For an act to constitute manslaughter, it must actually kill the victim. Following someone is not manslaughter because it doesn't kill. Shooting a gun can be manslaughter. Stabbing someone can be manslaughter. Punching someone fatally can be manslaughter. Following someone will never be manslaughter because another act is required to cause the killing. I guess I just disagree with the law then. I think that the acts leading up to the event should matter just as much as the event itself. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:44 rasnj wrote:On July 15 2013 04:39 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:36 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:31 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:28 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:15 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:14 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:11 SKC wrote:
[quote]
There was no proof he was "trying to be a police officer", whatever that is supposed to mean in legal terms, and ignoring sound advice is not illegal, else we would have a lot more people behind bars. There is a difference between being negligent and criminally negligent. There are laws regarding what negligent manslaughter actually is. I mean he was actually trying to become a police officer for his job, but was rejected. Not that he was attempting to be an officer in this situation. I don't know why that would make him criminally negligent then. What I am implying is that since he was trying to be a police officer, he should have some knowledge of what his actions could cause. He would've been aware that he may have needed to use his gun if he decided to approach Martin. Because of that and the fact that he ignored sound advice he was taking an unreasonable risk that resulted in Martin dying. I mean, people get hit with negligent homicide for seemingly less. If you are a parent and you accidentally leave the door open and your child walks into the street and gets hit by a car, you are guilty. You are not doing a good job connecting all that with the actual laws though. Yes, his previous experience could mean his actions were slightly "dumber" than they would be for some else, but that doesn't mean they are any more illegal. This is my understanding of what criminally negligent manslaughter is: Criminally Negligent Manslaughter A homicide resulting from the taking of an unreasonable and high degree of risk is usually considered criminally negligent manslaughter. Jurisdictions are divided on the question of whether the defendant must be aware of the risk. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk, although, under some codes, the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious homicide. Given his knowledge and experience, then it should be understood that there was a high degree of risk when he followed and approached Martin. It is common knowledge that you don't follow strangers around at night, and even more common knowledge that you don't follow strangers that you suspect to be criminals (a burglar) and feel the need to call the police about. Even if that applied, which I don't think it does, you would first have to prove that Zimmermann was following him (which he says he wasn't), and that he intended a confrontation (which is very unlikely). Just following someone can't possibly apply. Either way, that is far too general. You would some more specific like the jury instructions to be able to say something more meaningful. Wasn't Martin recorded as saying "Why are you following me?" over the phone? And while he may not have intended a confrontation, that doesn't explain why he got out of his car in the first place. I just think that if a parent can serve time for leaving a door open, then Zimmerman should have been serving at least some time. I don't recall that particular quote. He got out of his car to get directions for the police (you may doubt this, but no evidence so far has suggested it is false so it would be stupid to argue with it without any kind of new evidence). Also there is no option of "some time". It was a 20 year minimum or something like that if he had been found guilty. You may take issue with Florida law, but 20 years was the mild alternative for doing something stupid. While it is sad that TM ended up dead there is no way GZ could have anticipated that outcome so I don't think we should punish him as though it was predictable. He lives in that neighborhood yet has to get out of his car to get directions? Lame excuse, but it is the only word we have to go off of =\ Also, it looks like it is 9 1/4 years for manslaughter http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/homicide/manslaughter.htmlThen they can always open up early parole or something, right?
Here, read this. This will help you with sentencing times for manslaughter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-20-Life
|
On July 15 2013 04:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/14/statement-president
Very beautifully said.
|
On July 15 2013 04:51 DannyJ wrote:
The thing that disturbs me most about this trial is the media coverage it has gotten, all over the world. Very little of it has anything to do with why the jurors came to the outcome or if justice was served. If I wasn't following this case closely I'd have an obsurdly skewed view on it thanks to what popular media outlets focus on.
I feel the exact same way.
|
On July 15 2013 04:58 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:44 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2013 04:31 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:28 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:15 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:14 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:11 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:
[quote]
That just makes no sense for me, he was negligent. He ignored sound advice from the dispatcher, he was trying to be a police officer so he should've been aware of the dangers of his actions. Him being found not guilty of negligent manslaughter even seems like it opens up a whole new door for harassment and murder. There was no proof he was "trying to be a police officer", whatever that is supposed to mean in legal terms, and ignoring sound advice is not illegal, else we would have a lot more people behind bars. There is a difference between being negligent and criminally negligent. There are laws regarding what negligent manslaughter actually is. I mean he was actually trying to become a police officer for his job, but was rejected. Not that he was attempting to be an officer in this situation. I don't know why that would make him criminally negligent then. What I am implying is that since he was trying to be a police officer, he should have some knowledge of what his actions could cause. He would've been aware that he may have needed to use his gun if he decided to approach Martin. Because of that and the fact that he ignored sound advice he was taking an unreasonable risk that resulted in Martin dying. I mean, people get hit with negligent homicide for seemingly less. If you are a parent and you accidentally leave the door open and your child walks into the street and gets hit by a car, you are guilty. You are not doing a good job connecting all that with the actual laws though. Yes, his previous experience could mean his actions were slightly "dumber" than they would be for some else, but that doesn't mean they are any more illegal. This is my understanding of what criminally negligent manslaughter is: Criminally Negligent Manslaughter A homicide resulting from the taking of an unreasonable and high degree of risk is usually considered criminally negligent manslaughter. Jurisdictions are divided on the question of whether the defendant must be aware of the risk. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk, although, under some codes, the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious homicide. Given his knowledge and experience, then it should be understood that there was a high degree of risk when he followed and approached Martin. It is common knowledge that you don't follow strangers around at night, and even more common knowledge that you don't follow strangers that you suspect to be criminals (a burglar) and feel the need to call the police about. You're not interpreting manslaughter appropriately. For an act to constitute manslaughter, it must actually kill the victim. Following someone is not manslaughter because it doesn't kill. Shooting a gun can be manslaughter. Stabbing someone can be manslaughter. Punching someone fatally can be manslaughter. Following someone will never be manslaughter because another act is required to cause the killing. I guess I just disagree with the law then. I think that the acts leading up to the event should matter just as much as the event itself. On July 15 2013 04:44 rasnj wrote:On July 15 2013 04:39 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:36 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:31 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:28 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:15 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:14 TheRabidDeer wrote:
[quote]
I mean he was actually trying to become a police officer for his job, but was rejected. Not that he was attempting to be an officer in this situation. I don't know why that would make him criminally negligent then. What I am implying is that since he was trying to be a police officer, he should have some knowledge of what his actions could cause. He would've been aware that he may have needed to use his gun if he decided to approach Martin. Because of that and the fact that he ignored sound advice he was taking an unreasonable risk that resulted in Martin dying. I mean, people get hit with negligent homicide for seemingly less. If you are a parent and you accidentally leave the door open and your child walks into the street and gets hit by a car, you are guilty. You are not doing a good job connecting all that with the actual laws though. Yes, his previous experience could mean his actions were slightly "dumber" than they would be for some else, but that doesn't mean they are any more illegal. This is my understanding of what criminally negligent manslaughter is: Criminally Negligent Manslaughter A homicide resulting from the taking of an unreasonable and high degree of risk is usually considered criminally negligent manslaughter. Jurisdictions are divided on the question of whether the defendant must be aware of the risk. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk, although, under some codes, the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious homicide. Given his knowledge and experience, then it should be understood that there was a high degree of risk when he followed and approached Martin. It is common knowledge that you don't follow strangers around at night, and even more common knowledge that you don't follow strangers that you suspect to be criminals (a burglar) and feel the need to call the police about. Even if that applied, which I don't think it does, you would first have to prove that Zimmermann was following him (which he says he wasn't), and that he intended a confrontation (which is very unlikely). Just following someone can't possibly apply. Either way, that is far too general. You would some more specific like the jury instructions to be able to say something more meaningful. Wasn't Martin recorded as saying "Why are you following me?" over the phone? And while he may not have intended a confrontation, that doesn't explain why he got out of his car in the first place. I just think that if a parent can serve time for leaving a door open, then Zimmerman should have been serving at least some time. I don't recall that particular quote. He got out of his car to get directions for the police (you may doubt this, but no evidence so far has suggested it is false so it would be stupid to argue with it without any kind of new evidence). Also there is no option of "some time". It was a 20 year minimum or something like that if he had been found guilty. You may take issue with Florida law, but 20 years was the mild alternative for doing something stupid. While it is sad that TM ended up dead there is no way GZ could have anticipated that outcome so I don't think we should punish him as though it was predictable. He lives in that neighborhood yet has to get out of his car to get directions? Lame excuse, but it is the only word we have to go off of =\ Also, it looks like it is 9 1/4 years for manslaughter http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/homicide/manslaughter.htmlThen they can always open up early parole or something, right? I personally don't know every street name close to my house by memory, and I know plenty of people that don't. It's really not that crazy.
Yea, but when you are going some place at night do you have to get out of your car to read street names? Also, he is neighborhood watch so he probably patrols the area often and should be somewhat familiar.
|
On July 15 2013 04:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:48 rasnj wrote:On July 15 2013 04:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 04:38 rasnj wrote:On July 15 2013 04:37 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 04:34 Hryul wrote:On July 15 2013 04:16 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 04:11 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 04:03 DemigodcelpH wrote:
He did not directly disobey a police order. Stop saying he did.
Yes he did. It was just non-admissible as there was no legal authority involved. Sorry, did you miss the part where a dispatcher is not a member of the police? It is a non-sworn civilian position. Saying that he disobeyed a police order is factually untrue, even if your subjective interpretation of a "suggestion" as an "order" is taken as fact. Dispatchers are considered a part of the "family" by the cops and know all of the police secrets even if the title is different. You are trying to argue something without sense. Commonly a "police order" is a right for a "police officer" granted by the lawmaker. If you resist police orders, police officers have the right to enforce them. This is not equivalent to something a member of a policing-organization said to you over the phone. As a member of policing-organization it is still an implied order from said member, albeit specifically distinguished from an official one. This distinction has been made clear from the very beginning. There is no such thing as an implied police order from a non-police officer. You are just using your own personal definition of the word order to make it seem like the advice from the operator was something that it was not: an authorative command. Don't twist words. It was an implied order from a member of a policing-organization. This is under strict adhere to dictionary definitions. An order, implied or not, sugar-coated or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X". What is an order to you? Would you mind giving the dictionary definition, because for me it is something like "An authorative command." When the person giving it has no authority then it is at best a command, but when it is just "we don't need you to do that", then it is a non-authorative suggestion or advice. What was given was advice, and there is not even any evidence that he disobeyed that. He went outside his car to get directions, not to follow TM. Yes. By definition an order is synonymous with a command, and you do not need authority (or even merit) to make commands. In this situation it was a implied-command stated casually. This is logically supported by the fact that Zimmerman called the police for further instructions, and that the dispatcher actively asked if Zimmerman was doing a dangerous activity directly prior, received confirmation on said dangerous activity, and then immediately issued his statement to Zimmerman — in this situation it's abundantly clear that, while worded politely, the dispatcher was not looking to debate the issue. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:55 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2013 04:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Now you are understanding, and it goes without saying that it's not enforceable. However it's relevant because Zimmerman, assuming standard social competence, reasonably understood that the officer was not trying to debate with him as he called the police for instructions.
Following Trayvon, in and of itself, is not a criminal act -- regardless of what a police officer says. I'm well aware of this.
He didn't call for instructions, he called to report suspicious behavior. Why are you making things up ?
And stop with the order, not order deal. You're not making sense to a lot of people in this thread (me included) and it looks like this can't be changed.
|
So before I start, for transparency, I think he is guilty of manslaughter and I think the prosecution didn't prove that.
I can't help wondering if people think he would have pursued him if he didn't have a gun. I don't mean this as a question of gun ownership, but for me the case comes down to someone instigating a situation knowing they're armed which I can't see as meaning anything other than he was prepared to kill him if the need arose - and that his actions meant that it might. Morally if nothing else, that makes him culpable in my opinion.
Would he have left the situation to the police had he not been armed? Does that matter?
|
On July 15 2013 04:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/14/statement-president
Good for Obama. I was hoping he'd do this, but didn't think he would.
|
On July 15 2013 04:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/14/statement-president
Classic Obama, never missing a chance to ride the back of dead kids for pushing his anti-gun agenda.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 15 2013 04:02 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 14 2013 20:51 Leporello wrote:On July 14 2013 14:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 14 2013 13:35 KonekoTyriin wrote:
The verdict may be in accordance with the law, but if so then I disagree quite strongly with the law. From what I understand of the case:
Zimmerman shot Martin with a gun. Because there was no prior intent (probably) and it was in self defense (almost certainly), it's reasonable that he did not intend to kill Martin. This sounds like an open and shut manslaughter conviction- though if testimony had uncovered intent, it could have been murder.
You can get convicted of manslaughter for building a house incautiously if it results in the house falling and killing someone inside. No matter how little you wanted that person to die or how indirectly your actions led to their death, if you kill someone, you at LEAST get manslaughter.
I don't understand how Zimmerman could possibly walk completely free from this. It does not seem consistent with justice as I understand it. if you assume its not self defense then of course you cant understand it. the jury found it was self defense. This has been repeated all thread, and it irritates me. It's half a lie, really, or half a truth -- it's people talking about reasonable doubt when it comes to the verdict, but then using that verdict to make statements of a much more absolute nature... I got banned earlier arguing about this, and I can see people are just going to keep repeating it, even the lawyers... It was not proven to be self-defense -- rather nothing was proven at all. There is simply enough reasonable doubt to suggest it may have been self-defense. It is reasonable doubt that gave Zimmerman a "Not Guilty" verdict. It wasn't proof or evidence that let Zimmerman shoot an unarmed teenager without being convicted of a crime, it was the lack thereof -- and that is what disturbs people. Several times in this thread, more than I could care to count really, people have said that self-defense has somehow been "proven", or in this case, that "the jury found it was self-defense". That's not really true, though, is it? We don't know if this was self-defense, and the jury's decision does not say anything with certainty -- there is a reason they call it "not guilty" instead of "innocent". It's just a matter of not knowing. What this verdict says is that it simply MAY have been self-defense. That's enough to avoid murder, as well manslaughter charges to my surprise, but I still feel that Zimmerman's irresponsible behavior in pursuing somebody by himself, with a weapon, should carry at least some charge of negligence. Shooting an unarmed man under pretenses of self-defense is one thing, but when you admittedly were following this person, by yourself, and had all the time to wait for police or even a friend but didn't, then you're being reckless with people's lives. A lot of half-truths in this thread from all sides. innocent until proven guilty. not proven guilty = innocent. welcome to america's legal justice system. What you said was "the jury found it was self defense." Which is not exactly true, sorry. The jury found it may have been self-defense, enough for reasonable doubt, and that was quite clearly what I was trying to say. And the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty" actually does exist. Innocent means you were proved innocent. Not guilty means you weren't proven guilty. Yes, it's the same by law, but the language used is used for a reason. Do you really not see the difference? You are a lawyer, why are you being deliberately obtuse? I am not arguing with the verdict, just your statement. Your actual words, a courtesy this thread is in short supply of.
semantics discussions are a waste of time.
|
On July 15 2013 05:00 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:58 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:44 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2013 04:31 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:28 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:15 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:14 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:11 SKC wrote:
[quote]
There was no proof he was "trying to be a police officer", whatever that is supposed to mean in legal terms, and ignoring sound advice is not illegal, else we would have a lot more people behind bars. There is a difference between being negligent and criminally negligent. There are laws regarding what negligent manslaughter actually is. I mean he was actually trying to become a police officer for his job, but was rejected. Not that he was attempting to be an officer in this situation. I don't know why that would make him criminally negligent then. What I am implying is that since he was trying to be a police officer, he should have some knowledge of what his actions could cause. He would've been aware that he may have needed to use his gun if he decided to approach Martin. Because of that and the fact that he ignored sound advice he was taking an unreasonable risk that resulted in Martin dying. I mean, people get hit with negligent homicide for seemingly less. If you are a parent and you accidentally leave the door open and your child walks into the street and gets hit by a car, you are guilty. You are not doing a good job connecting all that with the actual laws though. Yes, his previous experience could mean his actions were slightly "dumber" than they would be for some else, but that doesn't mean they are any more illegal. This is my understanding of what criminally negligent manslaughter is: Criminally Negligent Manslaughter A homicide resulting from the taking of an unreasonable and high degree of risk is usually considered criminally negligent manslaughter. Jurisdictions are divided on the question of whether the defendant must be aware of the risk. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk, although, under some codes, the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious homicide. Given his knowledge and experience, then it should be understood that there was a high degree of risk when he followed and approached Martin. It is common knowledge that you don't follow strangers around at night, and even more common knowledge that you don't follow strangers that you suspect to be criminals (a burglar) and feel the need to call the police about. You're not interpreting manslaughter appropriately. For an act to constitute manslaughter, it must actually kill the victim. Following someone is not manslaughter because it doesn't kill. Shooting a gun can be manslaughter. Stabbing someone can be manslaughter. Punching someone fatally can be manslaughter. Following someone will never be manslaughter because another act is required to cause the killing. I guess I just disagree with the law then. I think that the acts leading up to the event should matter just as much as the event itself. On July 15 2013 04:44 rasnj wrote:On July 15 2013 04:39 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:36 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:31 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:28 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:15 SKC wrote:
[quote]
I don't know why that would make him criminally negligent then. What I am implying is that since he was trying to be a police officer, he should have some knowledge of what his actions could cause. He would've been aware that he may have needed to use his gun if he decided to approach Martin. Because of that and the fact that he ignored sound advice he was taking an unreasonable risk that resulted in Martin dying. I mean, people get hit with negligent homicide for seemingly less. If you are a parent and you accidentally leave the door open and your child walks into the street and gets hit by a car, you are guilty. You are not doing a good job connecting all that with the actual laws though. Yes, his previous experience could mean his actions were slightly "dumber" than they would be for some else, but that doesn't mean they are any more illegal. This is my understanding of what criminally negligent manslaughter is: Criminally Negligent Manslaughter A homicide resulting from the taking of an unreasonable and high degree of risk is usually considered criminally negligent manslaughter. Jurisdictions are divided on the question of whether the defendant must be aware of the risk. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk, although, under some codes, the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious homicide. Given his knowledge and experience, then it should be understood that there was a high degree of risk when he followed and approached Martin. It is common knowledge that you don't follow strangers around at night, and even more common knowledge that you don't follow strangers that you suspect to be criminals (a burglar) and feel the need to call the police about. Even if that applied, which I don't think it does, you would first have to prove that Zimmermann was following him (which he says he wasn't), and that he intended a confrontation (which is very unlikely). Just following someone can't possibly apply. Either way, that is far too general. You would some more specific like the jury instructions to be able to say something more meaningful. Wasn't Martin recorded as saying "Why are you following me?" over the phone? And while he may not have intended a confrontation, that doesn't explain why he got out of his car in the first place. I just think that if a parent can serve time for leaving a door open, then Zimmerman should have been serving at least some time. I don't recall that particular quote. He got out of his car to get directions for the police (you may doubt this, but no evidence so far has suggested it is false so it would be stupid to argue with it without any kind of new evidence). Also there is no option of "some time". It was a 20 year minimum or something like that if he had been found guilty. You may take issue with Florida law, but 20 years was the mild alternative for doing something stupid. While it is sad that TM ended up dead there is no way GZ could have anticipated that outcome so I don't think we should punish him as though it was predictable. He lives in that neighborhood yet has to get out of his car to get directions? Lame excuse, but it is the only word we have to go off of =\ Also, it looks like it is 9 1/4 years for manslaughter http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/homicide/manslaughter.htmlThen they can always open up early parole or something, right? I personally don't know every street name close to my house by memory, and I know plenty of people that don't. It's really not that crazy. Yea, but when you are going some place at night do you have to get out of your car to read street names? Also, he is neighborhood watch so he probably patrols the area often and should be somewhat familiar.
I don't know the position of the street signs, I believe even Zimmermann didn't really know where they were, and it was a rainy night with very poor lightining. I don't think it's unreasonable he couldn't see them well from the street.
|
DemigodcelpH
Traits of psychopathy (and the lessor anti-social disorder) are actually relatively common in the general population, and someone who made 46 prior calls to the Standford police and actively ignored direct police orders to stay in his vehicle and stop following the citizen (this was before any confrontation happened) is definitely more on the calculating side.
1. He did not actively ignore police orders as they were not orders and were not issued by a police officer no matter how many times you say so
2. Zimmerman was a member of his neighborhood's watch organization, it boggles the mind to think that calling the people dozens of times in your capacity as a neighborhood watch member is an indication of "calculation" or of psychopathy or any lesser anti-social disorder
3. It again boggles the mind to say that following someone you believe is committing a crime qualifies as 'calculation' to physically harm him, and also in no way shows a mind directed towards criminal calculation
demigodcelpHIf he wasn't following Trayvon then the officer on the phone wouldn't have told him to stop following Trayvon. The rest of your post is unsubstantiated, as you're making up statistics and downplaying details that don't match your preconceived notions. 46 calls to the police is definitely abnormal and screams "vigilante obsession" even when looking at it from a conservative viewpoint.
There was no officer on the phone telling Zimmerman anything.
Your contentions of non-substantiation, making up statistics, and downplaying details is the classic psychological defense of projection. You are projecting your own behavior on to others.
You have absolutely no evidence or reasoning that 46 calls to police is "definitely normal" or screams "vigilante obsession" and obviously you are simply making shit up as to what constitutes "abnormal," "vigilante obsession," or "conservative viewpoint."
Also it wasn't 46 calls, it was more. The prosecution only said 46 because those were the calls were Zimmerman said the suspicious person was black.
How about you
1. Stop making shit up
2. Stop telling the 10% of the story that favors your opinion
3. Stop falsely characterizing the events of that night when everyone and their mother except the deliberately ignorant knows the details because they actually followed the trial
4. Stop indiscriminately throwing ridiculous labels out just because they a) denigrate Zimmerman and b) sound authoritative. They aren't
You and Leporello are excellent examples of why the law, and not feelings, does and should be the standard we judge those accused of a crime by. Your feelings have led you to say total nonsense over and over again, and a man's life should not be at stake because of ignorant feelings causing people to want him to be punished.
|
On July 15 2013 05:00 Iyerbeth wrote:
So before I start, for transparency, I think he is guilty of manslaughter and I think the prosecution didn't prove that.
I can't help wondering if people think he would have pursued him if he didn't have a gun. I don't mean this as a question of gun ownership, but for me the case comes down to someone instigating a situation knowing they're armed which I can't see as meaning anything other than he was prepared to kill him if the need arose - and that his actions meant that it might. Morally if nothing else, that makes him culpable in my opinion.
Would he have left the situation to the police had he not been armed? Does that matter?
Why do you think so? Where do you think the prosecution could have proved it wasn't self defense? Or do you just mean your feelings towards it? Being armed doesn't really change much regarding the laws.
|
On July 15 2013 04:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:48 rasnj wrote:On July 15 2013 04:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 04:38 rasnj wrote:On July 15 2013 04:37 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 04:34 Hryul wrote:On July 15 2013 04:16 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 04:11 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 04:03 DemigodcelpH wrote:
He did not directly disobey a police order. Stop saying he did.
Yes he did. It was just non-admissible as there was no legal authority involved. Sorry, did you miss the part where a dispatcher is not a member of the police? It is a non-sworn civilian position. Saying that he disobeyed a police order is factually untrue, even if your subjective interpretation of a "suggestion" as an "order" is taken as fact. Dispatchers are considered a part of the "family" by the cops and know all of the police secrets even if the title is different. You are trying to argue something without sense. Commonly a "police order" is a right for a "police officer" granted by the lawmaker. If you resist police orders, police officers have the right to enforce them. This is not equivalent to something a member of a policing-organization said to you over the phone. As a member of policing-organization it is still an implied order from said member, albeit specifically distinguished from an official one. This distinction has been made clear from the very beginning. There is no such thing as an implied police order from a non-police officer. You are just using your own personal definition of the word order to make it seem like the advice from the operator was something that it was not: an authorative command. Don't twist words. It was an implied order from a member of a policing-organization. This is under strict adhere to dictionary definitions. An order, implied or not, sugar-coated or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X". What is an order to you? Would you mind giving the dictionary definition, because for me it is something like "An authorative command." When the person giving it has no authority then it is at best a command, but when it is just "we don't need you to do that", then it is a non-authorative suggestion or advice. What was given was advice, and there is not even any evidence that he disobeyed that. He went outside his car to get directions, not to follow TM. Yes. By definition an order is synonymous with a command, and you do not need authority (or even merit) to make commands. In this situation it was a implied-command stated casually. This is logically supported by the fact that Zimmerman called the police for further instructions, and that the dispatcher actively asked if Zimmerman was doing a dangerous activity directly prior, received confirmation on said dangerous activity, and then immediately issued his statement to Zimmerman — in this situation it's abundantly clear that, while worded politely, the dispatcher was not looking to debate the issue. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:55 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2013 04:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Now you are understanding, and it goes without saying that it's not enforceable. However it's relevant because Zimmerman, assuming standard social competence, reasonably understood that the officer was not trying to debate with him as he called the police for instructions.
Following Trayvon, in and of itself, is not a criminal act -- regardless of what a police officer says. I'm well aware of this.
Let me ask you something, seeing that you have obviously not followed the actual trial (where the actual jurors observed closely) what makes you think you are "refuting" or "proving" anything in any of your posts. Maybe you think you could've done a better job than the state prosecution? Why do you think your opinion matters so much.
The fact is, 6 women jurors who HAVE paid attention and followed the trial closely AND by the way who based their decision on the evidence and the law agreed he is not guilty.
WTF do you keep going on about. You have no proof GZ continued to follow or pursue TM after the dispatcher "ADVISED" let me say again, "ADVISED" (because non-emergency operator's can not legally give orders) that he doesn't need to follow him.
GZ is the one with the injuries consistent with being attacked and beaten, there wasn't a scratch on TM other than the cut on his knuckle that was consistent with punching or striking someone. You are fighting a losing battle, especially since you have obviously not paid close attention or not even any at all to the real trial. Not the one in the mainstream media.
|
On July 15 2013 05:01 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:02 Leporello wrote:On July 15 2013 03:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 14 2013 20:51 Leporello wrote:On July 14 2013 14:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 14 2013 13:35 KonekoTyriin wrote:
The verdict may be in accordance with the law, but if so then I disagree quite strongly with the law. From what I understand of the case:
Zimmerman shot Martin with a gun. Because there was no prior intent (probably) and it was in self defense (almost certainly), it's reasonable that he did not intend to kill Martin. This sounds like an open and shut manslaughter conviction- though if testimony had uncovered intent, it could have been murder.
You can get convicted of manslaughter for building a house incautiously if it results in the house falling and killing someone inside. No matter how little you wanted that person to die or how indirectly your actions led to their death, if you kill someone, you at LEAST get manslaughter.
I don't understand how Zimmerman could possibly walk completely free from this. It does not seem consistent with justice as I understand it. if you assume its not self defense then of course you cant understand it. the jury found it was self defense. This has been repeated all thread, and it irritates me. It's half a lie, really, or half a truth -- it's people talking about reasonable doubt when it comes to the verdict, but then using that verdict to make statements of a much more absolute nature... I got banned earlier arguing about this, and I can see people are just going to keep repeating it, even the lawyers... It was not proven to be self-defense -- rather nothing was proven at all. There is simply enough reasonable doubt to suggest it may have been self-defense. It is reasonable doubt that gave Zimmerman a "Not Guilty" verdict. It wasn't proof or evidence that let Zimmerman shoot an unarmed teenager without being convicted of a crime, it was the lack thereof -- and that is what disturbs people. Several times in this thread, more than I could care to count really, people have said that self-defense has somehow been "proven", or in this case, that "the jury found it was self-defense". That's not really true, though, is it? We don't know if this was self-defense, and the jury's decision does not say anything with certainty -- there is a reason they call it "not guilty" instead of "innocent". It's just a matter of not knowing. What this verdict says is that it simply MAY have been self-defense. That's enough to avoid murder, as well manslaughter charges to my surprise, but I still feel that Zimmerman's irresponsible behavior in pursuing somebody by himself, with a weapon, should carry at least some charge of negligence. Shooting an unarmed man under pretenses of self-defense is one thing, but when you admittedly were following this person, by yourself, and had all the time to wait for police or even a friend but didn't, then you're being reckless with people's lives. A lot of half-truths in this thread from all sides. innocent until proven guilty. not proven guilty = innocent. welcome to america's legal justice system. What you said was "the jury found it was self defense." Which is not exactly true, sorry. The jury found it may have been self-defense, enough for reasonable doubt, and that was quite clearly what I was trying to say. And the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty" actually does exist. Innocent means you were proved innocent. Not guilty means you weren't proven guilty. Yes, it's the same by law, but the language used is used for a reason. Do you really not see the difference? You are a lawyer, why are you being deliberately obtuse? I am not arguing with the verdict, just your statement. Your actual words, a courtesy this thread is in short supply of. semantics discussions are a waste of time.
Not when people are so intent on deliberately misinterpreting posts.
|
On July 15 2013 05:00 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/14/statement-president Very beautifully said.
Typical empty Obama fluff pushing his divisive agenda while wrapping himself in the garb of a kinder, gentler, unifying Big Brother.
Guarantee that in two weeks tops you and no one else will remember a single word of his "beautifully said" comment, just like his race speech in Philadelphia, his "we are not red or blue America" speech, his speech in front of fake Greek columns in Mile High Stadium, his speech in Berlin, his speech in Cairo, his first inaugural, his second inaugural, his second speech in Berlin, and any of the other amazing speeches that no one can remember a line out of that show him to be a great orator (rofl).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
