|
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 04:54 {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 well said, as expected from Obama.
|
On July 15 2013 05:03 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The second part and question are just my person feelings and ponderings, which would be completely useless in the court room. I was wondering on others thoughts.
I think there's plenty of things the prosecution could have done better, but in this instance I'm just curious about others thoughts/feelings.
|
On July 15 2013 05:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:00 DemigodcelpH wrote: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 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).
Who cares? It's better than remembering a president for saying "nucular".
|
On July 15 2013 04:18 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +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. I thought it was just a not-guilty verdict for 2nd degree murder; nothing about manslaughter. double jeopardy prevents prosecution from trialing him for both manslaughter and 2nd degree murder.
its a lesser included offense. double jeopardy applies to both.
|
This is going to make a great movie someday. I'm thinking:
Jayden Smith for Trayvon
Delroy Lindo (from Get Shorty) for Tracey Martin
the girl from precious for Rachel
Bryan Cranston for Don West
Can't think of a good judge or MOM, and not sure about Zimmerman either.
|
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.
Who cares if it was an "order" or not? Can you explain why you keep arguing this point?
|
Lol, I guess I really shouldn't be surprised he is trying to push his anti-gun crap with this.
|
On July 15 2013 05:06 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:03 SKC wrote: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. The second part and question are just my person feelings and ponderings, which would be completely useless in the court room. I was wondering on others thoughts. I think there's plenty of things the prosecution could have done better, but in this instance I'm just curious about others thoughts/feelings.
The evidence just wasn't there to overcome the burden of proof for the self-defense argument. Nothing the prosecution could have done. They fought as hard as they could to make it an emotional case for the jury.
|
On July 15 2013 05:06 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:03 SKC wrote: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. The second part and question are just my person feelings and ponderings, which would be completely useless in the court room. I was wondering on others thoughts. I think there's plenty of things the prosecution could have done better, but in this instance I'm just curious about others thoughts/feelings.
I think most people believe it was a dumb situation that resulted in a killing, and as such some people argue he should be punished. But noone has any idea of what actually happened. The closest thing to an actual punishment would be manslaughter, so they flock towards that, even though there isn't really much evidence pointing towards it.
|
On July 15 2013 05:06 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:03 SKC wrote: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. The second part and question are just my person feelings and ponderings, which would be completely useless in the court room. I was wondering on others thoughts. I think there's plenty of things the prosecution could have done better, but in this instance I'm just curious about others thoughts/feelings.
The only thing that the prosecution could have done better was drop the charges.
They pushed this case as hard as they could and warped the facts about as much as they could possibly expect to get away with. Their closing arguments were particularly disgraceful in their dishonesty.
Seriously, as a lawyer, I'm very happy that O'Mara and West are going to follow up on the ethics charges. Our profession is demonized enough as it is. The last thing we need are asshats like these DA's throwing fuel on the fire.
|
On July 15 2013 05:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 15 2013 05:00 DemigodcelpH wrote: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 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). Who cares? It's better than remembering a president for saying "nucular".
No it isn't. George Bush mispronounced words while saying real things.
Obama mispronounces words too but no one jumps on him for it because that'd be racist and also he's not a Republican so it's understandable and not a sign of stupidity. While the things Obama says are shells for deliberately dividing and poisoning the minds of the people against each other.
|
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 have been debating whether to bring up but for and proximate cause. what do you think?
|
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
has there been any comment on the civil rights request yet?
|
On July 15 2013 05:11 dAPhREAk 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 have been debating whether to bring up but for and proximate cause. what do you think?
Bad idea.
|
On July 15 2013 05:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:11 dAPhREAk 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 have been debating whether to bring up but for and proximate cause. what do you think? Bad idea.
Please don't bring up mens rea either, even though it's been discussed without being named the entire thread 
|
On July 15 2013 05:09 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 15 2013 05:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 15 2013 05:00 DemigodcelpH wrote: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 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). Who cares? It's better than remembering a president for saying "nucular". No it isn't. George Bush mispronounced words while saying real things. Obama mispronounces words too but no one jumps on him for it because that'd be racist and also he's not a Republican so it's understandable and not a sign of stupidity. While the things Obama says are shells for deliberately dividing and poisoning the minds of the people against each other.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hFO8b6V.jpg)
You are so totally right bro.
AMERICA! We must save our canned food for the coming Obamocalypse!
|
On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +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
1. He ignored what he was told whether it was legally identified as an official order or not.
2. 46 times is obsessive even for a volunteer, and the transcripts wreak of agenda.
3. Following someone while carrying a gun, ignoring the dispatcher, and then killing him suggests that it wasn't happenstance.
On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:There was no officer on the phone telling Zimmerman anything.
A dispatcher was giving him instructions.
On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote: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.
Getting angry and making personal attacks may make you feel better short term, but behaving this way will only make your denial phase last longer.
On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote: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.
This is highly abnormal for a single man who wanted to be a cop but failed and suggests some kind of lingering obsession. I seriously hope you're not trying to argue this point.
On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote: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
1. Nothing has been made up.
2. Specific points have specific relevant information.
3. False accusation.
4. Baseless.
On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote: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.
I find this highly ironic considering your post is one giant concentration of incoherent emotions.
|
On July 15 2013 05:14 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:13 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2013 05:11 dAPhREAk 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 have been debating whether to bring up but for and proximate cause. what do you think? Bad idea. Please don't bring up mens rea either, even though it's been discussed without being named the entire thread
Well, "mens rea" is a fairly simple concept. Legal causation, however, is like the fucking rabbit hole in Alice in Wonderland.
|
On July 15 2013 05:15 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote: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 1. He ignored what he was told whether it was legally identified as an official order or not. 2. 46 times is obsessive even for a volunteer, and the transcripts wreak of agenda. 3. Following someone while carrying a gun, ignoring the dispatcher, and then killing him suggests that it wasn't happenstance. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:There was no officer on the phone telling Zimmerman anything. A dispatcher was giving him instructions. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote: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. Getting angry and making personal attacks may make you feel better short term, but behaving this way will only make your denial phase last longer. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote: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. This is highly abnormal for a single man who wanted to be a cop but failed and suggests some kind of lingering obsession. I seriously hope you're not trying to argue this point. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote: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 1. Nothing has been made up.2. Specific points have specific relevant information. 3. False accusation. 4. Baseless. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote: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. I find this highly ironic considering your post is one giant concentration of incoherent emotions.
You've made up the fact that Zimmerman was calling the dispatcher for instructions. You even bolded it out.
|
On July 15 2013 05:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:00 DemigodcelpH wrote: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).
Your Obama-hate obsession doesn't sound too healthy. Whether you like it or not the comment was both eloquently said and beautiful in the sense of directing people the right way while portraying good leadership virtues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
