Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha
I don't like your definition of manslaughter, and I think it is important, as I think it is the appropriate charge. Manslaughter is not negligence, negligence is negligence. It is not manslaughter, for instance, if a farmer has a damaged fence and the cows get out and cause an accident that kills someone*.
Actually, yes, if the farmer was aware of the issue, he could easily be charged with manslaughter, the same with vicious dogs and so on. I'm basing my definition on the United States legal system, since it's the only form that matters in this situation. Where it somewhat differs is with stuff such as drunk driving, but I think the reason it's murder instead of manslaughter is because someone chose to get into a car while drunk. Shit like that, though it could be manslaughter, in some cases.
Quote:
Manslaughter requires more positive action. In many countries, murder can become manslaughter by using a provocation defense.
Perhaps in other countries and such, but not in the states. Well...some states, there are still states where gun and self-protect laws are lacking, but hopefully they follow.
Quote:
Zimmerman probably did not intend to kill Martin, but he did. This would be voluntary manslaughter, as there was intent to harm, but not to kill, in the course of self-defense.
Once again, it doesn't apply in Florida, and I'm honestly glad for that. It's kinda hard to ****ing decide whether or not someone wants to kill you or not, and regardless, if all you have is something like a knife or a gun, it's bullshit to expect the person trying to defend themselves to be responsible for the attacker's life.
Quote:
However, I would have to ask why he would carry a gun if he did not intend to kill anyone he felt the need to be protected from, when he could have carried, say, a taser. But this is beside the point, as this goes back to my confusion over why it is acceptable for anyone but the police to carry guns in public. (And even then, I don't think beat cops should carry guns.)
Well, he may have left them at home, but when someone is on top of you, beating your face in, neither one of those are viable options. Pepperspray isn't guaranteed to stop anyone, hell, it tends to piss people off MORE and electricity tends to flow through connected bodies...there's also the fact that someone else with a gun would kind of render your weapons useless. As for guns, our views on gun rights differ, and aren't really related, but when your country has a history (and future) like this, you tend to want to keep your protection. It was the little guys with their own guns that won the revolutionary war (not trying to be all patriotic or anything like that, but the reason for the second amendment is to prevent the government from becoming too powerful, though it's a little late for that)
Quote:
I don't really want to comment on the verdict itself, but I will say that most people defending Zimmerman seem to de-emphasise the tragedy, and instead argue that it was actually 100% just for one person to kill another in the course of self-defense, the death of the assailant be damned.
Nah, we all understand it's a horrible tragedy, for both sides. Treyvon made a mistake, but he WAS young and stupid, so it sucks that his mistake ended his life. I'm not trying to make him out to be some awful person, but he DID make the main mistake, and I would say that Zimmerman feels bad about it as well. It's not easy to take another person's life, even if they ARE an immediate threat to your own, ask most veterans. Though it may be a tragedy, it doesn't mean that we have to blame someone.
Quote:
I don't think it is ever just to use deadly force when not faced with deadly force.
The only issue with that is, how could you know? There's no way to know that the other person is planning to take it all the way, and you don't need a weapon to kill someone, it's pretty easy to beat someone to death by punching them in the head, not to mention Zimmerman claims Treyvon WAS reaching for his gun, though there's no way to prove it. But should we automatically find Zimmerman guilty because there's no proof? What can you possibly do to prove that, one way or another? I'm not taking Zimmerman's word alone, it just makes sense with the rest of the evidence. Don't mistake my accepting of his story as lack of skepticism, I'm skeptical of the prosecution in this case. The police felt no need to investigate further, until there was media pressure. The prosecution didn't have a shred of evidence to show disprove him, either.
Quote:
Martin may not have been innocent once he ambushed Zimmerman, but it does not seem that Martin was using deadly force at any point. Thus, Zimmerman's reaction was excessive.
Once again, how can you possibly tell? And even if he didn't, as you're saying, regardless of intentions, it's possible he could have done so, anyway.
Quote:
I will permit that he likely did not intend to kill Martin when he shot. However, that is what happened. To me (and this is my final word on it), Zimmerman committed voluntary manslaughter. Discounting factors include those utterly bizarre Castle and Stand Your Ground laws, which I have intentionally overlooked because I find them absurd.
Why find them absurd if you know nothing about them? They're not nearly as stereotypically "murikun" as people make them out to people, just check the wikipedia articles on them. Not to mention, it should help your understanding of why he's innocent.
Quote:
* Although there is criminally negligent manslaughter.
See also
imperfect self-defense for further justification of my position.
As far as this goes, I think it more applies to people like that guy in Texas a few years ago that held up two robbers, while on the ****ing phone with 911, told them to stop, one did and the other moved (iirc) so he shot and killed them both. Blunt force trauma to the head is pretty reasonable to consider lethal, if not seriously injuring. There are far too many ways to die from a blow to the head.
