Zimmerman not guilty!

[Lacquer Head]

What you think doesn't matter. What I just mentioned is what happened in the hypothetical scenario.

Then allow ME to present a hypothetical scenario. A few days earlier, Treyvon Martin broke into a neighbor's house, and after being given the description, Zimmerman decided to follow him to keep an eye on him, while on the phone. Treyvon notices and runs back home, only enraged by the fact that someone might be on to him. So, to prevent anything from coming from it, he decides to return to George Zimmerman to beat him to death as a message, but fortunately for Mr Zimmerman, he was carrying protection that night. After making this decision, he double back and hides in a bush, waiting for the "creepy cracker" to walk past. As he does so, Treyvon jumps out from behind and attacks, but as he begins to pummel Zimmerman in the face, Zimmerman just barely manages to pull out his gun and shoot.

I can do it too, but I can make it sound better

[Rowan]

You must have missed the part where he was too busy reaching for his gun to fight back.

This quote pisses me off greatly. Its not you as a person, just what you've said here.
You are saying he is only allowed to fight back physically, instead of using what means he had at his disposal (in this case, a gun)?
What if its a man attacking a woman, and the woman pulls her gun and shoots him. Guess that would have been much more media friendly in favor of the woman.

Perhaps Zimmerman didnt possess the strength to overpower him. Perhaps in the heat of the moment, after having his head bashed against pavement, he was concussed and actions were made out of instict? All I know is that you cant dictate how someone should defend themself, you are not the one being beaten up and you life isnt in the blood stained hands of someone else.

[Fluffy]

This quote pisses me off greatly. Its not you as a person, just what you've said here.
You are saying he is only allowed to fight back physically, instead of using what means he had at his disposal (in this case, a gun)?
What if its a man attacking a woman, and the woman pulls her gun and shoots him. Guess that would have been much more media friendly in favor of the woman.

Perhaps Zimmerman didnt poccess the strength to overpower him. Perhaps in the heat of the moment, after having his head bashed against pavement, he was concussed and actions were made out of instict? All I know is that you cant dictate how someone should defend themself, you are not the one being beaten up and you life isnt in the blood stained hands of someone else.

No. This was to show that the person who was following me and grabbed me had no injuries on him. This isn't the Zimmerman scenario. It's a hypothetical scenario that resulted in the exact same trial.

Lacquer Head not going to answer then? Carry on then.

Correction below, not editing for consistency.

[Lacquer Head]

This quote pisses me off greatly. Its not you as a person, just what you've said here.
You are saying he is only allowed to fight back physically, instead of using what means he had at his disposal (in this case, a gun)?
What if its a man attacking a woman, and the woman pulls her gun and shoots him. Guess that would have been much more media friendly in favor of the woman.

Perhaps Zimmerman didnt poccess the strength to overpower him. Perhaps in the heat of the moment, after having his head bashed against pavement, he was concussed and actions were made out of instict? All I know is that you cant dictate how someone should defend themself, you are not the one being beaten up and you life isnt in the blood stained hands of someone else.

Thank you!

~ AUTO-MERGED POSTS ~

No. This was to show that the person who was following me and grabbed me had no injuries on him. This isn't the Zimmerman scenario. It's a hypothetical scenario that resulted in the exact same trial.

If he had no injuries, then it would have contradicted his story and would most likely have a much different end.

[Fluffy]

Sorry, correction: It's to show that I have no injuries on me.

[Lacquer Head]

Sorry, correction: It's to show that I have no injuries on me.

Edit: oh right, your hypothetical, unrelated story

[Fluffy]

When an assault takes place, do you know who's more likely to have no injuries on them?

That doesn't matter. This is the scenario, exactly as it happened. Please answer if justice was achieved in the scenario or not. Or don't if you don't want to, whatever.

[Lacquer Head]

That doesn't matter. This is the scenario, exactly as it happened. Please answer if justice was achieved in the scenario or not. Or don't if you don't want to, whatever.

I don't think I can answer that, being your personal, biased scenario, it would only be just if you found it just.

[Mystyrion]

We can stop with the what if stories. They aren't going to get anyone anywhere. In any sense.

[Odin1199]

Fluffy he was defending himself while lying on the sidewalk and being punched in the face. Don't tell me he couldn't use a gun on him, because he could if his life was in danger.

[loaf]

Some Black Guy was shot today, nobody did anything. Justice.

[Rowan]

Some Black Guy was shot today, nobody did anything. Justice.

what should the colour of his skin have to do with anything? Even if it was racially motivated, why should a single persons bigotry matter to society? In fact, making a point of someones nationality in regards to any scenario should be considered intent to cause racially motivated aggression amongst the masses.

[Odin1199]

Because people are stereotypical bastards who just want to see things their way. To change is to accept alot of stuff that isn't pleasant or known, in other words go out of your comfort shell. Humanity basically revolved and continues to revolve around stereotyping, racism, generalizing, judging and so on. We are still weak and feeble. Not saying everyone's like that, but alot of people are, unfortunately.

[Lacquer Head]

We can stop with the what if stories. They aren't going to get anyone anywhere. In any sense.

That's my point :I




NOTE BY ALPHA: Please watch post length. Strictly, there is a one paragraph minimum in ID. I've been lenient, as I typically do not interpret one sentence to be a paragraph. Three words is certainly too short.

[HeroZero]

Using a hypothetical 'what if' scenario is absolutely not useful in any way shape or form. ITs comparing reality to fantasy which is not useful in any way. It is just as easy to say something about vampires really killed the young man and Zimmerman was an innocent bystander.

Using a hypothetical scenario is worthless because it never is and never will be reality. You can never predict how people will realistically react to a given situation. Yeah you can say they do "X" because of "Y" reason but that doesn't mean it actually has any worth.

If you have have to resort to a hypothetical scenario to defend your position you are up shit creek without a paddle and need to re-evaluate your position.

[Lacquer Head]

Using a hypothetical 'what if' scenario is absolutely not useful in any way shape or form. ITs comparing reality to fantasy which is not useful in any way. It is just as easy to say something about vampires really killed the young man and Zimmerman was an innocent bystander.

Using a hypothetical scenario is worthless because it never is and never will be reality. You can never predict how people will realistically react to a given situation. Yeah you can say they do "X" because of "Y" reason but that doesn't mean it actually has any worth.

If you have have to resort to a hypothetical scenario to defend your position you are up shit creek without a paddle and need to re-evaluate your position.

Well, I wouldn't be THAT extreme, but certainly going down the wrong path. And as I said, that was my entire point. Anyone can fabricate a heavily biased scenario for anything, but it's certainly not related to the point at hand. Regardless of how you attempt to twist it, the facts all match up with Zimmerman's testimony and they don't match up with any of the unfounded theories I've heard thrown around.

It seems most people have a problem with self-defense laws. I understand that people want to jump to the "what ifs" and some just don't understand what it's like to be assaulted. The reason these states enforce the Stand Your Ground and Castle laws is BECAUSE of the situations. You can't take your time and try to be non-lethal, all you can do is try your hardest to protect yourself. It's unfair to try to prosecute someone being attacked for defending themselves, just because the assailant died. They may pull the trigger, but it's still purely the assailants fault for crossing the line. Even if there was a way to know they assailant won't kill you, it's bullshit to ask people to just take a beating to save their attacker's life. Said attacker is responsible for their own life in these situations.

Murder is a premeditated attempt at someone's life and manslaughter is when your negligence causes a death. George Zimmerman was not negligent in the slightest, he had every right to be where he was, to walk the streets and not be attacked. Even if it resulted in Treyvon feeling fear or anger, it was not at all reason to use any amount of force.

Finally, for those that are convinced it's bullshit because there's no way to no beyond a shadow of a doubt, I think you don't understand the legal system. That's precisely WHY he wasn't found guilty. The only person that has to prove something happened, beyond a reasonable doubt, is the prosecution, and there's no way to do so, especially when all the evidence goes AGAINST their claims.

Just because you think it's "weird" doesn't justify the incarceration of a man that may or may not be guilty, ESPECIALLY when the odds are heavily in favor of not guilty.

[Alpha]

Murder is a premeditated attempt at someone's life and manslaughter is when your negligence causes a death. George Zimmerman was not negligent in the slightest, he had every right to be where he was, to walk the streets and not be attacked. Even if it resulted in Treyvon feeling fear or anger, it was not at all reason to use any amount of force.

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*. Manslaughter requires more positive action. In many countries, murder can become manslaughter by using a provocation defense. 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. 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.)

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. I don't think it is ever just to use deadly force when not faced with deadly force. 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. 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.

* Although there is criminally negligent manslaughter.

See also imperfect self-defense for further justification of my position.

EDIT: And finally...

"I’m worried vigilantes will take the law into their own hands."
—Robert Zimmerman, Jr.

[Lacquer Head]

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

* 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.

[Odin1199]

Zimmerman didn't know if Treyor wanted to kill him or not. What if he had a knife on him? It doesn't matter in these situations, if you think your life is in danger you do anything you can to save yourself. Why do you people have a problem with this? You think you're smarter than US law or something? Jeez. This thread has turned into "judge yourself" thread. Verdict has been passed that's it. Law is clear about these types of situations, which happen everyday and are as common as shit. Let's just move on.

[Fluffy]

Lacquer Head, you show a very poor understanding of the law. "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" is not the standard by which burden of proof is held. In fact, a judge will usually instruct the jury, multiple times, that this is not the standard. It is "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you must believe.

Murder is a premeditated attempt at someone's life and manslaughter is when your negligence causes a death. George Zimmerman was not negligent in the slightest, he had every right to be where he was, to walk the streets and not be attacked.

Very wrong. Manslaughter, in this case, is:

George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.

Self-defense is a defense against this, which he claimed. This is also held to a standard:

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

Emphasis mine. This means that simply believing your life is in danger is not enough. You must believe it's your only recourse, and it must be a reasonable belief. One that a reasonably cautious or prudent person in the same situation would have come to.

Not reaching this standard would mean it was imperfect self-defense, and would(should) result in a manslaughter conviction.

Note: a juror has been shown to incorrectly cite this law after the trial, leaving this portion out. This is unfotunately common in my experience with juries.

More notes on the jury: they apparently used evidence (testimony) that was struck out. They were instructed that it was not to be used in deliberation, yet a juror said it was actually a big reason in their coming to their verdict.

[Lacquer Head]

Lacquer Head, you show a very poor understanding of the law. "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" is not the standard by which burden of proof is held. In fact, a judge will usually instruct the jury, multiple times, that this is not the standard. It is "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you must believe.

Sorry, misquote, but it changes nothing.

Very wrong. Manslaughter, in this case, is:

Intentionally killing someone is murder lol, can i have a better source than "law"?

Self-defense is a defense against this, which he claimed. This is also held to a standard:

What the **** is the quote from, honestly, law?

Emphasis mine. This means that simply believing your life is in danger is not enough. You must believe it's your only recourse, and it must be a reasonable belief. One that a reasonably cautious or prudent person in the same situation would have come to.

ONCE AGAIN, lack of source. Though, seems like the only logical solution to save himself was with a gunshot.

Not reaching this standard would mean it was imperfect self-defense, and would(should) result in a manslaughter conviction.

Eeyup, your point? It's the prosecution's job to prove that he didn't reach this standard.

Note: a juror has been shown to incorrectly cite this law after the trial, leaving this portion out. This is unfotunately common in my experience with juries.

And?

More notes on the jury: they apparently used evidence (testimony) that was struck out. They were instructed that it was not to be used in deliberation, yet a juror said it was actually a big reason in their coming to their verdict.

What reason? Source? ANY information would be nice :V

I'm trying my best to be respectful, but if you can't bring actual information to this thread, please stay away. This isn't the accusation section, it's intelligent discussion, please cite any way to discover some of this stuff. We're here to further knowledge and have reasonable discussions.

[Fluffy]

Sources: Pretty much any definitions on those laws, including Florida's, and the jury instructions given to the jury for this trial. Those were quotes from the jury instructions. Most definitions you look up will agree. I'm sure you're capable of looking them up yourself.

Eeyup, your point? It's the prosecution's job to prove that he didn't reach this standard.

False. Self-defense is an affirmative defense, so the burden of proof is on the defense to show that he did.

And?

And if the jury doesn't understand the law, you can hardly expect them to carry it out correctly.

Intentionally killing someone is murder lol

No, murder requires malice. Manslaughter is the killing of another person in the absence of malice.

[Lacquer Head]

Sources: Pretty much any definitions on those laws, including Florida's, and the jury instructions given to the jury for this trial. Those were quotes from the jury instructions. Most definitions you look up will agree. I'm sure you're capable of looking them up yourself.

I'll just ignore this.

False. Self-defense is an affirmative defense, so the burden of proof is on the defense to show that he did.

"An affirmative defense is a complete or partial defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal procedure that affirms the complaint or charges but raises facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, would defeat or reduce a claim even if the allegations alleged are all proven."

It's not necessary, but it IS a more aggressive form of defense. It would be necessary if say, the prosecution HAD reasonable proof.

And if the jury doesn't understand the law, you can hardly expect them to carry it out correctly.

Misquoting =/= misunderstanding the law, as I showed in the beginning of this post.

No, murder requires malice. Manslaughter is the killing of another person in the absence of malice.

Murder is a premeditated,unprovoked killing.

[Rowan]

Sources: Pretty much any definitions on those laws, including Florida's, and the jury instructions given to the jury for this trial. Those were quotes from the jury instructions. Most definitions you look up will agree. I'm sure you're capable of looking them up yourself.



False. Self-defense is an affirmative defense, so the burden of proof is on the defense to show that he did.

I dont understand, he doesnt need to proove he shot him in self defensive, because its quite evident. His head and face were bloodied and beaten, I suppose thats suffient enough evidence to qualify self defence. Although I'd hate to think that someone would need to beat me up considerably before anything I did was classed as self defence. The idea is to stop the attacker by any means necessary to prevent harm to yourself. Zimmerman did just that. I dont see why people cant get this through their heads. It scares me that people with your thought process would be judging me one day if someone attacked me and I 'killed them without malice'

[Fluffy]

The idea is to stop the attacker by any means necessary to prevent harm to yourself.

This is precisely the problem. "Any means necessary" requires that it actually be necessary. In the case of the law, that means you have to reasonably believe it was necessary. It doesn't mean you get to kill people because they're punching you.

[Lacquer Head]

This is precisely the problem. "Any means necessary" requires that it actually be necessary. In the case of the law, that means you have to reasonably believe it was necessary. It doesn't mean you get to kill people because they're punching you.

If someone physically harms you, it's necessary.

[Fluffy]

If someone physically harms you, it's necessary.

Yeah, I'm done. There's simply no logic in this. Have a good discussion with willful ignorance of actual law.

[loaf]

what should the colour of his skin have to do with anything? Even if it was racially motivated, why should a single persons bigotry matter to society? In fact, making a point of someones nationality in regards to any scenario should be considered intent to cause racially motivated aggression amongst the masses.

You took my post quite serious, which my post was not.

[Lacquer Head]

Yeah, I'm done. There's simply no logic in this. Have a good discussion with willful ignorance of actual law.

I missed the deadly force part lol obviously someone punching you in the arm isn't justified, but if someone begins to assault you, it most certainly is.

[Rowan]

Yeah, I'm done. There's simply no logic in this. Have a good discussion with willful ignorance of actual law.

Excuse me but last I checked its not your life that was under threat. Any means necassary is a permit that is granted to the person who's life is in danger. You cannot sit back and judge someone on HOW they defended themself, because in essense, they are DEFENDING themself.

I will also remind you, that if it was a woman I can tell you right now this wouldnt be an issue. Oh, the joys of our biased society.
Not sure if you heard of the case about the woman who plotted to kill her husband by purchasing a gun and waiting for him to come home? She shot him to death and she was not sentenced to prison because she felt her life was threatened.

Ref:
http://www.wate.com/story/22775275/d...n-self-defense
(similar case, not the same case)

The difference between the two scenario is that we had a man who said he was going to kill his wife, and zimmerman was actually in the process of being attacked and/or possibly killed. So she had more/less right to do what she did because her husband made a verbal thread as opposed to trayven or whatever who was actually beating on someone?



And last I checked, the LAW decided that Zimmerman was innocent. So it looks like you're the person with the problem with law. You're entitled to hold your points and killing someone is a serious thing (I guess) but you are undervaluing Zimmermans own life by dictating that he should have used other means to defend himself, whilst ignoring the fact he may not have been able too.