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.Originally Posted by loaf
You took my post quite serious, which my post was not.
Signature Updated: YesterdayCPC8! - Chess Club
CPC8! - Pimpin' is easy
SPOILER!!:
Currently Playing: Video Games
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.
Last edited by Odin1199; 07-16-2013 at 06:23 PM.
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.
"Evil spelled backwards is Live, and we all want to do that now don't we?"
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.
Last edited by Lacquer Head; 07-16-2013 at 09:59 PM.
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.
Last edited by Alpha; 07-17-2013 at 12:22 AM.
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.
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.Manslaughter requires more positive action. In many countries, murder can become manslaughter by using a provocation 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.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.
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)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.)
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 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.
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.I don't think it is ever just to use deadly force when not faced with deadly force.
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.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.
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.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.
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.* Although there is criminally negligent manslaughter.
See also imperfect self-defense for further justification of my position.
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.
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.
Very wrong. Manslaughter, in this case, is:
Self-defense is a defense against this, which he claimed. This is also held to a standard:
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.
Last edited by Fluffy; 07-17-2013 at 11:48 AM.
Sorry, misquote, but it changes nothing.
Intentionally killing someone is murder lol, can i have a better source than "law"?Very wrong. Manslaughter, in this case, is:
What the **** is the quote from, honestly, law?Self-defense is a defense against this, which he claimed. This is also held to a standard:
ONCE AGAIN, lack of source. Though, seems like the only logical solution to save himself was with a gunshot.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.
Eeyup, your point? It's the prosecution's job to prove that he didn't reach this standard.Not reaching this standard would mean it was imperfect self-defense, and would(should) result in a manslaughter conviction.
And?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.
What reason? Source? ANY information would be nice :VMore 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.
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.
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.
And if the jury doesn't understand the law, you can hardly expect them to carry it out correctly.
No, murder requires malice. Manslaughter is the killing of another person in the absence of malice.Intentionally killing someone is murder lol
Last edited by Fluffy; 07-17-2013 at 03:17 PM.
I'll just ignore this.
"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."False. Self-defense is an affirmative defense, so the burden of proof is on the defense to show that he did.
It's not necessary, but it IS a more aggressive form of defense. It would be necessary if say, the prosecution HAD reasonable proof.
Misquoting =/= misunderstanding the law, as I showed in the beginning of this post.And if the jury doesn't understand the law, you can hardly expect them to carry it out correctly.
Murder is a premeditated,unprovoked killing.No, murder requires malice. Manslaughter is the killing of another person in the absence of malice.
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'
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.
Yeah, I'm done. There's simply no logic in this. Have a good discussion with willful ignorance of actual law.
I suppose the paramount question here is;
What should Zimmerman have done instead? But that is exactly the question. I am not asking what he shouldnt have done, I am asking you what he should have done.
There was little Zimmerman could do while being on the ground and being punched in the face. It's hard to throw somebody off yourself while taking hits all the time. It takes skill to get out of that type of situation. In this case, Zimmerman had no choice. He didn't know if the attack would stop and he was pretty helpless. The only thing left was to put a hole in attacker's body or risk getting crippled or killed. Zimmerman did the right thing, given those circumstances. If he shot him while he was standing and fighting back, that would be unacceptable. He was helpless and had to use deadly force.
I simply do not think that Zimmerman used the least amount of force necessary. His injuries were not life-threatening. He retained enough room to pull out his weapon and to shoot it without interference. Most people being punched in the head would be shielding their face, or attempting to grab an assailants' hands/arms. And yes, in assessing this we can and must use hindsight. A gun was not an appropriate response given the injuries he had sustained and the options he had not executed fir his self-defense. Moreover, a gun was an excessive option to begin with. Just because it was his only weapon, does not mean it cannot be considered excessive. If his only weapon had been a shotgun, it would certainly have been considered excessive to use it in reaction to punches. A gun is excessive relative to a taser.
Excessive defensive force causing death, even in the course of self-defense, and even if only in hindsight, is manslaughter.
And who are you to dictate that he should have received more blows instead of reacting to the situation as he did? The law grants him to act just as he did, Martin as the aggressor on top does not have the same rights to his well fair as Zimmerman did. His actions which instigated Martin's response were entirely lawful, Martin put himself in that situation and made lethal force a legal option.
I can tell you right now if I'm on my back and you started the fight, my concern is not going to be for your well being. I'm going to protect myself from your aggressive behavior in the most efficient use of the law as possible. Zimmerman did and he's free to go, interpret the law to your morality all you wish but he's been found not guilty.
I'm just straight out calling bullshit/misquotation.
They weren't because he was able to defend himself before he died. If Treyvon had been allowed to continue for any length of time, they could have VERY easily became life threatening, a blow to the head is a very traumatic and possibly lethal attack, let alone more than one.
That's a LAAAAAAAARGE assumption. Hell, you don't even know where he concealed his gun. Your hands tend to naturally be near your waist/chest, both the most common areas to conceal a weapon. It's not like the gun was across the room. Not to mention, he claims Treyvon was reaching for it during the attack, seems like a good opening. Block the punching hand with one freehand and grab his gun first with the other, makes sense.He retained enough room to pull out his weapon and to shoot it without interference. Most people being punched in the head would be shielding their face, or attempting to grab an assailants' hands/arms.
See, this is where you're making a large mistake. So you believe that a person has to have taken a lethal injury before they can defend themselves with lethal force? I'd hate to see your reaction towards a shootout when the survivor has NO injuries. A person's injuries do NOT reflect the danger they were in. That's the whole point, he SUCCESSFULLY defended himself, preventing the deadly injuries.And yes, in assessing this we can and must use hindsight. A gun was not an appropriate response given the injuries he had sustained and the options he had not executed fir his self-defense.
See, this just seems like a bias towards guns. How can you possibly electrocute someone that is PHYSICALLY TOUCHING YOU!?Moreover, a gun was an excessive option to begin with. Just because it was his only weapon, does not mean it cannot be considered excessive. If his only weapon had been a shotgun, it would certainly have been considered excessive to use it in reaction to punches. A gun is excessive relative to a taser.
Good thing it wasn't excessive, eh?Excessive defensive force causing death, even in the course of self-defense, and even if only in hindsight, is manslaughter.
Right, so at what point in a fist fight is it just that you whip out your gun and kill the guy you're fighting? The first punch? The sixth punch? Granted, it's probably before the last punch, but any punch (including the very first) can "become" life-threatening. I could poke needles into you until you die, but it would not be just for you to shoot me after the first needle.
Deadly reactive force is just when it can be determined that a rational person could credibly fear for their life under the circumstances that they are facing. Involuntary manslaughter must not include a "cool down" between an attack and a deadly counter-attack. I don't believe that a rational person would fear for their life in that situation, given the evidence I have read. There was no cool down, based on the evidence I have read. Ergo, involuntary manslaughter.
The injuries on the back of his head are actually less than what I had the night I drunkenly dived (at speed) onto the pavement and busted open my arm through two layers of clothing. I have a permanent scar from that, and I bled more than all of the blood I can see in the photos you linked. Note also, that if he had received the cuts to his head while lying on his back, why have they all flowed as though his head were in an upright position, leaning forward (down his neck, and towards his face past his ears)?
Attachment 23491
I've seen fights on the rugby field where people are hurt more than that, and if any one of them had then killed the other, they'd be up for murder.
His life was not in danger, and he had not done enough to resolve the situation without using deadly force*. His actions were therefore excessive.
Of course, I'm happy for the jury to determine that for me, and he wasn't even facing the charge I think he should have been. I just don't think the outcome was the best.
*In my non-American mind, that includes the decision about what constitutes an appropriate weapon to be carrying, especially if it's going to be your first recourse (given the lack of blood on his hands).
Last edited by Alpha; 07-20-2013 at 02:22 AM.
I don't see how you come to the conclusion that just because you have seen worse fights or worse injuries that means his actions were unjustified.
Your two examples aren't anything like this situation.
Have you ever actually been in a fight? It takes awhile to bleed, its not just one punch and there is blood everywhere. Except for a good shot to a nose and if you got that shot I'm willing to bet you are winning the fight.
A populated rugby field is an extremely different environment than a street alley by yourself. If I had someone beating me up, alone, and I cry for help and no one shows, I would be scared for life as well.
Last edited by Mystyrion; 07-20-2013 at 08:26 AM.
Congrats on your drunken excapade. Did your drunk self pull out a gun and stalk your sober self, ending up in a metaphysical fist/gun fight?
What are you, Dexter now? Blood is thick sometimes, it can pool and be heavy. Maybe it sticks to his head instead of just dripping right out of the wound. The pictures I saw were of him sitting upright. If there was a gun involved, doesn't it make sense that there wasn't enough time for the wound to stop bleeding? Thus, after shooting the dude, he was probably upright for longer than he ever was laying on the ground.
Look, it's a ****ed situation. And the flaw here is our justice system. But neither you or anyone here in this thread is going to change the fact that the dude is dead. No matter how bitchy of an argument you can conceive and type here in Intellectual Discussion.
While you and I both dislike the outcome here, and the things leading up to what happened how can you, as non-american as **** as you have ever been in your life, determine that his life was not threatened? If someone had you on the ground and had slammed your head into the ground more than once, would you determine that your life was not in danger? What if I interviewed you after? What if in two different dimensions, the same thing happened, except in one you died and one you were alive. Would your dead self then say it was not life threatening? And would your alive self say it was?
Then again I don't see you pulling a gun out, and chasing a "suspicious" person around town. Good. I would hope that you'd call the police.
COME TO THE US. Seriously. Come here. Experience what it's like to see that everyone has a gun. You can't change it. If you suddenly outlawed all guns, who would you be protecting? The people that choose not to turn them in and instead keep them, while honest people turn them in. Come here, and with your self-proclaimed intellectual discussion ability, become a US lawyer or congressman and change it. Please. Because no one ****ing else is. We're all here bitching in this god damned forum. At each other. Arguing the same silly ****ing minuscule-important points to a case we basically all agree on.
Last edited by che; 07-20-2013 at 10:42 AM.
Who the hell cares of Zimmerman was guilty or not? That case was over-hyped by the media. It was a simple case of self-defense, in which, an idiot killed another idiot. Big deal.
The media started a race war in order to distract people long enough for Congress to agree to give all US crops to Monsanto. Food will soon be government regulated due to people's blindness and stupidity over a court case that was none of their business to begin with.
Hello new age of slavery. I would leave the United States if I didn't love my country so much.
Zimmerman, for sure.
No he didn't. If he cared about being guilty or not, he wouldn't have killed a guy in the first place.
So it's ok to not defend yourself while being on the ground and taking punches while a guy is on top of you and being almost defenseless? He should've just waited it out and risked getting killed or crippled??? He did the right thing, he couldn't know if was going to get killed of not.
Last edited by Odin1199; 07-30-2013 at 10:19 PM.
Once again, in the ID forum people manage to avoid the most intelligent phrase for three pages. You ready? All your cliche hardcore internet arguments would crumble if you simply only admitted that it's okay that:
You don't know. You weren't there. You are basing arguments off worse than hearsay and word-of-mouth, you're basing it off news media. You know dick. You weren't on the jury. You didn't hear the evidence. You don't know the people. And what little you "know" about the situation, was told to you. You've been whipped into a frenzy, all of you, like some pathetic herd. So, no...You don't know anything.
But I bet you reckon something, don't you? You should tweet your opinion to the media, post more on this board. Your opinion is vital...get it out there, after all, you're in the know and have come to some fascinating conclusions, all of you. Why not say something that will fuel a riot? You're disappointing me. I expected worse. See if you can bounty hunt George and turn him over to the Black Panthers. Or go burn a cross in someone's yard with a white hood on.
-Sin
Last edited by Sinister; 07-31-2013 at 01:31 PM.
Fear not, this is not...the end of this world.
"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good..."
soo... not guilty, right?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks