7/16/2013 2:51:39 PM

Quote :

"So your complaint is that our justice system doesn't convict people for being crappy people, just for the crimes that they commit (or that can be proved they committed)?"

No. That's not my argument. And there is a great irony here that you are incapable of figuring out my position, when all it would take would be for you to look at the context by reading the few other posts I have made in this thread.

7/16/2013 2:54:37 PM

nah sparky i was taking to disco stu

7/16/2013 2:58:48 PM

Quote :

"How much do you have to get punched before you can respond with enough force to make them stop? How do you judge which one of those punches is going to cause serious injury before it lands?"

I'm not saying you have to make any of these judgments. I'm saying it appears as though he made no attempt to fight back or defend himself beyond getting to his gun and killing Trayvon. This is *why* he was injured to the extent that he was. *Why* a 50 pound lighter person could pick him up and slam him without him kicking, bringing his arms up, rolling on his side, or anything else.

7/16/2013 2:59:25 PM

It's human nature to attempt to defend oneself.

I doubt he just laid there and let Trayvon hit him *just* enough to let a little blood run just so he could blast him.

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 3:04 PM. Reason : -]

7/16/2013 3:02:51 PM

I believe that instead of bucking or trying to kick Trayvon off he was focused on getting his gun out and firing. I imagine that when attacks are incoming it would be difficult to both mount an effective physical defense and ready a holstered weapon. I don't think these are unreasonable beliefs.

7/16/2013 3:08:13 PM

Quote :

"I believe that instead of bucking or trying to kick Trayvon off he was focused on getting his gun out and firing."

that may be the case but if Zimmerman was truly in a state of mind where he feared for his life or serious bodily harm then his actions were completely legal.

7/16/2013 3:11:28 PM

Or maybe he was just a cowardly and doughy little fuck?

Regardless, if the gun was his only chance then he rightfully (and legally) took it.

7/16/2013 3:14:59 PM

Quote :

"No. That's not my argument. And there is a great irony here that you are incapable of figuring out my position, when all it would take would be for you to look at the context by reading the few other posts I have made in this thread."

Your argument appears to be that GZ was a shitty guy (context) that used shitty judgement (context) and his shitty actions (context) (none of which were illegal) created a situation where Trayvon ended up smashing his head into concrete. Therefore he's partially to blame for the ass beating that prompted him to fear for his life and so he should be found guilty.

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 3:36 PM. Reason : Eh fuck it]

7/16/2013 3:19:51 PM

Quote :

"that may be the case but if Zimmerman was truly in a state of mind where he feared for his life or serious bodily harm then his actions were completely legal."

Never argued that it wasn't. Just arguing that it wouldn't have happened if he wasn't carrying and that people who carry should be held to a different standard.

Quote :

"Or maybe he was just a cowardly and doughy little fuck? Regardless, if the gun was his only chance then he rightfully (and legally) took it."

I find it impossible to believe that the gun was his only chance. That's essentially the entire point of my last few posts. He was in a fight with a teenager 50 pounds his lesser and someone was running to call the cops. The wounds he received were not the result of TM being a trained fighter and him being a wimp, it was GZ putting all his eggs in the gun basket.

Which itself I don't find entirely unreasonable. If TM could have rendered him unconscious his weapon could be used against himself. >>>>WHICH IS WHY I'M SUGGESTING THAT WE HOLD GUN CARRIERS TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD FOR AVOIDING SUCH CONFRONTATIONS.<<<<

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 3:21 PM. Reason : .]

7/16/2013 3:20:39 PM

Quote :

"Never argued that it wasn't. Just arguing that it wouldn't have happened if he wasn't carrying and that people who carry should be held to a different standard."

gotcha

7/16/2013 3:26:41 PM

It really all comes down to whether or not you believe Zimmerman feared for his life. This particular jury did. A different jury might have considered the lack of DNA evidence that Martin ever touched the gun, or the relatively minor nature of Zimmerman's injuries. I don't think the evidence was conclusive either way. A different jury with different sensibilities or pre-conceived notions might have made a completely different subjective judgement call. If you don't believe he feared for his life when he pulled that trigger, then he definitely committed manslaughter, and given statements like "these assholes" and "fucking punks", you can even say there was malice and convict him of 2nd degree murder.

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 3:30 PM. Reason : :]

7/16/2013 3:27:12 PM

Question for both sides:

If Zimmerman didn't have the gun, would he be alive right now?

and what kind of implication does that have on what you think the SYG law should be?

7/16/2013 3:27:39 PM

^^^^Sure, but what is that standard? I think we can both agree that chasing after TM to find out where he was going was probably stupid (though I personally don't think entirely unreasonable). But I would say the same thing regardless of whether he's armed or not. In general, you should avoid putting yourself in dangerous situations. But does the fact that you're armed prevent you from confronting suspicious people? If I'm in my home and hear someone breaking into my garage, am I not allowed to go investigate if I'm armed? What if I'm home and hear glass shattering at my neighbor's home? Additionally, surely you're not suggesting that it would have been ok for him to leave the gun in his car and then go chasing after him? So what is the standard you're looking for?

Quote :

"and what kind of implication does that have on what you think the SYG law should be?"

None whatsoever given that SYG had no bearing on this case at all.

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 3:32 PM. Reason : sfdg]

7/16/2013 3:30:39 PM

but did the gun save his life?

7/16/2013 3:50:58 PM

In your examples being in your home changes the situation entirely. If someone is in your home without your consent you can presume that they're there to kill you. I'm fine with that. If TM broke into GZ's home instead of getting into a fight in the street we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

I'm saying intentionally creating a situation where someone dies should be to some degree illegal. Maybe being armed isn't actually the delimiter here, but it definitely greatly increases the chance of someone dying if such a situation occurs.

Quote :

"If Zimmerman didn't have the gun, would he be alive right now?"

I believe it's likely. Can't say for certain, but barring a freak accident or Trayvon getting a weapon I don't believe that it is likely that GZ would have been killed or critically injured before the fight ended or was broken up.

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 3:53 PM. Reason : .]

7/16/2013 3:51:34 PM

Maybe.

7/16/2013 3:56:37 PM

Quote :

" Your argument appears to be that GZ was a shitty guy (context) that used shitty judgement (context) and his shitty actions (context) (none of which were illegal) created a situation where Trayvon ended up smashing his head into concrete. Therefore he's partially to blame for the ass beating that prompted him to fear for his life and so he should be found guilty."

Jesus Christ, why is it so fucking difficult for you to read what I said?



Fuck me.


Here, let me repeat what I said last page, so that you can understand my position:

The question should be if a person who has a deadly weapon should be reasonably expected to remove himself/herself from the situation before applying deadly force. The fact that that discussion will never be had is the real injustice.




God, damnit

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 4:03 PM. Reason : ]

7/16/2013 3:58:06 PM

I think that it was likely since he had a gun. There was plenty of time for Trayvon to get the gun and shoot Zimmerman. He also could have grabbed the gun and not fired it, or ran. Our knowledge of Trayvon doesn't give much indication either way.

If Zimmerman had not had a gun, it would have been quite unlikely to get killed. Particularly since a neighbor saw the scuffle and police were on their way.

In that sense, it truly was a manufactured danger. Carrying a loaded gun is likely to put you in a situation where you fear for your life. On that point, there is a valid discussion to be had.

7/16/2013 3:59:49 PM

Quote :

"There was plenty of time for Trayvon to get the gun and shoot Zimmerman. He also could have grabbed the gun and not fired it, or ran. Our knowledge of Trayvon doesn't give much indication either way."

If you are going to argue that Martin could have used Z's gun against him, and therefore Z was in his right to apply deadly force, then shouldn't it also stand to reason that Martin had a reasonable right to pummel Z unconscious....you know, to prevent Zimmerman from using that very same gun against him? Once a gun enters the equation, it can reasonably be expected to turn into a fight to the death......HENCE THE NEED FOR A DUTY TO RETREAT.

7/16/2013 4:06:09 PM

Possibly.

Although I don't think that's what people are protesting.

7/16/2013 4:08:23 PM

I'd also like to point out how inherently twisted it is to assume that the victim, WHO IS DEAD, was somehow a lethal threat once he became aware of a gun, even more so than the guy who followed a kid with a gun for looking "suspicious."

7/16/2013 4:19:36 PM

"Oh shit, he knows I have a gun....better shoot him in the heart before he uses it against me!"

7/16/2013 4:20:54 PM

Personally I don't think there should be any duty to retreat. You attack somebody and oops, they have a gun, well you should've thought of that before you attacked them.

7/16/2013 4:28:50 PM

Yes, but you see, real life has these things called grey areas, where events that happen aren't that cut and dry.

7/16/2013 4:32:14 PM

Hence all the mouth frothing over this case.

7/16/2013 4:33:26 PM

Quote :

"no but it tells you who was throwing punches, who wasn't and who was getting hit. also, at what point do you define the fight to have started?"

Quote :

"From these discussions it’s obvious that people have, when simplified, two very different scenarios of the situation they have created in their heads. One where the altercation was initiated when Martin punched Zimmerman and one where Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by following and questioning Martin. I don’t think people are going to change their minds at this point."

I don't know when or how the fight started. You don't know when or how the fight started. The juryndoesnt know how the fight started. There are only two people who do know how it started.... One of them is dead, and the other at the very least has a reason to make sure the story that gets told stacks up in his favor. My point is, you can't claim that the evidence shows Martin started the fight by punching Zimmerman. The

Martin very well could have popped Zimmerman and started beating his brains in. The physical evidence suggests that there was a fight at least....kind of (I still think its suspicious that martins knuckles weren't bruised, there was none of Zimmermans DNA on martins hands or under his nails after supposedly beating and suffocating someone)

Or Zimmerman might have tried to physically detain Martin until the police got there. Either by grabbing him, or brandishing a weapon. I wouldn't expect this to leave many marks on Martins body.


No one really knows what happened. But surely everyone can see why people are so upset.... To some it undoubtably seems like a murder just walked free, because the jury just had doubts about the events surrounding that night. And it's just salt in the wound to know the murderer had multiple chances to avoid this death.....but only wants to focus on the instant where he's getting his butt kicked so he can claim self defense.

7/16/2013 4:42:55 PM

Quote :

"I don't know when or how the fight started. You don't know when or how the fight started. The juryndoesnt know how the fight started."

I totally agree with you. However the evidence and witness testimony suggests that Martin was beating Zimmerman. I think John Goods testimony of seeing Martin on top of Zimmerman punching him ground and pound style while Zimmerman screamed for help really hit home with the jury.

7/16/2013 4:50:54 PM

Quote :

"In your examples being in your home changes the situation entirely. If someone is in your home without your consent you can presume that they're there to kill you. I'm fine with that. If TM broke into GZ's home instead of getting into a fight in the street we wouldn't even be having this conversation."

Ok, so change it. Now I'm walking down the street in my neighborhood and hear glass shattering behind my neighbor's (5 housed down) house. Am I only allowed to investigate if I'm unarmed? Should I not investigate at all ever?

What if I see someone I don't recognize from the neighborhood walking around my neighbor's (5 housed down) property looking in the windows as I walk by? Again, should I not investigate at all? Only if I'm unarmed?

In either of these cases, if I do investigate (whether I'm armed or not) and the person in question then takes off running am I not allowed to follow and see where they go?

Quote :

"I'm saying intentionally creating a situation where someone dies should be to some degree illegal."

And generally speaking it is. To get manslaughter, all the prosecution had to prove was culpable negligence, they didn't do that either.

Quote :

"Yes, but you see, real life has these things called grey areas, where events that happen aren't that cut and dry."

Which is why it's always a bad idea to get into fights.

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 4:53 PM. Reason : sdfg]

7/16/2013 4:51:28 PM

Quote :

"Ok, so change it. Now I'm walking down the street in my neighborhood and hear glass shattering behind my neighbor's (5 housed down) house. Am I only allowed to investigate if I'm unarmed? Should I not investigate at all ever? What if I see someone I don't recognize from the neighborhood walking around my neighbor's (5 housed down) property looking in the windows as I walk by? Again, should I not investigate at all? Only if I'm unarmed? In either of these cases, if I do investigate (whether I'm armed or not) and the person in question then takes off running am I not allowed to follow and see where they go?"

You can do whatever you want. You can investigate, you can chase the suspected perp, you can even start yelling "come at me bro" if you want. But if you kill someone using unreasonable force then you're guilty of manslaughter. Doesn't have to be a gun, although if you have a gun, you should keep in mind that your chances of being involved in an altercation that ends with a dead person whom you're responsible for has just increased exponentially.

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 5:14 PM. Reason : :]

7/16/2013 4:58:58 PM

Quote :

"But if you kill someone using unreasonable force then you're guilty of manslaughter. "

Ok now define unreasonable force. Because up until this point I think you will agree that I haven't used any force correct? If they attack me and we get into a fist fight, I think we both agree I can't (and shouldn't) shoot them. What if he picks up a stick or wooden board and starts hitting me with that? What if they grab me around the neck? What if they corner me against a wall? What if they knock me to the ground and then pin to the ground and start pummelling my face? I would suggest that the answer to all of these is "it depends". If I'm a 120lb woman and the other person is a 250lb man, I'd argue the fist fight is already dangerous enough to consider escalating to lethal force. There's a reason boxing has weight classes. If I'm a 170lb adult and the person is a 12 year old kid who happened to trip me up and is now wailing on me? I don't think pulling a gun is reasonable at all. This is why self defense law uses the "reasonable person" standard.

7/16/2013 5:43:10 PM

^I mentioned the rules on self defense last page. Basically, if you are attacked using non deadly force, you can only repel with reasonable non deadly force. If there is an escalation and the threat of or use of deadly force, then you can respond in kind.

The issue is what is considered deadly force. That's going to be based on the jurisdiction.

7/16/2013 6:03:08 PM

Wait, the definition of deadly force is based on jurisdiction? You could be correct, but off the top of my head, I don't think so.

Terpball, JD, LLM

7/16/2013 7:13:55 PM

God can you post a source for that data?

7/16/2013 7:17:10 PM

FuhCtious, so it appears to some degree, we are both right

Quote :

"§ 14-51.4. Justification for defensive force not available: Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself. However, the person who initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself will be justified in using defensive force if either of the following occur: a. The force used by the person who was provoked is so serious that the person using defensive force reasonably believes that he or she was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, the person using defensive force had no reasonable means to retreat, and the use of force which is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to the person who was provoked was the only way to escape the danger. b. The person who used defensive force withdraws, in good faith, from physical contact with the person who was provoked, and indicates clearly that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the person who was provoked continues or resumes the use of force. (2011-268, s. 1.)"

7/16/2013 7:21:06 PM

Quote :

"Your argument appears to be that GZ ... used shitty judgement (context) and his shitty actions (context) (none of which were illegal) created a situation..."

This, for me, is the kicker. If you use shitty judgement and have shitty actions, I'd like to think that the burden is a little higher on you if you then end up killing someone. That's just me, but I don't think such an expectation is crazy.

Because other people really said it better than I ever could, allow me to quote them instead (although I would hesitate to use the word "murderer"):

Quote :

"From these discussions it’s obvious that people have, when simplified, two very different scenarios of the situation they have created in their heads. One where the altercation was initiated when Martin punched Zimmerman and one where Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by following and questioning Martin."

Quote :

"I don't know when or how the fight started. You don't know when or how the fight started. The jury doesnt know how the fight started. There are only two people who do know how it started.... One of them is dead, and the other at the very least has a reason to make sure the story that gets told stacks up in his favor. My point is, you can't claim that the evidence shows Martin started the fight by punching Zimmerman. Martin very well could have popped Zimmerman and started beating his brains in. The physical evidence suggests that there was a fight at least....kind of (I still think its suspicious that martins knuckles weren't bruised, there was none of Zimmermans DNA on martins hands or under his nails after supposedly beating and suffocating someone) Or Zimmerman might have tried to physically detain Martin until the police got there. Either by grabbing him, or brandishing a weapon. I wouldn't expect this to leave many marks on Martins body. No one really knows what happened. But surely everyone can see why people are so upset.... To some it undoubtably seems like a murder just walked free, because the jury just had doubts about the events surrounding that night. And it's just salt in the wound to know the murderer had multiple chances to avoid this death.....but only wants to focus on the instant where he's getting his butt kicked so he can claim self defense."

7/16/2013 7:54:46 PM

The interesting thing is, is that Zimmerman had to use the "but your honor, I'm just a mincy little faggot" defense.


If he was really that huge of a pussy, then he wouldn't have been so goddamn cavalier about approaching someone who he assumed to be dangerous.....unless he knew he had a gun just in case.

7/16/2013 8:13:37 PM

Quote :

"one where Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by following and questioning Martin."

Yeah. And, ITT, people are arguing that if you follow someone and question them, you deserve to get your skull smashed in.

7/16/2013 8:24:38 PM

Why won't you stupid assholes just respect a god damn jury?

They're all racist? Maybe the court was just rigged?

Maybe the prosecution was actually in cahoots with the defense and they picked these people together?

Or maybe (since it'd over) you should just shut the fuck up (or go jerk off to Nancy Grace). That's who you sound like honestly.

/shrug

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 8:25 PM. Reason : -]

7/16/2013 8:24:51 PM

A lot of people in this thread HAVE respected the jury's decision. They're just arguing about the absurdity of a law that allows vigilantes the opportunity to involve themselves in lethal situations that could easily be avoided. How is that not a reasonable discussion?

7/16/2013 8:29:37 PM

Zimmerman didn't write the laws.

Why is the world still focusing on him? He's done.

7/16/2013 8:33:18 PM

I know you people already have your minds made up that GZ was some racist vigilante, but the guy was far from it. He dated AA females, he mentored AA children in his home, and he was an active member of his community. He never once mentioned race until the 911 operator asked him what race the kid was and then he said something to the effect that he looked black. that doesn't sound like the profile of the guy people are describing.

7/16/2013 8:34:22 PM

That's because he's a caricature of the boogeyman that everyone thinks is the source of their problems.

...and by everyone I mainly mean blacks and those who mean to exploit them (blacks).

7/16/2013 8:36:36 PM

Quote :

" Zimmerman didn't write the laws."

Nope, the gun lobbies did. But hey, corporate interests corrupting legislation to meet their financials aims ain't nothing new.

7/16/2013 8:37:40 PM

Assign blame where it's actually due and these hollering masses might actually accomplish something meaningful.

I agree with you to a certain extent, but hey, let's waste our time threatening him on Twitter. burning cop cars, and superimposing Martin Luther King's portrait into a hoodie.

7/16/2013 8:39:34 PM

Quote :

"I know you people already have your minds made up that GZ was some racist vigilante, but the guy was far from it. He dated AA females, he mentored AA children in his home, and he was an active member of his community. He never once mentioned race until the 911 operator asked him what race the kid was and then he said something to the effect that he looked black. that doesn't sound like the profile of the guy people are describing."

It's all rigged man. Remember that homeless black dude that Zimmerman defended in 2010? It was all an elaborate plot. He knew he'd eventually need to murder some black kid in cold blood, and he could point back to that and say, "see, I'm not racist".

7/16/2013 8:53:48 PM

Hiro, no offense, but to some degree we are not both right. I explained how self defense works, and what those types of statutes mean. I don't mean to seem rude, and I don't usually play this card, but I went to law school for three years to learn this stuff. This is the type of question that often gets asked on the bar exam and criminal law exams, because of the "recapture" of the ability to use force by the initial aggressor.

That statute says exactly what I said before. I just think it's important that this is clearly stated, because there are a lot of things on which people can have a difference of opinion in this case, but the law shouldn't be one of them.

7/16/2013 9:04:09 PM

Too bad that you are incorrect.
There is no escalation of force requirement.

You attack me with fists, I can shoot you. You attack with a bottle, I can shoot you. You attack with a knife, board, pipe, or bat, I can shoot you.
Fear of great bodily injury or death.
Single blows to the head have killed many people.
I just can't be the one to instigate the fight, or I must have attempted to leave, and you followed after I provoked. Verbal =/= physical provocation.

7/16/2013 9:18:31 PM

ugh. reread what i wrote. the issue is deadly vs. non deadly force. the point was that if the fight began with only non deadly force, then the only way deadly force can be used is if one of the parties escalated. if you actually read what i wrote on the prior page and still disagree, then i'll just leave it here, because we're not going to agree.

and you CAN instigate the fight, if the conflict is only using non deadly force. once your "victim" escalates by using deadly force in response to a non deadly force attack, you can then use deadly force in defense.

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 9:27 PM. Reason : as]

7/16/2013 9:24:57 PM

what is non-deadly force?

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 9:30 PM. Reason : (I am a firearms instructor)]

7/16/2013 9:29:15 PM