View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently August 21st, 2014, 12:28 am



Reply to topic  [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 Zimmerman 
Author Message
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11953
Post Re: Zimmerman
njroar wrote:
Wags, the reason it's easy to believe Martin was the aggressor is because there wasn't a single bruise on his body, except for a scratch on his left hand. Zimmerman had a broken nose, multiple lacerations and knots on his head. The 911 call that had the screams for help proved the beating lasted at least 40 seconds. The prosecution tried to paint zimmerman as WANTing to shoot because he never landed a punch. They made the argument for the defense. No one would plan to wait 40 seconds before pulling the trigger. Especially when injury isn't even required by law. Just the threat of it.
Understand, but what if the aggressor threw a punch and missed? Or what if Martin didn't bruise easily? Also, depending on how much time between an injury and death, a bruise may not appear. (IIRC Martin was shot in the heart, pretty much instant death and the blood stops pumping, therefore no bruise.)

njroar wrote:
The one thing the MSM hasn't reported on was what was included from the phone that the prosecution tried to hide from the defense. The IT guy who obtained the information whistleblew on the prosecution (and was fired when the state rested in the trial) because he thought he would be held liable. It showed Martin had pictures of him holding and smoking weed, conversations of tens of thousands of dollars, discussions about buying a gun, as well as people asking him for codeine, weed and other drugs. There were also pictures of him with piles of jewelry. Does this prove he was a thug? No, but it sure shows something other than the innocent boy that was just walking home after buying skittles. Also doesn't explain why if he was walking home he took 45 minutes to go from the 7-11 to the time of his death.
First off, I wouldn't know what the MSM has or hasn't reported on this case as I chose to not follow it a long time ago.

In reality photos don't mean much these days. I mean, how many different ways are there to doctor / mock up pictures? They can look at the photo's metadata to determine the true source.

I have no knowledge of Martin's timeline, very good point.

njroar wrote:
The primary reason this case was called not guilty was because the prosecution blew it. They're likely going to face sanctions and some could even be disbarred. They broke the laws in discovery and they tried to call for sympathy from the jury, which is unethical. Murder, manslaughter would never have stuck with how many questions they showed during the trial. Could haves and maybes are the exact definition of reasonable doubt.
I agree, they blew it. Perhaps now that the case is over, an investigation could be launched to see why this even went to trial in the first place.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


July 17th, 2013, 2:07 pm
Profile
Post Re: Zimmerman
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Manslaughter in FL:
Quote:
Manslaughter by Act (Voluntary Manslaughter): Committing an intentional act that was neither excusable, nor justified that resulted in the death of another person.
Manslaughter by Procurement (Voluntary Manslaughter): Persuading, inducing, or encouraging another person to commit an act that resulted in the death of another person.
Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence (Involuntary Manslaughter): Engaging in “Culpably Negligent” conduct that resulted in the death of another person.
Generally manslaughter, specifically Manslaughter by Act, is reserved for crimes where the "act" was intentional (driving while intoxicated... the driver intended to get behind the wheel) the act resulted in a death, but the death itself wasn't intentional.

Here Zimmerman's actions of pulling a gun don't warrant a reduced charge, and there was nothing that the prosecution could have gained by reducing the charge. It was either self-defense, or it wasn't. It was either murder, or it wasn't. The act was either excusable or justified, or it wasn't. There wasn't an existence of any sort of reduced capacity, or intent here. Where the act is intentional, but perhaps the result was unintended are general areas where you see a charge of manslaughter. Again, none of that existed here
Thanks for clarifying Florida law.

Question on the bolded part: This may again depend on Florida law, but what constitutes the 'Act'? What I mean is, Zimmerman intended to confront Martin, would that be considered the 'Act'? If not, why not? If so, then per your explanation, couldn't he have been tried for manslaughter as Martin's death was an unintended result of the 'act'?

(Yes, I know they added the reduced charge prior to jury deliberations, I'm referring to manslaughter being the main / only charge.)

wjb21ndtown wrote:
Martin was walking through the yard of an unknown person when ZImmerman spotted him. He had a step-father, or uncle or some sort of relative that lived "in the area" but he wasn't caught walking through his relative's property. He was on the property of an unknown person, looking into windows. He had no "right" to be where he was when Zimmerman first noticed him.

Martin did those things I listed.
Why did Martin have 'no right' to be where he was? What is the legal reason?

wjb21ndtown wrote:
I can infer that Martin attacked Zimmerman, because I can infer that Zimmerman wouldn't have attacked Martin, and an attack happened. Apparently a jury of his peers felt the same way, and a judge felt the same way. A judge doesn't have to allow a jury's verdict to stand if that judge feels that the great weight of evidence goes against the jury verdict. The law doesn't work with absolutes. Circumstantial evidence carries the same weight as actual or tangible evidence.
This may be a dumb question, but what constitutes an 'attack'? In other words, if someone makes an aggressive move (throw punch, lunge, etc) towards another, could that be considered an attack even if no physical contact takes place?

wjb21ndtown wrote:
You can hold onto some BS story and hide behind the "unknown absolute truth" if you'd like. But the evidence is and was there, and it has been ruled on.
Agreed. I'm trying to run through some hypotheticals on what may have occurred; sort of a critical thinking exercise if you will.

wjb21ndtown wrote:
That said, I find it funny that you have your own, what I would deem unreasonable inferences that you hold onto, but when someone else has them "no one knows exactly what happened..."
Care to explain what you're referring to here?


There's nothing illegal about "confronting someone" and you can't substantiate a charge from it.

He had no right to be where he was BECAUSE HE WAS TRESPASSING ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY.

An "attack" or "assault" can occur without contact, but that has no bearing on this case.

You can run through all of the hypotheticals you want. Are there some far fetched hypos that make Martin look innocent and Zimmerman look guilty? Sure, but if you look at the facts, what is known, and make reasonable inferences, everything played out as it should have, IMO both on the day of the shooting, and at trial.


July 17th, 2013, 2:09 pm
Post Re: Zimmerman
TheRealWags wrote:
njroar wrote:
Wags, the reason it's easy to believe Martin was the aggressor is because there wasn't a single bruise on his body, except for a scratch on his left hand. Zimmerman had a broken nose, multiple lacerations and knots on his head. The 911 call that had the screams for help proved the beating lasted at least 40 seconds. The prosecution tried to paint zimmerman as WANTing to shoot because he never landed a punch. They made the argument for the defense. No one would plan to wait 40 seconds before pulling the trigger. Especially when injury isn't even required by law. Just the threat of it.
Understand, but what if the aggressor threw a punch and missed? Or what if Martin didn't bruise easily? Also, depending on how much time between an injury and death, a bruise may not appear. (IIRC Martin was shot in the heart, pretty much instant death and the blood stops pumping, therefore no bruise.)

njroar wrote:
The one thing the MSM hasn't reported on was what was included from the phone that the prosecution tried to hide from the defense. The IT guy who obtained the information whistleblew on the prosecution (and was fired when the state rested in the trial) because he thought he would be held liable. It showed Martin had pictures of him holding and smoking weed, conversations of tens of thousands of dollars, discussions about buying a gun, as well as people asking him for codeine, weed and other drugs. There were also pictures of him with piles of jewelry. Does this prove he was a thug? No, but it sure shows something other than the innocent boy that was just walking home after buying skittles. Also doesn't explain why if he was walking home he took 45 minutes to go from the 7-11 to the time of his death.
First off, I wouldn't know what the MSM has or hasn't reported on this case as I chose to not follow it a long time ago.

In reality photos don't mean much these days. I mean, how many different ways are there to doctor / mock up pictures? They can look at the photo's metadata to determine the true source.

I have no knowledge of Martin's timeline, very good point.

njroar wrote:
The primary reason this case was called not guilty was because the prosecution blew it. They're likely going to face sanctions and some could even be disbarred. They broke the laws in discovery and they tried to call for sympathy from the jury, which is unethical. Murder, manslaughter would never have stuck with how many questions they showed during the trial. Could haves and maybes are the exact definition of reasonable doubt.
I agree, they blew it. Perhaps now that the case is over, an investigation could be launched to see why this even went to trial in the first place.


It doesn't matter if a punch was thrown and missed, it doesn't give you the right to break someone's nose and beat their head into the concrete and make them fear for their life. It doesn't matter who started the confrontation or initiated the contact, Martin took it way, way too far regardless, and the shooting was justified.

This only went to trial due to the bullish!t media coverage of the event. Zimmerman has a good case to sue the prosecutor's office for violating his Civil Rights.


July 17th, 2013, 2:11 pm
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11953
Post Re: Zimmerman
WarEr4Christ wrote:
Again, this boils down to a World View, and some see it from one side, and others see it from another. The thing that is tragic is that instead of meeting in the middle and discussing our differences, we arm ourselves with "facts" and trade barbs back and forth. Who really ever wins? Is your mind changed? Is mine?
Great point! Something I've been thinking a lot about lately is that apparently in today's World people aren't allowed to be wrong or sorry. Think about it. In the various discussions we have on this board, how frequent does someone admit when they're wrong? How often do we apologize? What happened to the 'magic' words of 'Please', 'Thank you', and 'You're welcome'???

[/threadjack]

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


July 17th, 2013, 2:12 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11953
Post Re: Zimmerman
wjb21ndtown wrote:
There's nothing illegal about "confronting someone" and you can't substantiate a charge from it.

An "attack" or "assault" can occur without contact, but that has no bearing on this case.
My apologies for being obtuse, is there a legal differentiation between 'confronting' and 'assault'? Couldn't they take place simultaneously?

wjb21ndtown wrote:
He had no right to be where he was BECAUSE HE WAS TRESPASSING ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY.
Just walking through someone else's property is trespassing? Good to know; no more cutting through to shortcut for me....also have to make sure none of my neighbor's step in my front yard...

wjb21ndtown wrote:
You can run through all of the hypotheticals you want. Are there some far fetched hypos that make Martin look innocent and Zimmerman look guilty? Sure, but if you look at the facts, what is known, and make reasonable inferences, everything played out as it should have, IMO both on the day of the shooting, and at trial.
While I can agree the trial went as it should, I can't agree on the day of the shooting. There were plenty of chances on both sides to prevent the shooting IMO.

Not sure if I've asked this or not, but what would the chances be of a civil trial? I'm thinking if the Martins decide to do so, then Zimmerman could be held liable in some respect. Thoughts?

wjb21ndtown wrote:
It doesn't matter if a punch was thrown and missed, it doesn't give you the right to break someone's nose and beat their head into the concrete and make them fear for their life. It doesn't matter who started the confrontation or initiated the contact, Martin took it way, way too far regardless, and the shooting was justified.
Please help me to understand this. If someone comes at me and throws a punch (attacks), I'm going to whoop his azz, which may or may not include they're head getting smashed in the ground. If someone is attacking me, there is no such thing as 'taking it too far', especially if the attacker has a weapon.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


July 17th, 2013, 2:25 pm
Profile
Post Re: Zimmerman
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
There's nothing illegal about "confronting someone" and you can't substantiate a charge from it.

An "attack" or "assault" can occur without contact, but that has no bearing on this case.
My apologies for being obtuse, is there a legal differentiation between 'confronting' and 'assault'? Couldn't they take place simultaneously?

wjb21ndtown wrote:
He had no right to be where he was BECAUSE HE WAS TRESPASSING ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY.
Just walking through someone else's property is trespassing? Good to know; no more cutting through to shortcut for me....also have to make sure none of my neighbor's step in my front yard...

wjb21ndtown wrote:
You can run through all of the hypotheticals you want. Are there some far fetched hypos that make Martin look innocent and Zimmerman look guilty? Sure, but if you look at the facts, what is known, and make reasonable inferences, everything played out as it should have, IMO both on the day of the shooting, and at trial.
While I can agree the trial went as it should, I can't agree on the day of the shooting. There were plenty of chances on both sides to prevent the shooting IMO.

Not sure if I've asked this or not, but what would the chances be of a civil trial? I'm thinking if the Martins decide to do so, then Zimmerman could be held liable in some respect. Thoughts?

wjb21ndtown wrote:
It doesn't matter if a punch was thrown and missed, it doesn't give you the right to break someone's nose and beat their head into the concrete and make them fear for their life. It doesn't matter who started the confrontation or initiated the contact, Martin took it way, way too far regardless, and the shooting was justified.
Please help me to understand this. If someone comes at me and throws a punch (attacks), I'm going to whoop his azz, which may or may not include they're head getting smashed in the ground. If someone is attacking me, there is no such thing as 'taking it too far', especially if the attacker has a weapon.


Confronting someone is asking them a question, assaulting someone is making a reasonable person believe they are about to be physically contacted by you in a harmful or offensive manner. They can't really take place "simultaneously," and legally a "confrontation" is ambiguous and has no legal significance.

It doesn't matter if Zimmerman could have prevented the shooting by walking away. That's like saying a citizen that shoots a store robber or bank robber could have prevented the shootingby not getting out their gun. IMO that neighborhood is safer and the world is a better place without this thug in it. Zimmerman stood his ground and stood up for his neighborhood as he should have.

Walking through your neighbors yard is trespassing, and what real person walks through their neighbors yard without permission? I know I wouldn't do it, and I certainly wouldn't be looking in their windows even if I HAD permission.

The Martin's could sue for wrongful death, but IMO they want this thing behind them. Maybe they're greedier than I give them credit for, and maybe some shiester attorney talks them into it. That said, even if Zimmerman is found responsible civilly, they still have to collect. He could and would likely file bankruptcy and have the judgment thrown out in bankruptcy anyhow. It's in Zimmerman's interest to do one of three things: 1) pay some sort of restitution to the Martin family in agreement to not sue, 2) provoke a suit now so he can have it discharged later in bankruptcy, or 3) to lay low, and wait until the statue of limitations has passed before profiting on this ordeal (and he will profit and he will profit greatly... thanks to the media).


July 17th, 2013, 2:35 pm
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11953
Post Re: Zimmerman
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Confronting someone is asking them a question, assaulting someone is making a reasonable person believe they are about to be physically contacted by you in a harmful or offensive manner. They can't really take place "simultaneously," and legally a "confrontation" is ambiguous and has no legal significance.
In my example
Quote:
Please help me to understand this. If someone comes at me and throws a punch (attacks), I'm going to whoop his azz, which may or may not include they're head getting smashed in the ground. If someone is attacking me, there is no such thing as 'taking it too far', especially if the attacker has a weapon.
wouldn't / couldn't this be an instance of where confrontation & attack take place simultaneously? (I'm not expecting any confrontations any time soon, but one never knows and its good to be prepared :wink: )

wjb21ndtown wrote:
It doesn't matter if Zimmerman could have prevented the shooting by walking away. That's like saying a citizen that shoots a store robber or bank robber could have prevented the shootingby not getting out their gun. IMO that neighborhood is safer and the world is a better place without this thug in it. Zimmerman stood his ground and stood up for his neighborhood as he should have.
Didn't say anything about walking away. He could've reported the suspicious activity, then waited in his vehicle observing. He would still be available to the police when they arrived and likely wouldn't have had a confrontation w/Martin (or could've drove off if it appeared as though one might occur). Zimmerman could've also insisted 911 stay on the phone as a witness to any potential confrontation.

wjb21ndtown wrote:
Walking through your neighbors yard is trespassing, and what real person walks through their neighbors yard without permission? I know I wouldn't do it, and I certainly wouldn't be looking in their windows even if I HAD permission.
Yeah, I likely wouldn't do it now; but when I was teenager / adolescent? I did it ALL THE TIME. :shock:

wjb21ndtown wrote:
The Martin's could sue for wrongful death, but IMO they want this thing behind them. Maybe they're greedier than I give them credit for, and maybe some shiester attorney talks them into it. That said, even if Zimmerman is found responsible civilly, they still have to collect. He could and would likely file bankruptcy and have the judgment thrown out in bankruptcy anyhow. It's in Zimmerman's interest to do one of three things: 1) pay some sort of restitution to the Martin family in agreement to not sue, 2) provoke a suit now so he can have it discharged later in bankruptcy, or 3) to lay low, and wait until the statue of limitations has passed before profiting on this ordeal (and he will profit and he will profit greatly... thanks to the media).
With respect, if the Martin's choose to sue for wrongful death, it wouldn't mean they're 'greedy', it could be a way of expressing pain, etc. That said, I agree they'll likely want to move on and put this as far behind them as they can.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


July 17th, 2013, 2:57 pm
Profile
Post Re: Zimmerman
The "confrontation" has no legal significance. In your example they wouldn't happen simultaneously, their would have been a "confrontation" that led to an assault. A confrontation is legal and bears no significance. The reason the two can't really happen at the same time is the "confrontation" isn't illegal by definition, and once it escalates to an assault the two can't be said to be going on at the same time. One may lead to another, one may evolve into another, but they don't exist together. Once a confrontation escalates to an assault it is no longer a confrontation, it is an assault, period. Why are you so stuck on this? Like I said, it doesn't matter under the law.

From what I understand Martin waited in his vehicle as long as he could. He followed him by car until following him by car wasn't going to be possible any longer, as I understand it. That said, it doesn't matter that Zimmerman had other alternatives. His actions were justified and legal. That's the end of the story. You can prevent car accidents by never driving, you can prevent bar fights by never going to the bar. You can prevent a lot of things by being less zealous, but it doesn't mean you should.

I did it all the time as a kid too, but I didn't look in people's windows, and... guess what? I HAVE been followed, yelled at by neighbors, chased down and asked "what was I doing in that back yard?" All I was doing was hopping a fence to save me 15-20 min walk to get to a friend's house, I explained my actions, and went about my business. I was never rude upon being confronted, and I certainly never attacked anyone that was questioning me. I have eluded cops and pursuers as a game... It was fun. I rarely got caught when I was chased, but even if I did, I was rarely doing anything wrong, and I certainly never did anything to threaten my pursuers. I always just explained myself and went about my business, as MOST NORMAL INNOCENT KIDS DO.


July 17th, 2013, 3:10 pm
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11953
Post Re: Zimmerman
wjb21ndtown wrote:
The "confrontation" has no legal significance. In your example they wouldn't happen simultaneously, their would have been a "confrontation" that led to an assault. A confrontation is legal and bears no significance. The reason the two can't really happen at the same time is the "confrontation" isn't illegal by definition, and once it escalates to an assault the two can't be said to be going on at the same time. One may lead to another, one may evolve into another, but they don't exist together. Once a confrontation escalates to an assault it is no longer a confrontation, it is an assault, period. Why are you so stuck on this? Like I said, it doesn't matter under the law.
Makes sense now, thx.
And, to answer your question:
Quote:
I'm not expecting any confrontations any time soon, but one never knows and its good to be prepared


wjb21ndtown wrote:
I did it all the time as a kid too, but I didn't look in people's windows, and... guess what? I HAVE been followed, yelled at by neighbors, chased down and asked "what was I doing in that back yard?" All I was doing was hopping a fence to save me 15-20 min walk to get to a friend's house, I explained my actions, and went about my business. I was never rude upon being confronted, and I certainly never attacked anyone that was questioning me. I have eluded cops and pursuers as a game... It was fun. I rarely got caught when I was chased, but even if I did, I was rarely doing anything wrong, and I certainly never did anything to threaten my pursuers. I always just explained myself and went about my business, as MOST NORMAL INNOCENT KIDS DO.
Not intending to derail this thread even further, but something I heard recently that may pertain to this... Is it possible for a person of one race to fully understand, comprehend, know, etc what its like for a person of another race?

For example: Is it possible for me, as a white male from a middle-class family in a small MI town, to know or fully understand what life is really like for a black male from the South?

On the surface, I'd like to say, sure its possible. I could move to the same location, live in the same city, talk to the same people, etc. But would I really 'know' what its like to be a black male? The more I think about it, the more I don't think it is possible to actually 'know'; possibly the closest I could come would be to empathize and 'try' to understand. Perhaps this would be better as a new thread............

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


July 17th, 2013, 3:55 pm
Profile
Post Re: Zimmerman
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
I did it all the time as a kid too, but I didn't look in people's windows, and... guess what? I HAVE been followed, yelled at by neighbors, chased down and asked "what was I doing in that back yard?" All I was doing was hopping a fence to save me 15-20 min walk to get to a friend's house, I explained my actions, and went about my business. I was never rude upon being confronted, and I certainly never attacked anyone that was questioning me. I have eluded cops and pursuers as a game... It was fun. I rarely got caught when I was chased, but even if I did, I was rarely doing anything wrong, and I certainly never did anything to threaten my pursuers. I always just explained myself and went about my business, as MOST NORMAL INNOCENT KIDS DO.
Not intending to derail this thread even further, but something I heard recently that may pertain to this... Is it possible for a person of one race to fully understand, comprehend, know, etc what its like for a person of another race?

For example: Is it possible for me, as a white male from a middle-class family in a small MI town, to know or fully understand what life is really like for a black male from the South?

On the surface, I'd like to say, sure its possible. I could move to the same location, live in the same city, talk to the same people, etc. But would I really 'know' what its like to be a black male? The more I think about it, the more I don't think it is possible to actually 'know'; possibly the closest I could come would be to empathize and 'try' to understand. Perhaps this would be better as a new thread............


I don't think it is a derailment of the thread, in fact, I think it lies at the very heart of the thread...

That said, perhaps it's not likely to know or understand what life is like for someone that is not similarly situated. That said, we don't need to. This isn't about understanding Martin, this is about understanding and following a set of laws that all of us need to live by, regardless of race, creed or socioeconomic status.

I grew up more like Martin than Zimmerman. I grew up in the ghetto, I had fun getting chased by cops, and a lot of my former and current friends are outraged by the ruling because, when guilty of a crime, they have acted as Martin did, and could have likely wound up dead as a result. They have beat the crap out of their pursuers, and absent a gun on the victim or guy that they beat up is the only reason they are alive today. They look at their actions then, and his action at the scene of the crime and say "he was just being a kid." That may be true, but you're not allowed to be a "kid" in a manner that conflicts with the laws of our society. It's that plain and simple.

Did Martin "deserve" to die for what he did? No, no one is saying that, but as Clint Eastwood once said "deserves got nothin' to do with it." What matters is Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin for Martin's actions, period.


July 17th, 2013, 4:11 pm
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9848
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Zimmerman
wjb21ndtown wrote:
The Martin's could sue for wrongful death, but IMO they want this thing behind them. Maybe they're greedier than I give them credit for, and maybe some shiester attorney talks them into it. That said, even if Zimmerman is found responsible civilly, they still have to collect. He could and would likely file bankruptcy and have the judgment thrown out in bankruptcy anyhow. It's in Zimmerman's interest to do one of three things: 1) pay some sort of restitution to the Martin family in agreement to not sue, 2) provoke a suit now so he can have it discharged later in bankruptcy, or 3) to lay low, and wait until the statue of limitations has passed before profiting on this ordeal (and he will profit and he will profit greatly... thanks to the media).


Question: Does the Florida 'Castle Doctrine' provide immunity from a civil suit brought from the survivors of a scenario like this? I know the Michigan Castle Doctrine states that the person acting in self defense is immune from both criminal prosecution and civil suits. However, I don't know that it specifies whether it protects against a civil suit brought about by survivors of the self defense act, the person who was defended against, or the state or federal government.

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


July 17th, 2013, 8:48 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9848
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Zimmerman
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
The "confrontation" has no legal significance. In your example they wouldn't happen simultaneously, their would have been a "confrontation" that led to an assault. A confrontation is legal and bears no significance. The reason the two can't really happen at the same time is the "confrontation" isn't illegal by definition, and once it escalates to an assault the two can't be said to be going on at the same time. One may lead to another, one may evolve into another, but they don't exist together. Once a confrontation escalates to an assault it is no longer a confrontation, it is an assault, period. Why are you so stuck on this? Like I said, it doesn't matter under the law.
Makes sense now, thx.
And, to answer your question:
Quote:
I'm not expecting any confrontations any time soon, but one never knows and its good to be prepared


wjb21ndtown wrote:
I did it all the time as a kid too, but I didn't look in people's windows, and... guess what? I HAVE been followed, yelled at by neighbors, chased down and asked "what was I doing in that back yard?" All I was doing was hopping a fence to save me 15-20 min walk to get to a friend's house, I explained my actions, and went about my business. I was never rude upon being confronted, and I certainly never attacked anyone that was questioning me. I have eluded cops and pursuers as a game... It was fun. I rarely got caught when I was chased, but even if I did, I was rarely doing anything wrong, and I certainly never did anything to threaten my pursuers.
I always just explained myself and went about my business, as MOST NORMAL INNOCENT KIDS DO
.
Not intending to derail this thread even further, but something I heard recently that may pertain to this... Is it possible for a person of one race to fully understand, comprehend, know, etc what its like for a person of another race?

For example: Is it possible for me, as a white male from a middle-class family in a small MI town, to know or fully understand what life is really like for a black male from the South?

On the surface, I'd like to say, sure its possible. I could move to the same location, live in the same city, talk to the same people, etc. But would I really 'know' what its like to be a black male? The more I think about it, the more I don't think it is possible to actually 'know'; possibly the closest I could come would be to empathize and 'try' to understand. Perhaps this would be better as a new thread............


Personally, I don't think it matters. I shouldn't have to 'understand' a person who is attempting to hurt me or kill me. I could care less what their financial status is, what their life was like, etc. I'm not writing their autobiography, I am trying to defend my RIGHT to life. And as far as I am concerned, when someone attacks another person without just provocation, they are essentially waiving their civil rights and are fair game. George Zimmerman didn't have to understand anything other than he was being attacked and he rightfully felt a need to defend himself. I highly doubt that when he fired that gun, he KNEW he was going to kill Trayvon Martin. It just happened to end up that way.

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


July 17th, 2013, 8:54 pm
Profile
Online
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2743
Post Re: Zimmerman
M2k - yes, the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law does include immunity, and that's why it was smart of them not to opt for the hearing until after they got a not guilty verdict. Nelson would have denied it, and you only get chance for a hearing.

Wags - I could stand in front of you, yell and insult you and if you took a swing at me, I could claim self defense successfully. Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can never hurt me is closer to the law than people realize :) That's why the following argument would be laughed out of court. If you listen to the 911 call again, Martin is watching him while he's on the phone and then he just takes off running. The dispatcher keeps asking him what direction, where'd he go. That's why he got out of the car with his flashlight to see where he was. Once he got to a certain point, the dispatcher told him he didn't need to follow and he turned back after having lost sight. Martin circled around and came at Zimmerman. That alone kills the "chasing" rhetoric.

But for the sake of argument, could Zimmerman have whiffed? Yes. But was there any witnesses or evidence of that? You have to remember that when the detectives told him there might be video of the encounter, his response was "Thank God." Would you be happy there was video evidence of the entire thing or worried if you knew you were in the wrong?

EDIT - ok, I was wrong. He doesn't need the SYG hearing at all, since the immunity is separate and part of even normal self defense. The state is also going to be held accountable for all his court costs and loss of income. That and the impending court case against NBC and he'll be able to hide while rich.


July 18th, 2013, 7:49 am
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2631
Post Re: Zimmerman
Like I said, I'm not surprised Zim got off. I just have a problem with the whole situation.

To put it another way, say Zimmerman reaches for his gun, and before he can fully unholster it, Trayvon slams Zimmerman's head into the ground and kills him.

Trayvon, like Zim, would've gotten off. He could've said, "Hey this guy attacked me, he was gonna shoot me, so I killed him in self defense."

And it literally would've been the exact same situation, just in reverse. The only difference is that Zim got his shot off before Trayvon could deliver a killing blow.

Really, when it comes down to it, I guess if you get into a fight with someone, and no one is really around to see it, you can kill them and you'll get off.


July 19th, 2013, 1:59 am
Profile
Online
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2743
Post Re: Zimmerman
Actually, I think if Trayvon had ended up living and Zimmerman had died, the Screwdriver and jewelry in his bag, as well as more of his past would have been allowed to be mentioned in court. Also the fact that no bruises were on Trayvon, it would have led to a conviction.

I'm surprised that no GPS data was looked at for the phones. It would clearly show the paths they walked. With all the NSA talks, you'd think both teams would have looked into it. It would have given a much clearer picture of the trails of each man.


July 19th, 2013, 6:51 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.