home studios equipment staff & friends booking & rates forum contact

The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

Moderator: Electrical-Staff

Re: The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

Postby fredrock on Thu May 17, 2012 3:53 pm

One of the faulty assumptions of SYG and similar laws pushed by the gun lobbies, is that gun-toters will "almost always" act responsibly, with clear intent and flawless judgment.
Without his trusty sidearm, I doubt GZ would have been so eager to pursue TM; and 2 lives would likely have been saved from ruination.
Minus the ridiculous SYG law , GZ would have been charged (as he should have been), and then he would have been allowed to argue his case of self defense in court.
To brush away violent death so curtly is immoral and un-American IMO.
Granting "Get out of jail FREE" cards for the well-armed is an abomination.
Life is just what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.
-John Lennon
User avatar
fredrock
Best leader Who Realized Human Wisdom
Best leader Who Realized Human Wisdom
 
Posts: 2522
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:30 pm
Location: 6/10ths along toward a century in Chicago IL

Re: The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

Postby don.chaney on Thu May 17, 2012 4:45 pm

numberthirty wrote:Anyone with any common sense is going to ask themselves "Why in the hell didn't this guy just belt him with the pistol?"

Because he's a macho wuss who wasn't prepared for the scary, black thug he dutifully reported to the authorities for looking at things to clock his do-gooder self in the face when they realized some weirdo with a phone and a gun was all in their business?

He probably can't fight for shit and wasn't able to handle the stupid situation he created because he's an irresponsible moron. Guy has no common sense, which is exactly the problem:

fredrock wrote:One of the faulty assumptions of SYG and similar laws pushed by the gun lobbies, is that gun-toters will "almost always" act responsibly, with clear intent and flawless judgment.
Marsupialized wrote:Anger is an anchor, bro. Dragging your bitch ass down.
User avatar
don.chaney
hubert humphrey
hubert humphrey
 
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:12 am

Re: The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

Postby galanter on Thu May 17, 2012 5:34 pm

krs wrote:
galanter wrote:From the autopsy we now know that Martin only had two injuries, a single gunshot wound and abrasions on his knuckles. Zimmerman had many injuries, but his knuckles were fine.


Dishonesty continues to pervade the defenders of Zimmerman. More correctly, Martin had a single abrasion, 1/4 inch or less in size below the knuckle on his left ring finger. Martin did not have "abrasions on his knuckles". He had one abrasion, one one knuckle.

I think it is clear that the report from Zimmerman's personal physician is, at the very least, a doctored version of the truth. I think the video from the police surveillance tape is far more more credible. It shows no sign of a broken nose or either eye being blackened. Zimmerman, having had his head bashed into the pavement so many times, on the verge of losing his life, escapes with only slight spotting of blood on the back of the head and no concussion. Quite amazing. What a lucky guy.


I was just relating what I read in the news. Perhaps you have a more detailed source. But what isn't there is also telling. There is no sign on Martin that Zimmerman hit him, or at least hit him with any real effect. More evidence is on the way. Time will tell.
User avatar
galanter
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
 
Posts: 2266
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:51 am
Location: Yes, the avatar really is an actual picture of me.

Re: The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

Postby Clyde on Fri May 18, 2012 8:43 am

More updates:

Slate wrote:The slow trickle of new info on the Trayvon Martin murder case turned into a flood Thursday afternoon when Florida prosecutors turned over a mountain of court documents, videos and photographs to media outlets large and small.

There are 67 CDs worth of evidence, including photos from the scene, so it will probably take some time for reporters to finish sorting through it all. But in the meantime, here are the early takeaways that will likely have people talking.

1) "Avoidable" - Local police believed that the encounter between George Zimmerman and Martin could have been avoided if the 28-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer would have heeded the 911 dispatcher's advice and stayed put, or simply identified himself to Martin at the outset.

NPR flags the section in question: "The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern," the investigators wrote. Read more over at NPR.

2) Drugs - Medical examiners discovered that Martin had drugs in his system at the time of the shooting. From ABC News: "The autopsy report shows traces of the drug THC, which is found in marijuana, in Martin's blood and urine." Read more over at ABC News, and check out a .pdf of the autopsy report here (via CNN).

3) Crime-scene photo - The trove of evidence includes a photo of Zimmerman with a bloody nose on the night that Martin was shot and killed. A report from emergency personnel also said that the 28-year-old had a 1-inch laceration on his head, along with an abrasion on his forehead. From the Associated Press: "'Bleeding tenderness to his nose, and a small laceration to the back of his head. All injuries have minor bleeding,' paramedic Michael Brandy wrote about Zimmerman’s injuries in the report."

4) What Martin had on him - From the Associated Press: "A police report says Martin had $40.15, Skittles candy, a red lighter, headphones and a photo pin in his pocket. He had been shot once in the chest and was pronounced dead at the scene." Read more over at the AP.

5) What's missing - The Miami Herald: "[I]ncluded are cell phone records for Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin, and the girl Trayvon chatted with in the moments before his death. ... Not included: [Zimmerman's] three statements to police or the video-taped reenactment he did for detectives the day after he killed Trayvon. Under Florida law, confessions are exempt from public records laws." Read more over at the Herald.

The documents were released as part of the discovery process, during which the state is required to turn over their evidence to the defense. They did that earlier in the week (which may account for at least some of the earlier leaks) and then on Thursday gave the media access through a secure online site.
numberthirty wrote:Let's deal with what's actually happening before we get the Ghostbusters on the horn.
Clyde
evil witch
evil witch
 
Posts: 976
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:12 pm
Location: Brooklyn

Re: The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

Postby numberthirty on Fri May 18, 2012 9:23 am

galanter wrote:I was just relating what I read in the news. Perhaps you have a more detailed source. But what isn't there is also telling. There is no sign on Martin that Zimmerman hit him, or at least hit him with any real effect. More evidence is on the way. Time will tell.


Get real.

Not one of the wounds on the guy was even serious, let alone life threatening. He was able to walk straight into the police station under his own power. Given the total lack of life threatening injuries, I wouldn't be shocked if people had a hard time buying that he was fighting for his life.
154 wrote:Are you in Voivod or something?
User avatar
numberthirty
World's Greatest Writer
World's Greatest Writer
 
Posts: 10400
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 3:28 am

Re: The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

Postby krs on Fri May 18, 2012 9:33 am

galanter wrote:
krs wrote:
galanter wrote:From the autopsy we now know that Martin only had two injuries, a single gunshot wound and abrasions on his knuckles. Zimmerman had many injuries, but his knuckles were fine.


Dishonesty continues to pervade the defenders of Zimmerman. More correctly, Martin had a single abrasion, 1/4 inch or less in size below the knuckle on his left ring finger. Martin did not have "abrasions on his knuckles". He had one abrasion, one one knuckle.

I think it is clear that the report from Zimmerman's personal physician is, at the very least, a doctored version of the truth. I think the video from the police surveillance tape is far more more credible. It shows no sign of a broken nose or either eye being blackened. Zimmerman, having had his head bashed into the pavement so many times, on the verge of losing his life, escapes with only slight spotting of blood on the back of the head and no concussion. Quite amazing. What a lucky guy.


I was just relating what I read in the news.


Yeah, I'm sure. The phrasing you consistently choose is very telling. I see what you did there.
User avatar
krs
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2953
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:14 pm

Re: The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

Postby Clyde on Fri May 18, 2012 9:35 am

numberthirty wrote:
galanter wrote:I was just relating what I read in the news. Perhaps you have a more detailed source. But what isn't there is also telling. There is no sign on Martin that Zimmerman hit him, or at least hit him with any real effect. More evidence is on the way. Time will tell.


Get real.

Not one of the wounds on the guy was even serious, let alone life threatening. He was able to walk straight into the police station under his own power. Given the total lack of life threatening injuries, I wouldn't be shocked if people had a hard time buying that he was fighting for his life.



Pure speculation on my part: Zimmerman's defense's focus less on the injuries than Zimmerman's claim that Martin was going for his gun at the time of the shooting. More speculation: the crux of the case will hang on the two things. 1-Whether the above is believable. 2-Whether Zimmerman instigated the confrontation once he started chasing Martin. The prosecution might assert that Martin was the one standing his ground.
numberthirty wrote:Let's deal with what's actually happening before we get the Ghostbusters on the horn.
Clyde
evil witch
evil witch
 
Posts: 976
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:12 pm
Location: Brooklyn

Re: The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

Postby Dr. Geek on Fri May 18, 2012 11:09 am

What if...

Zimmerman's injuries were caused from a fall onto the concrete. After all, it was raining and he was allegedly running from and to his vehicle. I can see of a scenario where he fell down, causing the injuries photographed.
My Radio Show: Hex Enduction Hours On 91.3 FM KXCI Tucson - Recent Playlists

Bringing you the best punk, post-punk, and noise rock from the US/UK and beyond! Every Thursday midnight to 3AM MST (stream online at http://www.kxci.org)
Dr. Geek
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
 
Posts: 2377
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:29 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

Postby Ranxerox on Fri May 18, 2012 11:18 am

It is interesting that neither of the people in this case heeded advice to depart from the scene or otherwise avoid confrontation as suggested by the people they chose to call. I hold Z to a higher level of responsibility because 1) he was an adult 2) the advice given to him was from law enforcement who indicated that they were going to do their job, obviating the need for him to make any confrontation 3) he was armed 4) no confrontation occurs unless he actually pursues 5) he was the only one who had reason to believe that a police presence was soon to be on the scene and 6) he does not clarify who he is or what he wants when face to face with the kid. His negligence in this is giant, and aided by an idiotic law and the lax police response that tows behind the law.

Z went looking for trouble, found it, and then extricated via lethal force. He should do time and a civil case should lighten some carrier's load if only because that dumb ass law is meant to protect their interests without regard for public safety or justice.

Unless those involved in the case can triangulate exactly where the two came across one another and where they were positioned when it occurred we will never know what really happened.

I have always maintained that this case is about the SYG law as opposed to race, though race has its tangential place in the fray. Have I mentioned my profound antipathy for these types of laws when they are extended into public realms? I cannot see the value of granting so much tether to such an individual's personal sense of peril if they are not going to be required to react to such by way of the most effective and natural response available to bodies in public spaces. They should be required to run, if at all possible, and pursuit of any sort should essentially nullify the SYG defense. A person who carries his weapon with him when going to the fucking convenient store or the gas station is by practical definition an individual who has a heightened sense of personal vulnerability. They are likely already primed to consider any confrontation as potentially lethal. If you don't require them to make use of the many avenues available for public retreat then you are giving them the ability to sign death warrants with near impunity based on a state of mind that is to an important degree unconnected to the actual circumstance. The natural and largely appropriate response to feeling threatened in public is to turn the other way. Leave. Run. If you allow someone to move toward a situation they by definition think of as potentially dangerous and then, when they hit the jackpot, to use deadly force to extricate, you are essentially saying that they have either been deputized by way of their desire to move forward into danger despite their fears or you are giving them the benefit of the doubt in re their sense of personal danger at exactly the time their actions suggest that they have no such fear, i.e., armed and moving toward a recognized potential problem. A correlation to that is the fact that, given this person's sense of general personal vulnerability, one does not easily imagine them entering a dicey situation if not for the fact that they are packing. Giving them carte blanche to extricate via lethal force is irresponsible.

I really hope that what comes of this case, the Trevor Dooley case, the Arizona case, and any others that follow, is that these laws get trimmed back significantly.
Ranxerox
freelance sperm donor
freelance sperm donor
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 8:15 pm

Re: The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

Postby Clyde on Fri May 18, 2012 11:38 am

Still more updates. I've tried to highlight what seem to be the biggest revelations but please point out anything I've missed.

AP wrote:ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — When George Zimmerman tries to convince a judge or jury that he shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense, the evidence he'll be able to call on appears to be a mixed bag.

More than 200 pages of photos and eyewitness accounts released by prosecutors Thursday show Zimmerman and Martin were in a loud and bloody fight in the moments leading up to the shooting and that Zimmerman appeared to be getting the worst of it, with wounds both to his face and the back of his head.

But the original lead detective in the case believed Zimmerman caused the fight by getting out of his vehicle to confront Martin, who wasn't doing anything criminal, and then could have defused the situation by telling Martin he was just a concerned citizen and tried to talk to him. He didn't think Zimmerman could legally invoke Florida's "stand your ground" law and should be charged with manslaughter.

Under that law, people are given wide latitude to use deadly force rather than retreat in a fight if they believe they are in danger of being killed or seriously injured, they weren't committing a crime themselves and are in a place they have the legal right to be. The original prosecutor in the case accepted Zimmerman's invocation of the law after the Feb. 26 shooting but a special prosecutor rejected his claim last month and charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder. The former neighborhood watch volunteer has pleaded not guilty, has been released on bail and reportedly is in hiding.

He and his attorney will have two more chances to invoke the law. First, they will try to convince a judge during what will be a mini-trial. If the judge agrees, the charges will be dropped although prosecutors could appeal. That is likely months away. If the judge rejects the claim, Zimmerman could they try to convince the jury and win an acquittal. A trial is unlikely to start before next year. Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, didn't return a phone call seeking comment Thursday from The Associated Press.

Speaking Friday on NBC's "Today" show, O'Mara said he couldn't talk about the individual pieces of evidence in the case. But he said that rather than talking about the "what-if's" — as in what if Zimmerman had stayed in the car — O'Mara said "we have to deal with what happened and try to explain that."

Joelle Moreno, a Florida International University law school professor, said the evidence now released makes it difficult to predict if a "stand your ground" defense will work. She is a member of a state senator's task force examining the law.

Larry Kobilinsky, professor of forensic science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said that after reviewing the evidence, he thinks Zimmerman is in a good position.

"I think the prosecution's case has been seriously diminished by all of this evidence," he said.

Still, many of the pertinent questions remain unclear: What was in Zimmerman's mind when he began to follow Martin in the gated community where he lived? How did the confrontation between the two begin? Whose screams for help were captured on 911 calls? And why did Zimmerman feel that deadly force was warranted? Did the fact that Martin was black play a role in Zimmerman's actions?

The evidence supporting Zimmerman's defense includes a photo showing the neighborhood watch volunteer with a bloody nose on the night of the fight. A paramedic report says Zimmerman had a 1-inch laceration on his head and forehead abrasion.

"Bleeding tenderness to his nose, and a small laceration to the back of his head. All injuries have minor bleeding," paramedic Michael Brandy wrote about Zimmerman's injuries in the report.

But other evidence supports the contention of Martin's parents that Zimmerman was the aggressor.


The investigator who called for Zimmerman's arrest, Christopher Serino, told prosecutors the fight could have been avoided if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement. He said Zimmerman, after leaving his vehicle, could have identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and talked to him instead of confronting him. The report was written March 13, nearly a month before Zimmerman's eventual arrest.

He said there is no evidence Martin was involved in any criminal activity as he walked from a convenience store to the home of his father's fiance in the same gated community where Zimmerman lived.

The lawyer for Martin's parents seized on the investigator's recommendation.

"The police concluded that none of this would have happened if George Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of his car," said attorney Ben Crump. "If George Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of his car, they say it was completely avoidable. That is the headline."

The release of evidence did little to clear up whose voice is screaming for help in the background of several 911 calls made during the fight.

Since first hearing the calls in early March, Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton, has been unequivocal in saying it was her son's voice on the tapes.

But Serino wrote in a report that he played a 911 call for Martin's father, Tracy, in which the screams are heard multiple times.

"I asked Mr. Martin if the voice calling for help was that of his son," the officer wrote. "Mr. Martin, clearly emotionally impacted by the recording, quietly responded 'no.'"


Zimmerman's father also told investigators that it was his son yelling for help on March 19.

"That is absolutely positively George Zimmerman," Robert Zimmerman said. "He was not just yelling, he sounded like he was screaming for his life."

Investigators sent all the recordings to the FBI for analysis. They were asked to determine who was screaming, and also if Zimmerman might have used an expletive in describing Martin. Prosecutors said in their charging documents that Zimmerman said "(expletive) punks" in describing Martin as he walked in the neighborhood.

But the analyst who examined the recordings determined the sound quality is too poor to decipher what Zimmerman uttered. In regards to the screams during the altercation, there also wasn't enough clarity to determine who it is "due to extreme stress and unsuitable audio quality."

The case has become a national racial flashpoint because the Martin family and supporters contend Zimmerman singled Martin out because he was black. Zimmerman has a Peruvian mother and a white father.

Two acquaintances painted an unflattering picture of Zimmerman in police interviews.

A distraught woman told an investigator that she stays away from Zimmerman because he's racist and because of things he's done to her in the past, but she didn't elaborate on what happened between them.

"I don't at all know who this kid was or anything else. But I know George, and I know that he does not like black people. He would start something. He's very confrontational. It's in his blood. We'll just say that," the unidentified woman says in an audio recording.

A man whose name was deleted from the audio told investigators said he worked with Zimmerman in 2008 for a few months. It wasn't clear which company it was.

The man, who described his heritage as "Middle Eastern," said that when he first started, many employees didn't like him. Zimmerman seized on this, the employee said, and bullied him.

Zimmerman wanted to "get in" with the clique at work so he exaggerated a Middle Eastern accent when talking about the employee, the man said. The employee told investigators that Zimmerman made reference to terrorists and bombings when talking about him.

"It was so immature," said the employee, who ended up writing a letter to management about Zimmerman.

Zimmerman's parents say he wasn't racist. They say he had mentored black students and had a black relative.

The autopsy says medical examiners found THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, when they tested Martin's blood and urine.

Kobilinsky said the amount was so low that it may have been ingested days earlier and played no role in Martin's behavior. He doubts the judge will even let it be used by the defense if they try to introduce it at trial.


A police report shows the 17-year-old had been shot once in the chest and had been pronounced dead at the scene. The autopsy says the fatal shot was fired from no more than 18 inches away.

In a police interview, Zimmerman's father, Robert, described the toll the case had taken on family members who also are in hiding because of safety concerns.

"It just seems like it's an avalanche and I'm standing at the bottom of it," Robert Zimmerman said.


My take:
The biggest revelation to me is that Martin's father didn't believe it to his son screaming on the audio. It seems more and more likely to me that Zimmerman was on the receiving end of an ass-kicking when he fired the shot.

Not in this article but I saw somewhere else that Zimmerman's shot penetrated Martin's heart and killed him almost instantly. In light of that, it seems unlikely that Martin said "You got me" (or whatever it was) after being shot.

The fact that Martin smoked pot shouldn't be a big deal but probably will be.

It's hard to know what to make the two acquaintances of Zimmerman who paint him as a racist. Between this and the old Myspace page, it doesn't paint a very good picture of him. On the other hand, we know nothing about these people, the extent of their respective relationships with Martin, what sorts of grudges they might hold, how reliable they are, etc...

None of the evidence I've seen thus far changes my mind that Zimmerman is at least guilty of manslaughter but murder-two looks increasingly difficult to prove*.



*Caveat that I'm not an expert on criminal law.
numberthirty wrote:Let's deal with what's actually happening before we get the Ghostbusters on the horn.
Clyde
evil witch
evil witch
 
Posts: 976
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:12 pm
Location: Brooklyn

Re: The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

Postby galanter on Fri May 18, 2012 7:06 pm

I think this notion that Zimmerman was the aggressor needs a more careful legal interpretation. It's probably true that had Zimmerman simply turned away Martin would still be alive. I can see how some folks would say, in an everyday life sense, that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

But the question of aggression here isn't the simple chain of cause and effect. The question is did Zimmerman commit acts that legally deprive him of a claim to self-defense. It's not clear to me precisely what that requires. For example, does simply questioning someone mean it's open season to get legally punched?

And then there's this. It appears to me that the stand your ground law strips out a need to retreat circuit breaker, and this means two people can act within the law and yet spiral into increasing violence. Perhaps both Zimmerman and Martin were standing their ground, and all we are left with is a poor dead kid who came with fists to a gun fight.
User avatar
galanter
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
 
Posts: 2266
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:51 am
Location: Yes, the avatar really is an actual picture of me.

Re: The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

Postby fredrock on Fri May 18, 2012 7:53 pm

galanter wrote:I think this notion that Zimmerman was the aggressor needs a more careful legal interpretation. It's probably true (challenge) that had Zimmerman simply turned away Martin would still be alive. I can see how some folks would say, in an everyday life sense, that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

But the question of aggression here isn't the simple chain of cause and effect. The question is did Zimmerman commit acts that legally deprive him of a claim to self-defense. It's not clear to me precisely what that requires. For example, does simply questioning someone mean it's open season to get legally punched?

And then there's this. It appears to me that the stand your ground law strips out a need to retreat circuit breaker, and this means two people can act within the law and yet spiral into increasing violence. Perhaps both Zimmerman and Martin were standing their ground, and all we are left with is a poor dead kid who came with fists to a gun fight.


Congratulations-you're beginning to see the light here.
GZ did indeed come ready and willing (not necessarily eager) to engage in a gunfight.
Who struck the first blow hardly matters.
GZ provided ALL of the forward motion which led to the encounter = aggressor.

What was TM doing? Walking back to watch hoops.

Why should GZ be so preciously guarded by a law which defers to the well-armed ?
Life is just what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.
-John Lennon
User avatar
fredrock
Best leader Who Realized Human Wisdom
Best leader Who Realized Human Wisdom
 
Posts: 2522
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:30 pm
Location: 6/10ths along toward a century in Chicago IL

Re: The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

Postby galanter on Fri May 18, 2012 8:19 pm

Along with misinterpreting what I'm saying you miss the salient point of the last sentence. If that sentence is true then Zimmerman is not guilty.

Or maybe you are ceding that, and now realize that Zimmerman could well be found not guilty, and at most the law should be changed so that future cases turn out differently.

But there is also this. Even without stand-your-ground Zimmerman may still be protected by traditional self-defense. Stand-your-ground only applies when the person under attack has an opportunity to retreat by taking away the obligation to do so. Zimmerman could well argue that all he did was follow someone suspicious and then try to talk to them, and he was attacked and beaten and never had a chance to retreat once the attack started. i.e. self-defense without stand-your-ground.
User avatar
galanter
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
 
Posts: 2266
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:51 am
Location: Yes, the avatar really is an actual picture of me.

Re: The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

Postby lemur68 on Fri May 18, 2012 8:38 pm

Two months?

We've been on about this for TWO MONTHS?
Miel wrote:My teen years were just one huge Big Black cosplay.
User avatar
lemur68
King Shit of Fuck Mountain
 
Posts: 16396
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:52 am
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

Postby Adam P on Fri May 18, 2012 8:45 pm

The problem as I see it with the SYG is that it essentially forces the authorities to prove a situation where the only witness is the one who "stood his ground", and furthermore grants complete immunity from criminal or civil prosecution, include arrest. The burden of proof in any situation where the taking of a person's life occurs *under the claim of self-defense* should always lie with the person who acted in such a manner. That such a law could be even conceived as written, let alone passed, bewilders me. Any semi-intelligent person can read the law as it's written and come to the conclusion that it is effectively a license to kill with impunity.

I would not be surprised to see Zimmerman go free. However, that doesn't mean that he was right or justified in his actions. It just means that he was the beneficiary of the application of a poorly written law.
Last edited by Adam P on Fri May 18, 2012 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Adam P
stu ungar
stu ungar
 
Posts: 551
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

Postby Conchis on Fri May 18, 2012 8:51 pm

Adam P wrote:The burden of proof in any situation where the taking of a person's life occurs should always lie with the person who acted in such a manner.


Uh, no. I don't think we ever want to dispense with the principle that the government has the burden to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Even for assholes like Zimmerman.
User avatar
Conchis
moms mabley
moms mabley
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:04 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

Postby Adam P on Fri May 18, 2012 9:12 pm

You misunderstand me. My fault for not being more specific.

Yes, the burden of proof for commission of a crime should lie with the prosecution.

What I meant was when the taking of the life is claimed to be in self-defense. I'm of the opinion that using the affirmative defense of self-defense (in the "yes, but..." sense, at least) should shift the burden of proof to the defendant.

Florida's SYG law, however, supersedes affirmative defense, because the affirmative defense is raised at trial, whereas a successful application of the SYG bars the case from ever going to trial in the first place.
User avatar
Adam P
stu ungar
stu ungar
 
Posts: 551
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

Postby fredrock on Sat May 19, 2012 1:36 pm

galanter wrote:Along with misinterpreting what I'm saying (Same to you) you miss the salient point of the last sentence (that TM might also be protected by SYG immunity?). If that sentence is true then Zimmerman is not guilty.(Why? If it is determined GZ was the aggressor, first punch does not matter)

Or maybe you are ceding that (What, that your conclusions are gospel? Sorry, no), and now realize that Zimmerman could well be found not guilty (I'll agree on this point--always have), and at most (Least) the law should be changed so that future cases turn out differently.

But there is also this. Even without stand-your-ground Zimmerman may still be protected by traditional self-defense (I'm all for the traditional route-that has always been my argument.). Stand-your-ground only applies when the person under attack has an opportunity to retreat by taking away the obligation to do so (Which is my problem=if you have a gun, it's OK to use it without fear of repercussion or thorough legal evaluation). Zimmerman could well argue that all he did was follow someone suspicious (Profiling aggressor) and then try to talk to them (aggressor), and he was attacked (by someone who feared he was being stalked) and beaten (sorry GZ-you asked for it!)and never had a chance to retreat once the attack started. i.e. self-defense without stand-your-ground.(Fine, then have it judged so in a court of law, not the backroom @ SPD)
Life is just what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.
-John Lennon
User avatar
fredrock
Best leader Who Realized Human Wisdom
Best leader Who Realized Human Wisdom
 
Posts: 2522
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:30 pm
Location: 6/10ths along toward a century in Chicago IL

Re: The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

Postby HOUSTON_M on Sun May 20, 2012 3:56 am

HOUSTON_M
penguinologist
penguinologist
 
Posts: 1810
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 4:42 pm
Location: Return on Investment

Re: The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

Postby Antero on Sun May 20, 2012 6:36 am


Maybe we can torture an answer out of somebody, ey Dersh?
http://www.myspace.com/leopoldandloebchicago

Bun B wrote:Go read a book you illiterate son of a bitch, and step up your vocab
Antero
Present-day God
Present-day God
 
Posts: 9531
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 8:54 am
Location: Yay Area

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Adam Sr, BobbyPeru, Colonel Panic, hellholiday, janswers, minusman, rappard, soybomb, Tommy, yaledelay and 20 guests