Re: Man follows black teen who seems "suspicious" and kills him.
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17452878Trayvon was travelling home in his own neighbourhood from the shop with a bag of sweets. It's raining on the street so he's got his hoodie up. Zimmerman is part of a local neighbourhood patrol team who hangs out in his car, armed, looking for people up to no good.
So he sees this black teen walking and decides he's "real suspicious". He calls the police to report it. He tells the police he's "Sick of these ***holes getting away with it"
He then gets out of his car to follow Trayvon. The police tell him not to do that. Trayvon runs away (presumably because he's just seen a man stare at him from his car, get out and start following him). Zimmerman follows him.
Zimmerman then shoots and kills Tray during an altercation. Now whatever about the defence of justifiable homicide, or self defence (Which given it's florida has quite wide definition) to not even ARREST the guy is ludicrous. There are sustained protests in the state and the Justice dept is investigating the FA police's behaviour. But if he gets away with this then as long as you have a licence to carry a concealed weapon, and don't know the person you're about to kill, you've pretty much got licence to kill in Florida as long as no one sees you.
here is the 911 calls . in some of them you hear the teen screaming help, then you hear gunshots.
I like this one really nice...!!!
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I put it in quotes to refer, specifically, to Florida's law.What I said was correct about the law as it pertained to this case. That's what his lawyers are or will use in his defense on this case.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Like what? I am not privy to this obvious "inside-joke" comment you are making.
the hypothetical situation here would be the one where stand your ground applies to Martin
not only did Martin not kill anyone (as this is the only time that stand your ground is applicable) there is no evidence that Martin would have killed Zimmerman, nor that he had any motivation to.
Its a false equivalence
Originally posted by dadudemon
[My comments my seem unrelated to what you're saying above, but bear with me.]Oh man, I just read what you're talking about (I do not watch TV nor do I read news often...so I did not know about the release of the medical records).
That changes my opinion of this case.
What Zimmerman was saying is being supported by the medical evidence. The boy had no injuries except for broken skin on his knuckles.
well, it supports it aside from the conclusion that Zimmerman was in any type of mortal danger
Originally posted by inimalist
the hypothetical situation here would be the one where stand your ground applies to Martinnot only did Martin not kill anyone (as this is the only time that stand your ground is applicable) there is no evidence that Martin would have killed Zimmerman, nor that he had any motivation to.
Its a false equivalence
No, that's wrong. Trayvon was trying to "stand his ground" and got killed while doing so. Zimmerman claims that deadly force was being used against him. Trayvon can justify, if he were still around, that deadly force was or was about to be used against him. Ergo, both are justified in killing the other.
I thought this was established by Symmetric Chaos ten or twenty pages ago?
Originally posted by inimalist
well, it supports it aside from the conclusion that Zimmerman was in any type of mortal danger
That's definitely debatable. 🙂
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, that's wrong. Trayvon was trying to "stand his ground" and got killed while doing so. Zimmerman claims that deadly force was being used against him. Trayvon can justify, if he were still around, that deadly force was or was about to be used against him. Ergo, both are justified in killing the other.I thought this was established by Symmetric Chaos ten or twenty pages ago?
except that scenario is entirely hypothetical because martin didn't kill zimmerman
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's definitely debatable. 🙂
no, not really
Originally posted by inimalist
except that scenario is entirely hypothetical because martin didn't kill zimmerman
...but he is still justified, according to some interpretations of the law, in attacking Zimmerman.
Originally posted by inimalist
no, not really
Yeah, really:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500164_162-20077324.html
And from Zimmerman's wounds, it was much worse than a single punch.
Originally posted by dadudemon
...but he is still justified, according to some interpretations of the law, in attacking Zimmerman.
hypothetically, had Martin killed him
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, really:http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500164_162-20077324.html
And from Zimmerman's wounds, it was much worse than a single punch.
so Martin could have thrown some hypothetical punch that could have done hypothetical damage to zimmerman...
/sigh
Originally posted by inimalist
hypothetically, had Martin killed him
This response does not make much sense to what I stated. It seems you have mistaken what my point was (that doesn't make sense because of the name I used in my statement) about and instead assumed it was another "Anti-Trayvon" comment.
I stated that Trayvon was justified in attacking Zimmerman because he, if we pretend to be Trayvon for a moment, feared his life would be taken by Zimmerman. So Trayvon is justified, under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law, in attacking and killing Zimmerman. It does not even take a small leap to say Trayvon was justified if Trayvon saw the gun Zimmerman had.
Originally posted by inimalist
so Martin could have thrown some hypothetical punch that could have done hypothetical damage to zimmerman.../sigh
Fortunately, both US and Canadian courts do not disregard "hypotheticals" when determining motives or outcomes to situations.
And there is nothing "hypothetical" about getting beaten do death. It only takes one punch. Zimmerman is justified in using lethal force, under some interpretations of "Stand Your Ground":
Here is another example:
http://www.nbc15.com/news/headlines/7195076.html
What if Trayvon one-hit KO'd Zimmerman and Zimmerman died from a particularly nasty TBI?
You can get upset over it being a "hypothetical" but the case literally hinges on the justification of the hypothetical. "I feared for my life and I had no choice but to use lethal force: I am justified under Stand Your Ground." What would play into that is Zimmers willingness to go ahead and confront Trayvon.
And I would have reworded your statement with much less "hyperbole":
"so Martin, who definitely threw a punch or two, could have hypothetically killed Zimmerman with said punches?
Obviously, I know the answer is 'yes' to that question."
😬
Originally posted by focus4chumps
😂
😆
Originally posted by dadudemon
This response does not make much sense to what I stated. It seems you have mistaken what my point was (that doesn't make sense because of the name I used in my statement) about and instead assumed it was another "Anti-Trayvon" comment.I stated that Trayvon was justified in attacking Zimmerman because he, if we pretend to be Trayvon for a moment, feared his life would be taken by Zimmerman. So Trayvon is justified, under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law, in attacking and killing Zimmerman. It does not even take a small leap to say Trayvon was justified if Trayvon saw the gun Zimmerman had.
hmmm, I was under the assumption that stand your ground was, literally, only a valid defence for murder.
I'm still pretty sure it is, but I might be wrong. If not, I'd agree in general with you. If it is, though, it would be as nonsensical in this context as using "self-defence" as a defence for robbery.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Fortunately, both US and Canadian courts do not disregard "hypotheticals" when determining motives or outcomes to situations.And there is nothing "hypothetical" about getting beaten do death. It only takes one punch. Zimmerman is justified in using lethal force, under some interpretations of "Stand Your Ground":
Here is another example:
http://www.nbc15.com/news/headlines/7195076.html
What if Trayvon one-hit KO'd Zimmerman and Zimmerman died from a particularly nasty TBI?
You can get upset over it being a "hypothetical" but the case literally hinges on the justification of the hypothetical. "I feared for my life and I had no choice but to use lethal force: I am justified under Stand Your Ground." What would play into that is Zimmers willingness to go ahead and confront Trayvon.
And I would have reworded your statement with much less "hyperbole":
"so Martin, who definitely threw a punch or two, could have hypothetically killed Zimmerman with said punches?
Obviously, I know the answer is 'yes' to that question."
😬
yes, I have said from the first post I made that zimmerman may be innocent under the law
my point are his injuries are not consistent with mortal danger, and you just now admitted that it would be a hypothetical situation if they were, so we agree.
Originally posted by inimalist
hmmm, I was under the assumption that stand your ground was, literally, only a valid defence for murder.I'm still pretty sure it is, but I might be wrong. If not, I'd agree in general with you. If it is, though, it would be as nonsensical in this context as using "self-defence" as a defence for robbery.
Not necessarily because the use of deadly force is not specific to just killing: you can receive a felony charge for differing types of assaults and battery (felony battery, for example).
The words appear in the law as follows:
"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony., in order, like so in the law: "Use of lethal force."
It does not make a designation for the result of death. It does not make a designation as defending yourself just from death: it lists both "force with force" and includes a separate but indicated category of "deadly force".
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, I have said from the first post I made that zimmerman may be innocent under the law
And I have stated that what Zimmerman has done, by my own personal morals, was wrong. He should not have confronted the boy. He should have kept an eye out for where he was for the police and stayed on the phone so he could indicate where Trayvon was (if we go ahead and play along with Zimmerman's idea that Trayvon was the burglar breaking into the homes in that neighborhood).
Originally posted by inimalist
my point are his injuries are not consistent with mortal danger,
That is not necessary, at all, in determining a justification for the use of deadly force. What actually happened after-the-fact and what could have happened are two different discussions. We cannot argue what actually happened, from the defense side: only what could have happened. In addition, what actually happened still had the potential to kill Zimmerman from those injuries, alone.
IMO, it is both absurd and silly to argue the point that "Zimmerman did not suffer deadly injuries!" That makes no sense: Zimmerman would then be dead. Why would you want to argue from that perspective? No case can be made. You only have to establish that Zimmerman saved his own life from a potentially "deadly" situation.
Here is the most important point you are looking over: Had the beat down continued, as Zimmers contends he feared was going to happen, he definitely would have died. You cannot sustain an ass-beating, continuously, and avoid death. It will happen. Just depends on the person being beaten and how severe the beat-down is per unit time. Unless you're going to argue that Zimmers was immortal? Do not forget that the autopsy showed no injuries from Trayvon: only broken skin on his knuckles which was most likely from beating Zimmerman.
It is up to the defense to prove that the degree of "deadliness" of the situation was enough to warrant a deadly response.
Originally posted by inimalist
and you just now admitted that it would be a hypothetical situation if they were, so we agree.
"Your jimmies have been rustled", for some reason. "Bro, calm down."
I was unaware that I was contesting that. 😐
I was contesting, however, your dismissal of hypotheticals from the defensive side of this case.
Originally posted by inimalist
ddm, your reading comprehension is poor this eve
Well, in that case: I contend that it is not and yours is the faulty reading comprehension.
I prefer keep those types of comments to myself because it is rude. There are nicer ways to tell people that like so:
"This response does not make much sense to what I stated."
Originally posted by inimalist
I have never excluded anything from the defence of the case
Ahhh, but you have, by your sweeping dismissals of how hypotheticals play into the "Stand Your Ground" case. You literally scoffed at the ideas with an angsty "sigh".
Originally posted by inimalist
I've said his injuries are not consistent with mortal danger, which they aren't.
I have responded to that notion, already:
"Here is the most important point you are looking over: Had the beat down continued, as Zimmers contends he feared was going to happen, he definitely would have died. You cannot sustain an ass-beating, continuously, and avoid death. It will happen. Just depends on the person being beaten and how severe the beat-down is per unit time. Unless you're going to argue that Zimmers was immortal? Do not forget that the autopsy showed no injuries from Trayvon: only broken skin on his knuckles which was most likely from beating Zimmerman."
Originally posted by inimalist
A broken nose is not life threatening.
I agree. But the force used to break the nose can be included in a set of "forces" deemed "deadly".
Originally posted by dadudemon
"Here is the most important point you are looking over: Had the beat down continued, as Zimmers contends he feared was going to happen, he definitely would have died. You cannot sustain an ass-beating, continuously, and avoid death. It will happen. Just depends on the person being beaten and how severe the beat-down is per unit time. Unless you're going to argue that Zimmers was immortal? Do not forget that the autopsy showed no injuries from Trayvon: only broken skin on his knuckles which was most likely from beating Zimmerman."
ok, but this now goes to the motivation of Treyvon
unless we are talking about accidental death, the presumption of innocence means we can't just blindly assume Martin was going to beat him to a bloody pulp.
the hypothetical possibility of Martin getting that one-in-a-million punch might mean something in a court of law, but unless we assume, with no evidence and against the presumption of guilt, that Martin was deliberately trying to kill Zimmerman, I don't find this relevant.
also, to my point, his injuries, as in, the ones he actually has and aren't some hypothetical, are not consistent with Zimmerman's life being in danger. Could it have been in some hypothetical context, ok... that doesn't really change the fact that Zimmerman sustained very minor wounds.
and ya, my bad on the personal slight
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but this now goes to the motivation of Treyvon
Which I addressed already (technically, just parrotted SC) 😉
"Trayvon was justified in attacking Zimmerman because he, if we pretend to be Trayvon for a moment, feared his life would be taken by Zimmerman. So Trayvon is justified, under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law, in attacking and killing Zimmerman. It does not even take a small leap to say Trayvon was justified if Trayvon saw the gun Zimmerman had. "
Originally posted by inimalist
unless we are talking about accidental death, the presumption of innocence means we can't just blindly assume Martin was going to beat him to a bloody pulp.
Oh, no, we can definitely assume* that Trayvon was going to beat Zimmerman to death: that's precisely what Zimmerman is claiming he feared. We do not have to assume that it justifies the killing, necessarily: only that it is one of the many assumptions in the case we can be given when considering both the prosecution and defense.
And, it is hardly a "blind" assumption. That's just more hyperbole on your part.
Originally posted by inimalist
the hypothetical possibility of Martin getting that one-in-a-million punch
That's not really my point, though, now is it? My point with that is that it only takes a single punch, not that Zimmerman feared a one-in-a-million single punch. There was probably more than just one punch thrown: we do not have to worry about a "single kill punch" when there are multiple to worry about. Then there's the other information I proposed about being beaten to death which is the actual justification Zimmerman provided.
Originally posted by inimalist
might mean something in a court of law, but unless we assume, with no evidence and against the presumption of guilt, that Martin was deliberately trying to kill Zimmerman, I don't find this relevant.
That's a false dilemma: you provided only two options.
1. A single-kill-punch (not my point with that, anyway).
or
2. Trayvon was deliberately trying to kill Zimmerman.
Why could it not be option C: Trayvon was beating the shit out of Zimmerman and Zimmerman feared for his life (which is a legit concern with only the medical information presented, alone) so he used deadly force to save his own life.
At not point do you need to inject that Trayvon intended to kill Zimmerman.
Also, I do recall reading about attempted murder charges from a fist fight, alone. That's rare but it can happen if a person is particularly aggressive (like a final kick to the head of a a person already on the ground...or continuing to beat an unconscious person).
Originally posted by inimalist
also, to my point, [b]his injuries, as in, the ones he actually has and aren't some hypothetical, are not consistent with Zimmerman's life being in danger. Could it have been in some hypothetical context, ok... that doesn't really change the fact that Zimmerman sustained very minor wounds.[/B]
I addressed this already, here:
"Here is the most important point you are looking over: Had the beat down continued, as Zimmers contends he feared was going to happen, he definitely would have died. You cannot sustain an ass-beating, continuously, and avoid death. It will happen. Just depends on the person being beaten and how severe the beat-down is per unit time. Unless you're going to argue that Zimmers was immortal? Do not forget that the autopsy showed no injuries from Trayvon: only broken skin on his knuckles which was most likely from beating Zimmerman."
*Multiple assumptions are considered from both sides of a case, usually. Very rarely can you get a case that would not use any assumptions. Philosophically, all cases use massive amounts of assumptions but I am not delving into the philosophical idea of what "objective truth" means.
Originally posted by inimalist
so, because Zimmerman, after killing treyvon,
Problem #1:
It would not be "after" killing Trayvon. It would be during his assbeating.
Originally posted by inimalist
said he feared for his life,
Which is definitely legit. The degree of the severity of this legitimacy determines his innocence or guilt: to be determined by a jury of his peers.
Originally posted by inimalist
with no other evidence
Problem #2:
There is definitely evidence most of which you yourself acknowledge (but like to sweepingly dismiss (let's put it nicely: if you were the prosecutor, you'd be destroyed in court)).
Originally posted by inimalist
we assume treyvon was committed to murdering him
Problem #3
No assumption has to be made. Remember the law I quoted to you (but you apparently ignored)? There is a naming of meeting force with force and deadly force with deadly force.
And that point was already addressed by this point:
"Here is the most important point you are looking over: Had the beat down continued, as Zimmers contends he feared was going to happen, he definitely would have died. You cannot sustain an ass-beating, continuously, and avoid death. It will happen. Just depends on the person being beaten and how severe the beat-down is per unit time. Unless you're going to argue that Zimmers was immortal? Do not forget that the autopsy showed no injuries from Trayvon: only broken skin on his knuckles which was most likely from beating Zimmerman."
It is not quite the "he was perfectly safe!" product you are trying to sell, now is it?
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, ok, w/e
Well, once we delved into the problems you had in your points, it's not quite a "lol, whatever" situation, now is it? 🙂
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So the whole "I was shot" story was just a way to stir up trouble hmm
That sneaky bastard...even messing up the conservatard agenda from the grave.