Zimmermann at it again

Amazingfun

creolebelle wrote: »

*sigh* the trayvon case has nothing to do with mike brown/Darren Wilson case.
The facts are 911 told Zimmerman to leave trayvon alone, Zimmerman ignored the authorities and followed Martin.

Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman. These are the facts. The only truly relevant theme from both cases here is your refusal to deal in them (facts).

bb1234567

Amazingfun wrote: »

He didn't "murder" anyone. He was attacked and well within his rights to defend himself.

As for you "just knowing" you'd pull a family from a wreck.....please excuse me while I :pac: ! Sure ya would.

Just like the Micheal Brown case we have lunatics re-writing reality to suit their warped racial politics. Well sorry kids.....reality remains just that despite your delusions.

I know I would at least try to save the family. If I didn't I wouldn't be able to live with myself.
Well from what Ive read of the case, Zimmerman was at fault. And he definitely didn't need to kill him.

Amazingfun

bb1234567 wrote: »

I know I would at least try to save the family. If I didn't I wouldn't be able to live with myself.
Well from what Ive read of the case, Zimmerman was at fault. And he definitely didn't need to kill him.

No you don't "know" that. No one knows what they would actually do until they find themselves in that very situation. Zimmerman did it and the family was very grateful.

And you've not read much if you think Zimmerman guilty in that case.

Here is a good video if you're not into reading back:

creolebelle

Amazingfun wrote: »

Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman. These are the facts. The only truly relevant theme from both cases here is your refusal to deal in them (facts).

In response to Zimmerman following him.
Zimmerman should have listened to the authorities and stayed in the car. It's obvious that Zimmerman is violent and a menace to society given his arrest record

Amazingfun

And he definitely didn't need to kill him.

Again: you don't know that. In fact what you know about this case could fit on a postage stamp it appears.

creolebelle

Amazingfun wrote: »

No you don't "know" that. No one knows what they would actually do until they find themselves in that very situation. Zimmerman did it and the family was very grateful.

And you've not read much if you think Zimmerman guilty in that case.

Here is a good video if you're not into reading back:

It's absolutely disgusting that people try to paint Zimmerman as some kind of hero because he shot an unarmed black teen walking home.
Does that video discuss zimmerman's numerous arrests for assault and domestic violence?

Tugboats

Haven't read the thread but has end of the road or egginacup said anything stupid yet?

end of the road

Amazingfun wrote: »

He didn't "murder" anyone. He was attacked and well within his rights to defend himself.

As for you "just knowing" you'd pull a family from a wreck.....please excuse me while I :pac: ! Sure ya would.

Just like the Micheal Brown case we have lunatics re-writing reality to suit their warped racial politics. Well sorry kids.....reality remains just that despite your delusions.

he instigate the attack then slaughtered a teenager i'd bet because the teenager was black. he has a history of violence and is vermin of the highest order.

end of the road

Amazingfun wrote: »

From an attack by Trayvon Martin as we all know. Hence the "not guilty" verdict

And you are a perfect example of what I spoke about re: the Mike Brown/Darren Wilson case. No matter how many times the facts were presented you insisted on adhering to a version of events that equates to sheer fantasy.

an attack he instigated himself. the not guilty verdect was either out of sympathy or some other agenda.

end of the road

Amazingfun wrote: »

Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman. These are the facts. The only truly relevant theme from both cases here is your refusal to deal in them (facts).

zimmerman instigated the attack

end of the road

Amazingfun wrote: »

Again: you don't know that. In fact what you know about this case could fit on a postage stamp it appears.

we definitely do know that

Egginacup

bb1234567 wrote: »

Not letting somebody die a horrible death doesn't make them a good person. Its actually kind of expected of a decent human being.
Not saying what he did wasn't brave, but I know I would do it. And it doesn't excuse him of the murder of a teenage boy.

Do you not know that the whole saving a family from a car wreck was fcuking staged?

That's how low this asshole is.

Egginacup

Amazingfun wrote: »

He didn't "murder" anyone. He was attacked and well within his rights to defend himself.

As for you "just knowing" you'd pull a family from a wreck.....please excuse me while I :pac: ! Sure ya would.

Just like the Micheal Brown case we have lunatics re-writing reality to suit their warped racial politics. Well sorry kids.....reality remains just that despite your delusions.

He says he was attacked. The guy is a racist asshole who when he's not looking for some n1ggers to shoot he's beating women or staging car rescues to make himself look heroic and glorious. Lying isn't something that would come especially difficult to this turd. Likewise with Wilson. He was so "terrified" of Michael Brown yet managed to put two bullets into the TOP of his head (i.e. Brown was on all fours) execution style. That's not re-writing reality, that IS reality.

You're the one who is IGNORING reality and concentrating on hearsay and whatif scenaria.

Amazingfun

Tugboats wrote: »

Haven't read the thread but has end of the road or egginacup said anything stupid yet?

:pac: Yes is now the clear (see above) answer :pac:

Egginacup

Amazingfun wrote: »

Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman. These are the facts. The only truly relevant theme from both cases here is your refusal to deal in them (facts).

Zimmerman SAYS Martin attacked him. Zimmerman is not credible. But since Martin is dead and there were no witnesses then there is an impasse.
It's just as plausible in fact more probable that if there was an altercation it was Martin who was defending himself from an initial provocation or attack by Zimmerman. Zimmerman is a racist deluded thug who gets off on bullying blacks and women.
If he took a dislike to you he would go out of his way to provoke a confrontation so he could pull a gun or a bat on you and put you in a wheelchair or a coffin. I've seen his type before.

Bootros Bootros

This country is far too obsessed with a brown guy from America and his lifestyle.

Meanwhile mass abductions in Mexico go unnoticed.

pmasterson95

A lot of people dont know the facts here....incredibly misinformed.

end of the road

pmasterson95 wrote: »

A lot of people dont know the facts here....incredibly misinformed.

very true. zimmerman is a violent bit of vermin who has no credibility and cannot be trusted

Bootros Bootros

end of the road wrote: »

very true. zimmerman is a violent bit of vermin who has no credibility and cannot be trusted

He's also a minor crim from a totally different country. Chill

Tugboats

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

He's also a minor crim from a totally different country. Chill

No chance of him chilling. His life revolves around people who are shot dead in America

Manic Moran

end of the road wrote: »

zimmerman instigated the attack

There is no evidence of this. There is no evidence he did not, either.

As for opinions, you can make your own out of circumstantial evidence.

The Aussie

Manic Moran wrote: »

As for opinions, you can make your own out of circumstantial evidence.

There is no question of doubt that the most extreme left wing version of events will be misconstrued out of what ever fantasy evidence is available to suit said extreme left wing agenda.

It's what makes reading his/it's posts so funny...

Amazingfun

Manic Moran wrote: »

There is no evidence of this. There is no evidence he did not, either.

As for opinions, you can make your own out of circumstantial evidence.

Not really true at all. There are not just vague opinions-there are logical conclusions to arrive at after carefully viewing the MOUNTAIN of circumstantial evidence (along with the physical evidence of Zimmerman's head being pounded into the pavement and the fatal gunshot fired happening whilst Martin was on top of him in the *ground n pound* MMA position). This is just one page of hundreds from this site's work on the case. These were texts from Martin's phone:

The text messages not only reflect his activities leading up to his encounter with George Zimmerman, but also provide further insight toward his behavioral teen issues of multiple school suspensions, fights on/off campus, drug use, “Lean drinking”, gun ownership/selling, etc., the same text messages also convey Trayvon’s values and outlook.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/05/23/trayvon-text-messages-george-zimmerman-defense-discovery-3rd-supplemental/comment-page-1/#comments

Egginacup

The Aussie wrote: »

There is no question of doubt that the most extreme left wing version of events will be misconstrued out of what ever fantasy evidence is available to suit said extreme left wing agenda.

It's what makes reading his/it's posts so funny...

What has "left" wing got to do with people who are outraged that this thug acts as he does? Do tell?
Are you saying that if you don't cheer on someone who kills someone else then you are a tree-hugger or something like that?

Manic Moran

Amazingfun wrote: »

Not really true at all. There are not just vague opinions-there are logical conclusions to arrive at after carefully viewing the MOUNTAIN of circumstantial evidence (along with the physical evidence of Zimmerman's head being pounded into the pavement and the fatal gunshot fired happening whilst Martin was on top of him in the *ground n pound* MMA position). This is just one page of hundreds from this site's work on the case.

That is how the fight ended. It is not a particularly valuable indicator as to how the fight started.

Amazingfun

Manic Moran wrote: »

That is how the fight ended. It is not a particularly valuable indicator as to how the fight started.

You left out my link. I purposely quoted the relevant info contained in the texts which gave background/info regarding Martin's actions and state of mind directly preceding the incident between himself and Zimmerman. That info is both particular and valuable in helping to discern what took place .

I'd also question your use of the word "fight" here. It's not at all an accurate descriptor given what took place. "Ambush" is better imo.

Amazingfun

And just like in the Darren Wilson case (he was cleared as well )....not a peep from the baying mobs was heard :rolleyes:

DOJ: No Civil Rights Charges Against George Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin Case
Eric Holder closes controversial case as his tenure as Attorney General winds down.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/02/24/doj-no-civil-rights-charges-against-george-zimmerman-in-trayvon-martin-case

Snickers Man

Here's one thing I've often wondered about the Trayvon Martin incident.
How would things have been viewed if just one fact was changed from the chain of events?

Many of those who take the side of Zimmerman try to say that the killing was justified because Trayvon was hitting him with his fists. Zimmerman had grounds to be worried about his health and well being, or even his life given that there was a gun at the scene--albeit his own--which might have been turned on him. So under Florida's "Stand your Ground" laws, he was legally entitled to shoot to kill the unarmed teenager.

Here are the uncontrovertible facts of the case.

1 Trayvon Martin was staying in the area as an invited guest
2 He had walked to the local candy store to buy a can of soda and a packet of sweets (corroborated by store CCTV)
3 He was walking home with his hoodie up. It was raining
4 He was talking on his cell phone to a friend (corroborated by friend and phone records)
5 Zimmerman saw him, became suspicious--for whatever reason--and called police (Corroborated by transcript and audio of phone call released by police)
6 Martin becomes aware of Zimmerman's presence, stares him out for a while and then turned and moved away (from transcript of Zimmerman call to police)
7 Zimmerman followed him, against advice of police dispatcher (phone call transcript)

What happened then we only know from Zimmerman's testimony but there was a fight, Martin was shot and killed. Zimmerman was tried but acquitted thanks largely to the Stand your Ground law.

Now let's change just one fact: So saying Trayvon Martin had a gun.

So saying when he moved away and Zimmerman followed him he pulled out his gun and shot Zimmerman dead.

The police arrive quickly as they were already on their way in response to Zimmerman's call. They see a black kid with a smoking gun and a white/latino guy with his head blown off.

Assuming (and this is not a foregone conclusion) they manage to apprehend Martin without further exchange of fire and question him about the shooting, how convincing would his case be?

"Officer I was minding my own business. Not doing any wrong. Just been to the candy store and was on my way home. I saw this guy staring at me. I moved away. He followed me. I don't know why. I ran. He came after me. I turned around. I could see he was carrying a gun. I was afraid for my life. I pulled out my pistol and shot him dead."

Would he have gotten away with it? Under Stand Your Ground, he should have been.

Seems to me that this too would be a classic example of an unnecessary but legal homicide made possible by Florida's dopey gun laws.

orubiru

Snickers Man wrote: »

Here's one thing I've often wondered about the Trayvon Martin incident.
How would things have been viewed if just one fact was changed from the chain of events?

Many of those who take the side of Zimmerman try to say that the killing was justified because Trayvon was hitting him with his fists. Zimmerman had grounds to be worried about his health and well being, or even his life given that there was a gun at the scene--albeit his own--which might have been turned on him. So under Florida's "Stand your Ground" laws, he was legally entitled to shoot to kill the unarmed teenager.

Here are the uncontrovertible facts of the case.

1 Trayvon Martin was staying in the area as an invited guest
2 He had walked to the local candy store to buy a can of soda and a packet of sweets (corroborated by store CCTV)
3 He was walking home with his hoodie up. It was raining
4 He was talking on his cell phone to a friend (corroborated by friend and phone records)
5 Zimmerman saw him, became suspicious--for whatever reason--and called police (Corroborated by transcript and audio of phone call released by police)
6 Martin becomes aware of Zimmerman's presence, stares him out for a while and then turned and moved away (from transcript of Zimmerman call to police)
7 Zimmerman followed him, against advice of police dispatcher (phone call transcript)

What happened then we only know from Zimmerman's testimony but there was a fight, Martin was shot and killed. Zimmerman was tried but acquitted thanks largely to the Stand your Ground law.

Now let's change just one fact: So saying Trayvon Martin had a gun.

So saying when he moved away and Zimmerman followed him he pulled out his gun and shot Zimmerman dead.

The police arrive quickly as they were already on their way in response to Zimmerman's call. They see a black kid with a smoking gun and a white/latino guy with his head blown off.

Assuming (and this is not a foregone conclusion) they manage to apprehend Martin without further exchange of fire and question him about the shooting, how convincing would his case be?

"Officer I was minding my own business. Not doing any wrong. Just been to the candy store and was on my way home. I saw this guy staring at me. I moved away. He followed me. I don't know why. I ran. He came after me. I turned around. I could see he was carrying a gun. I was afraid for my life. I pulled out my pistol and shot him dead."

Would he have gotten away with it? Under Stand Your Ground, he should have been.

Seems to me that this too would be a classic example of an unnecessary but legal homicide made possible by Florida's dopey gun laws.

I think you point out the only thing of any value that can possibly come from discussing this incident. That gun laws in the United States need to be reviewed and possibly changed.

I'm amazed that people allow themselves to become sucked into either side of the emotional argument so easily. You could spin this as a young boy gets shot while out buying skittles or you could spin it as a young thug attacks a man and the man shoots him in self defense. One story may be true. The other story may be true. Nobody really knows.

I don't believe that any argument will convince me that this killing was justified. If we look at the stories of both men I don't think we can get away from the suggestion that both men seem to be aggressive thugs. Martin was likely looking for any excuse to use his fists and Zimmerman was likely looking for any excuse to use his gun. The outcome was inevitable.

The only thing we can really take away is that if there was no gun in this situation then the chances of there being a fatality would have been significantly reduced.

end of the road

Snickers Man wrote: »

Here's one thing I've often wondered about the Trayvon Martin incident.
How would things have been viewed if just one fact was changed from the chain of events?

Many of those who take the side of Zimmerman try to say that the killing was justified because Trayvon was hitting him with his fists. Zimmerman had grounds to be worried about his health and well being, or even his life given that there was a gun at the scene--albeit his own--which might have been turned on him. So under Florida's "Stand your Ground" laws, he was legally entitled to shoot to kill the unarmed teenager.

Here are the uncontrovertible facts of the case.

1 Trayvon Martin was staying in the area as an invited guest
2 He had walked to the local candy store to buy a can of soda and a packet of sweets (corroborated by store CCTV)
3 He was walking home with his hoodie up. It was raining
4 He was talking on his cell phone to a friend (corroborated by friend and phone records)
5 Zimmerman saw him, became suspicious--for whatever reason--and called police (Corroborated by transcript and audio of phone call released by police)
6 Martin becomes aware of Zimmerman's presence, stares him out for a while and then turned and moved away (from transcript of Zimmerman call to police)
7 Zimmerman followed him, against advice of police dispatcher (phone call transcript)

What happened then we only know from Zimmerman's testimony but there was a fight, Martin was shot and killed. Zimmerman was tried but acquitted thanks largely to the Stand your Ground law.

Now let's change just one fact: So saying Trayvon Martin had a gun.

So saying when he moved away and Zimmerman followed him he pulled out his gun and shot Zimmerman dead.

The police arrive quickly as they were already on their way in response to Zimmerman's call. They see a black kid with a smoking gun and a white/latino guy with his head blown off.

Assuming (and this is not a foregone conclusion) they manage to apprehend Martin without further exchange of fire and question him about the shooting, how convincing would his case be?

"Officer I was minding my own business. Not doing any wrong. Just been to the candy store and was on my way home. I saw this guy staring at me. I moved away. He followed me. I don't know why. I ran. He came after me. I turned around. I could see he was carrying a gun. I was afraid for my life. I pulled out my pistol and shot him dead."

Would he have gotten away with it? Under Stand Your Ground, he should have been.

Seems to me that this too would be a classic example of an unnecessary but legal homicide made possible by Florida's dopey gun laws.

i'd say no, not a chance would he have got away with it.

Manic Moran

Snickers Man wrote: »

Here's one thing I've often wondered about the Trayvon Martin incident.

This may be something of a failing in your hypothetical:

Zimmerman was tried but acquitted thanks largely to the Stand your Ground law.

No, he was not. SYG, though often brought up in commentary on the issue, was not a factor in the case.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/floridas-stand-ground-law-determine-zimmerman-dunn-cases/story?id=22543929

As in the case of George Zimmerman, acquitted in the killing of Trayvon Martin, the public outrage was often directed or misdirected, at the Florida law.

Many, including legal commentators who should know better, repeatedly citing the statute as a crucial issue in both cases.

And yet neither defendant invoked the controversial aspects of Florida's law. In fact, both defendants argued basic self defense law that would have been similar in just about every state in the nation.

or...
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/despite-outcry-zimmermans-acquittal-was-not-based-on-stand-your-ground-laws/2131629

But the woman, identified only as Juror B37, also said she had "no doubt" Zimmerman feared for his life in the final moments of his struggle with Trayvon Martin, and that was the definitive factor in the verdict. The juror spoke to CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 on Monday.

That matched the assessment of legal experts who earlier Monday were describing the verdict on Saturday as the result of successful, garden-variety self-defense arguments that could sway a jury in any state.

Though these observers said Florida's expanded self-defense law, which says citizens can "stand their ground" rather than retreat in the face of a deadly threat has emboldened citizens to take unnecessary risks and led to an increase in homicides, they detected little impact on the Zimmerman case.

Or maybe http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/20/the-stand-your-ground-law-and-the-zimmerman-trial/

However, it is my comment about the SYG law that I wanted to address. There is a common misunderstanding about the case. Many people believe that SYG was used as a defense. This mistaken view has been reinforced by people, including the President, calling for a national campaign against the law. (To his credit, he did not expressly claim that the law played a role at trial). In fact, the defense elected to present a traditional case of self-defense. SYG was waived pre-trial by the defense, which did not seek immunity under the law.

(These articles also cover the 'Jury Instructions' argument)

Would Martin have been unconvicted in such a hypothetical? Perhaps. I'm not devoting many brain cycles to it. But the hypothetical is not analogous to Zimmerman's defense, which was a shooting in the midst of an actual combat.

Snickers Man

Manic Moran wrote: »

This may be something of a failing in your hypothetical:
......

SYG, though often brought up in commentary on the issue, was not a factor in the case.

OK. Split hair conceded. It wasn't Stand Your Ground that permitted Zimmerman to shoot Martin dead. It was just bog-standard self defence,(or defense) as it is understood in America in general and, in this case, Florida in particular.

It doesn't change my argument at all. As a juror in the Martin case put it in one of the links you posted: 'Juror B37, also said she had "no doubt" Zimmerman feared for his life in the final moments of his struggle with Trayvon Martin, and that was the definitive factor in the verdict.'

So if you genuinely fear for your life you can use deadly force against your perceived attacker.

So if you are a young person frightened because you are being stalked and menaced by an armed stranger who has jumped to all manner of hasty conclusions and you defend yourself by punching him, he can shoot you dead with impunity. But if you are equally as frightened by the stranger's actions and you are carrying a gun, YOU can shoot HIM with impunity?

God Bless America :rolleyes:

Manic Moran

Snickers Man wrote: »

OK. Split hair conceded. It wasn't Stand Your Ground that permitted Zimmerman to shoot Martin dead. It was just bog-standard self defence,(or defense) as it is understood in America in general and, in this case, Florida in particular.

It doesn't change my argument at all. As a juror in the Martin case put it in one of the links you posted: 'Juror B37, also said she had "no doubt" Zimmerman feared for his life in the final moments of his struggle with Trayvon Martin, and that was the definitive factor in the verdict.'

So if you genuinely fear for your life you can use deadly force against your perceived attacker.

So if you are a young person frightened because you are being stalked and menaced by an armed stranger who has jumped to all manner of hasty conclusions and you defend yourself by punching him, he can shoot you dead with impunity. But if you are equally as frightened by the stranger's actions and you are carrying a gun, YOU can shoot HIM with impunity?

God Bless America :rolleyes:

The standard of self defense used wasn't only in Florida. If you're in fear of your life in Ireland and belive it necessary to sue lethal force, homicide is justifiable too.

It is also probable that in your scenario, Martin would remain uncharged.

Let's ignore the Zimmerman thing, and go to a more 'neutral' hypothetical. One I can relate to because I'm very tall, walk very quickly, and wear soft-soled shoes so I'm very quiet. I've scared the bejesus out of people in dark alleys.

A woman is walking to her car/house/whatever down the public road. Maybe after a show. It's dark, it's a back city street. A man comes up behind her, fairly quickly. Woman hears him close when he's maybe two or three paces behind. (This has happened to me). looks back over her shoulder, sees a tall male walking with a sense of purpose and speed, catching quickly. Woman is justifiably concerned for her safety,

Is she allowed under any circumstance in either Ireland or any U.S. state to pre-emptively strike out? No. Of course not. Mere nervousness is not a justification for the use of force.

Yet if that man attempts to physically grab her, would she be entitled to strike? Absolutely, and if in the course of the fight reasonable force resulted in the death of the male, so be it.

But what happens if she said that the man attempted to grab her when no such thing happened? And if her wild strike made in her genuine and honest fear,misinterpreting the man's purposeful stride, resulted in the man's breaking his neck, or nose bone in brain or whatever? If there is no physical evidence to prove her wrong, and no witnesses, then, yes, she's just gotten away with an unlawful killing. In, I would argue, pretty much any jurisdiction in the Western world.

This is no different from your hypothetical. Convictions are granted on the basis of what can be proven. This is not some weird quirk of a bizarre American legal structure, it's the basic foundation of the best legal system western civilisation has implemented so far: As long as it cannot be shown that it is unlikely that you were in reasonable fear, you are innocent.

Snickers Man

Manic Moran wrote: »

what happens if she said that the man attempted to grab her when no such thing happened? And if her wild strike made in her genuine and honest fear,misinterpreting the man's purposeful stride, resulted in the man's breaking his neck, or nose bone in brain or whatever? If there is no physical evidence to prove her wrong, and no witnesses, then, yes, she's just gotten away with an unlawful killing. In, I would argue, pretty much any jurisdiction in the Western world.

This is no different from your hypothetical. Convictions are granted on the basis of what can be proven. This is not some weird quirk of a bizarre American legal structure, it's the basic foundation of the best legal system western civilisation has implemented so far: As long as it cannot be shown that it is unlikely that you were in reasonable fear, you are innocent.

I absolutely accept that in any democratic society living under the rule of law the benefit of the doubt in a trial MUST be given to the accused and that such viewpoint pertains in Europe, N America and elsewhere.

At the same time, some corroborative evidence other than "the man was in my close proximity" would be needed before a woman was acquitted of serious assault or manslaughter.

I think the massive difference between the two hypothetical cases (yours and mine) is the amount of lethal force allowed in either instance.

You are equating, in material terms, a diminutive woman lashing out in fear - real or imagined- at a much larger, if light-footed, male in close proximity to the act of discharging a firearm at somebody at point blank range. Either MAY result in death or serious injury but in the former case that is highly unlikely whereas in the latter case it is almost a certainty.

I question whether a woman who lashed out at a man causing his death would be exonerated without some extra corroborative evidence that she had grounds to fear for her life. In the scenario you give the man is entirely innocent, has made no threatening moves other than be in her proximity and she had little grounds for fear. The woman would have to have at least some further evidence that she had grounds to fear for her safety.

In the scenario I painted, assuming, as I said, that all the actions leading up to the point where Zimmerman left his car to follow/chase Martin happened as they did with the only hypothetical difference being that Martin shot Zimmerman and not the other way round, what would a subsequent police investigation have found?

That Martin was doing what he said he was doing - walking home from the candy store and talking on his phone
That Zimmerman had suspected him of being up to no good. (The police would have known this from the telephone conversation)
That Zimmerman was armed.
That Zimmerman had left his car to follow Martin on foot.

They, and I suggest any fair minded non racially biased jury, would probably have concluded that there was a high probability that Zimmerman was acting menacingly towards a young man he had suspected, wrongly, of having malicious intent towards the neighbourhood and that he may indeed have been behaving in a manner likely to give Martin reasonable grounds for believing his life was in danger.

The fact that both men were armed, in this hypothetical scenario, would have led one or other to be shot and killed.

Guns don't kill people. A paranoid populace kill people. Its own people and in vast numbers. Paranoid prats empowered with lethal force beyond their ability to use sanely and reasonably, and supported by anachronistic laws and a perverse notion of liberty.

asherbassad

Manic Moran wrote: »

The standard of self defense used wasn't only in Florida. If you're in fear of your life in Ireland and belive it necessary to sue lethal force, homicide is justifiable too.

It is also probable that in your scenario, Martin would remain uncharged.

Let's ignore the Zimmerman thing, and go to a more 'neutral' hypothetical. One I can relate to because I'm very tall, walk very quickly, and wear soft-soled shoes so I'm very quiet. I've scared the bejesus out of people in dark alleys.

A woman is walking to her car/house/whatever down the public road. Maybe after a show. It's dark, it's a back city street. A man comes up behind her, fairly quickly. Woman hears him close when he's maybe two or three paces behind. (This has happened to me). looks back over her shoulder, sees a tall male walking with a sense of purpose and speed, catching quickly. Woman is justifiably concerned for her safety,

Is she allowed under any circumstance in either Ireland or any U.S. state to pre-emptively strike out? No. Of course not. Mere nervousness is not a justification for the use of force.

Yet if that man attempts to physically grab her, would she be entitled to strike? Absolutely, and if in the course of the fight reasonable force resulted in the death of the male, so be it.

But what happens if she said that the man attempted to grab her when no such thing happened? And if her wild strike made in her genuine and honest fear,misinterpreting the man's purposeful stride, resulted in the man's breaking his neck, or nose bone in brain or whatever? If there is no physical evidence to prove her wrong, and no witnesses, then, yes, she's just gotten away with an unlawful killing. In, I would argue, pretty much any jurisdiction in the Western world.

This is no different from your hypothetical. Convictions are granted on the basis of what can be proven. This is not some weird quirk of a bizarre American legal structure, it's the basic foundation of the best legal system western civilisation has implemented so far: As long as it cannot be shown that it is unlikely that you were in reasonable fear, you are innocent.

I think you'll find that the American legal system, far from being the best, is one of the most flawed in western civiisation.

asherbassad

orubiru wrote: »

I think you point out the only thing of any value that can possibly come from discussing this incident. That gun laws in the United States need to be reviewed and possibly changed.

I'm amazed that people allow themselves to become sucked into either side of the emotional argument so easily. You could spin this as a young boy gets shot while out buying skittles or you could spin it as a young thug attacks a man and the man shoots him in self defense. One story may be true. The other story may be true. Nobody really knows.

I don't believe that any argument will convince me that this killing was justified. If we look at the stories of both men I don't think we can get away from the suggestion that both men seem to be aggressive thugs. Martin was likely looking for any excuse to use his fists and Zimmerman was likely looking for any excuse to use his gun. The outcome was inevitable.

The only thing we can really take away is that if there was no gun in this situation then the chances of there being a fatality would have been significantly reduced.

Americans are obsessed with inflicting maximum violence even if it's completely unwarranted if they know they can get away with it. I've seen it myself. There's never a pause to think of whether your actions are necessary. I've seen guys severely injure smaller guys at a party or barbecue just because they could argue that they felt threatened. No threat was there, couple of guys were horseplaying around with a water soaker. Some other knucklehead got bumped into and rammed the guy into the ground breaking his arm and collarbone. When people stared at him in bewilderment and shock he claimed he thought he was being attacked......at a fucking backyard party!!!. That's the kind of shithead cowardly attitude that is so prevalent in the US. It permeates the police forces, it permeates society in general and it's the reason you can just kill at will. Because Americans are so frightened of everything all you have to say is that you feared for your safety, they will relate to this fear, and back you up, support you, or acquit you if you are on trial and they are jury members.

Amazingfun

Americans are obsessed with inflicting maximum violence even if it's completely unwarranted

Yeah, know what you mean, thought the same thing when I watched this on my newsfeed this am:


http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/Brutal-Beating-Video-Goes-Viral-328571431.html

Snickers Man

Ah now lads. We can't be too precious about that.

Here are some fine specimens of Irish womanhood having a disagreement.

(It's the "Ate her Kelleeee!" video which you've probably all seen if you're worried it might be NSFW )

Just as well we don't let these brazzers have guns, eh?

MadsL

asherbassad wrote: »

it's the reason you can just kill at will.

Errmmm...no. No you cannot kill at will. Nope.

Nice rant though.

MadsL

asherbassad wrote: »

I think you'll find that the American legal system, far from being the best, is one of the most flawed in western civiisation.

Yeah?

Yeah?

Yeah?

Badly Drunk Boy

donvito99 wrote: »

And yes, I know it's Fox News. Shows what an upstanding member of the Floridian community he is. First publicly visiting gun factories and now threatening his own wife.

Is this simply more 'Murica or does it point yet again to a shambles of a situation?

Why is there the constant fascination with America here?