Zimmerman Trial

Use this forum to suggest topics, and to find others to debate with.

Zimmerman Trial

Postby Stuart » Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:19 pm

I believe the jury made the right decision, so is anyone taking the other side interested? We could start by each stating the issues of the case we find most relevant, then as we alternate posts we could both add more issues to our argument and address those of the other. I like the idea of limiting each post to a short paragraph, maybe no more than twice the size of this one.
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby jonquil » Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:39 pm

Did Trayvon get justice?
User avatar
jonquil
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3546
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Greenest city in the world!

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:08 pm

sounds like a cool idea, first stalk someone, then shoot them then get away with it.
Justice indeed. I have a list of states that have mind numbing bad ideas and I will
not go to those states, fla has just entered that list.

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7452
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Stuart » Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:32 pm

jonquil wrote:Did Trayvon get justice?


Certainly not, but going by what I know of the law and the particular case in question I think the right verdict was made, do you want to argue against that based on the merits of the case?
Last edited by Stuart on Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Stuart » Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:37 pm

Peter Kropotkin wrote:Justice indeed.


I agree with your sentiment, but I also believe there would have been a greater injustice if there was a guilty verdict.

I have a list of states that have mind numbing bad ideas and I will
not go to those states, fla has just entered that list.


I agree that some of the fla laws relevant to the case are mind numbingly bad, nonetheless they being what they are I have to believe that the non guilty verdict was correct.
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:00 pm

Stuart, if your whole argument is going to be centered on the overcharging of Zimmerman by the prosecution, then overall this whole thing will be relatively vapid.

I have to ask the same question as Jonquil. And I might also add the question as to whether or not you believe that Zimmerman is responsible for the death of Martin, (technical definitions of murder nothwithstanding).
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25948
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby jonquil » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:23 pm

Stuartp523 wrote:
jonquil wrote:Did Trayvon get justice?


Certainly not, but going by what I know of the law and the particular case in question I think the right verdict was made, do you want to argue against that based on the merits of the case?


Did the Judge give proper instructions to the jury about the legal ramifications of self-defense being null when the so-called self-defender was the provoker of the attack on an unarmed teen who had been doing nothing wrong in the first place? The answer to that, btw, is no.
User avatar
jonquil
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3546
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Greenest city in the world!

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby jonquil » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:26 pm

Peter Kropotkin wrote:sounds like a cool idea, first stalk someone, then shoot them then get away with it.
Justice indeed. I have a list of states that have mind numbing bad ideas and I will
not go to those states, fla has just entered that list.


From everything I've read about this case, it was mishandled from the beginning due to racial bias. Not only that, but in the most bizarre surreal way, the victim was turned into the accused. Justice was very poorly served here, completely mangled actually.
User avatar
jonquil
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3546
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Greenest city in the world!

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby _________ » Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:13 pm

I appear to be included among the potential opposition, and I can't for the life of me divine why. I thought I was expressing considerable doubt in the efficacy of the law to assist the defender; "...and to be as clear as possible, I find no fault with the jury's decision within the purview of the rules that govern the criminal justice system." Though we may recognize non-physical forms of violence and/or aggression, the court evidently does not--or lacked substantial evidence. Thus, because all Zimmerman has to do is say he was attacked and feared for his life, there are no grounds for murder in the 2nd or manslaughter, regardless of who followed whom or any other factors we may or may not attribute. Here are some definitions,

2nd Degree Murder
-Murder with a Depraved Mind: Murder with a Depraved Mind occurs when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life.
(accomplice felony 2nd degree is inapplicable)

Manslaughter
-Manslaughter by Act (Voluntary Manslaughter): Committing an intentional act that was neither excusable, nor justified that resulted in the death of another person.
-Manslaughter by Procurement (Voluntary Manslaughter): Persuading, inducing, or encouraging another person to commit an act that resulted in the death of another person.
-Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence (Involuntary Manslaughter): Engaging in “Culpably Negligent” conduct that resulted in the death of another person.

(definitions courtesy of http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes)

I would argue that deliberately acting contrary to the advisement of a police entity, confronting, and subsequently shooting another human constitutes "recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death," but self-defense appears to trump all. That's irrelevant anyway; my argument's against the law, not the verdict.
______________
Your Signature Here
_________
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:10 am
Location: _________

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby statiktech » Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:45 pm

jonquil wrote:
Stuartp523 wrote:
jonquil wrote:Did Trayvon get justice?


Certainly not, but going by what I know of the law and the particular case in question I think the right verdict was made, do you want to argue against that based on the merits of the case?


Did the Judge give proper instructions to the jury about the legal ramifications of self-defense being null when the so-called self-defender was the provoker of the attack on an unarmed teen who had been doing nothing wrong in the first place? The answer to that, btw, is no.


This sort of thinking confuses me. He didn't provoke any attack. Since when is being followed grounds for attacking someone? I understand his outrage at the notion of being followed by some stranger, but there were better ways to handle the situation than turning it into a physical confrontation. Even if Zimmerman did more than just follow him—if he actually did provoke a fight in some way—nobody could ever prove it.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Stuart » Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:17 pm

I'm sorry _________, I read only part of the first post you made in the other thread and came to the wrong conclusion about your position.

Smears wrote:Stuart, if your whole argument is going to be centered on the overcharging of Zimmerman by the prosecution, then overall this whole thing will be relatively vapid.


I have yet to hear an argument from anyone for charging him with anything.

I have to ask the same question as Jonquil. And I might also add the question as to whether or not you believe that Zimmerman is responsible for the death of Martin, (technical definitions of murder nothwithstanding).


I don't know if he's responsible in a non legal sense. I don't like that it's legal to carry a gun around in public, concealed or not. It seems dangerous and reckless in almost any circumstance. But, based on almost any type of moral judgment I could make he hardly seems to be on a different level than others who carry a gun around in public regularly.
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Orbie » Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:42 pm

Stuart: there is a police-legal claws which is on the books and it pertains to rights versus responsibilities of both parties to an altercation.

The first one pertains to the need to escape versus the right to stand by and defend.

The second one is a rule which says in a defensive posture, one party in the altercation, can not use a method of force more than the other uses.

Both of these rules are subject to the circumstances.
Because the witnesses all had differing views of what constituted the altercation, the rules could be modified.

However, was zimmerman blocked from retreating or moving away from the area of conflict? Could he have safely done so?


Was zimmerman's use of a gun prescribe to the notion of the parity of use between the effects of a lethal agency(gun) and that of bare hands,and a knife?

My conclusion would be, even without knowing about the crime scene, that this jury either did not understand the judge's instructions, or, were not given understandable instructions, or were prejudicial in their take of the various conflicting and inconsistent interpretations given by both state and defense witnesses.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby uglypeoplefucking » Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:52 pm

_________ wrote:My argument's against the law, not the verdict.


If the known and undisputed facts of the case aren't enough to send Zimmerman to jail for at least manslaughter, then my argument is with the law as well.

statiktech wrote:This sort of thinking confuses me. He didn't provoke any attack. Since when is being followed grounds for attacking someone? I understand his outrage at the notion of being followed by some stranger, but there were better ways to handle the situation than turning it into a physical confrontation. Even if Zimmerman did more than just follow him—if he actually did provoke a fight in some way—nobody could ever prove it.


He provoked an attack by getting out of his car with a gun and confronting Martin, with hostility and prejudice that is evident from his statements to the 911 dispatcher and from his behavior, particularly his ignoring the dispatcher's command to stay in the car.

The real threat in the wake of this verdict is that it paves the way for more George Zimmermans. Judges, juries, and executioners all rolled into one.
i am brilliant, you are stupid. Therefore, you are wrong.
uglypeoplefucking
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4147
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:47 pm
Location: throughout

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Stuart » Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:00 pm

obe wrote:Was zimmerman's use of a gun prescribe to the notion of the parity of use between the effects of a lethal agency(gun) and that of bare hands,and a knife?


I don't know and I don't think the jury knew which is in part why I believe they didn't think that their was enough evidence.
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Stuart » Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:09 pm

uglypeoplefucking wrote:He provoked an attack by getting out of his car with a gun and confronting Martin, with hostility and prejudice that is evident from his statements to the 911 dispatcher and from his behavior


I don't think that was conclusively established.

particularly his ignoring the dispatcher's command to stay in the car.


I don't believe it was a command and I doubt the dispatcher had that type of authority. Also, the dispatcher had been less the direct in his recommendation, he said something like, 'you don't need to do that'. Furthermore, I believe the dispatcher had told him twice before something to the effect that he wished that Zimmerman keep Martin in sight.
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:11 pm

It's common knowledge that you ought to do what the 911 operator says to do. That's some pretty shaky ground Stu.

Zimmerman got out of his car after making it clear he wanted to confront the kid. If he had went along with what most reasonable people would have done, then he would have stopped following the kid, and there would have been no possibility of a confrontation. If the kid tried to attack him, he could have driven away.

If you told me that this guy ran over a kid with his car, and that you found a gun in the kid's hand, that'd be different.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25948
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Stuart » Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:24 pm

Smears wrote:It's common knowledge that you ought to do what the 911 operator says to do. That's some pretty shaky ground Stu.


It was a non-emergency dispatcher, though I would agree that even then it is common knowledge that one should listen, but as I said the dispatcher was less than direct. If the dispatcher had said, 'Do not leave your car,' then I would be second guessing my view on this case. And if it happened to be illegal to disobey the non-emergency dispatcher then I would likely concede that the jury was wrong.

Zimmerman got out of his car after making it clear he wanted to confront the kid.


I can't argue with that specifically because I don't what evidence you're basing that statement on.

If he had went along with what most reasonable people would have done, then he would have stopped following the kid, and there would have been no possibility of a confrontation.


It may appear that he was being unreasonable, but I don't know that it was established, and even if it was I don't believe it would definitively make the case.
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby statiktech » Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:11 am

He provoked an attack by getting out of his car with a gun and confronting Martin, with hostility and prejudice that is evident from his statements to the 911 dispatcher and from his behavior, particularly his ignoring the dispatcher's command to stay in the car.

The real threat in the wake of this verdict is that it paves the way for more George Zimmermans. Judges, juries, and executioners all rolled into one.


I thought Martin confronted Zimmerman.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Orbie » Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:49 am

statiktech wrote:
He provoked an attack by getting out of his car with a gun and confronting Martin, with hostility and prejudice that is evident from his statements to the 911 dispatcher and from his behavior, particularly his ignoring the dispatcher's command to stay in the car.

The real threat in the wake of this verdict is that it paves the way for more George Zimmermans. Judges, juries, and executioners all rolled into one.


I thought Martin confronted Zimmerman.






Thaat's the point. No one really knows who caused the initial confrontation. But it looks from all that's been said and done, that responsibility shifts toward Zimmerman.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:18 am

statiktech wrote:
He provoked an attack by getting out of his car with a gun and confronting Martin, with hostility and prejudice that is evident from his statements to the 911 dispatcher and from his behavior, particularly his ignoring the dispatcher's command to stay in the car.

The real threat in the wake of this verdict is that it paves the way for more George Zimmermans. Judges, juries, and executioners all rolled into one.


I thought Martin confronted Zimmerman.


No. Zimmerman was in his car. Then the 911 operator told him not to follow Martin. Then he got out of his car, followed him, and shot him for some reason. I guess it's self defense. I don't see how when you were the one following the kid.

We know that Zimmerman was in his car. We know that he got out of his car. We know that he was in close proximity to this kid after he was instructed not to follow.

I think getting out of your car and continuing to follow the kid makes Zimmerman the aggressor.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25948
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Orbie » Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:26 am

Smears wrote:
statiktech wrote:
He provoked an attack by getting out of his car with a gun and confronting Martin, with hostility and prejudice that is evident from his statements to the 911 dispatcher and from his behavior, particularly his ignoring the dispatcher's command to stay in the car.

The real threat in the wake of this verdict is that it paves the way for more George Zimmerman. Judges, juries, and executioners all rolled into one.


I thought Martin confronted Zimmerman.


No. Zimmerman was in his car. Then the 911 operator told him not to follow Martin. Then he got out of his car, followed him, and shot him for some reason. I guess it's self defense. I don't see how when you were the one following the kid.

We know that Zimmerman was in his car. We know that he got out of his car. We know that he was in close proximity to this kid after he was instructed not to follow.

I think getting out of your car and continuing to follow the kid makes Zimmerman the aggressor.





Smears: the kid may have provoked a man already on edge, maybe he was hassled by his mother in law or whatever that morning, and road raged on his way to work, the boss may have ticked him off, he may have had gastritis and constipation, so when the kid comes on the scene, the guy goes berserk , and tries to indicate to the kid that he is on his last limb, and at this point the kid goes berserk and gives him the finger, throws rocks, whatever, so he goes after the kid because he just simply can't face his mother in law as a shlump again. He goes after the kid, but not intending to do him harm but to teach him a lesson.


What about this scenario?
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:29 am

In that case, you've got a grown man who can't control his emotions who is killing kids in the street because he can't deal with his own life.

If Martin had been stealing something, or had been vandalizing something, or had been known to have been wanted for a crime, then it'd be a whole different story.

But he wasn't. He was a 17 year old kid walking home who got harassed. When he stood up for himself, he got killed.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25948
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby jonquil » Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:07 am

uglypeoplefucking wrote:
_________ wrote:My argument's against the law, not the verdict.


If the known and undisputed facts of the case aren't enough to send Zimmerman to jail for at least manslaughter, then my argument is with the law as well.

statiktech wrote:This sort of thinking confuses me. He didn't provoke any attack. Since when is being followed grounds for attacking someone? I understand his outrage at the notion of being followed by some stranger, but there were better ways to handle the situation than turning it into a physical confrontation. Even if Zimmerman did more than just follow him—if he actually did provoke a fight in some way—nobody could ever prove it.


He provoked an attack by getting out of his car with a gun and confronting Martin, with hostility and prejudice that is evident from his statements to the 911 dispatcher and from his behavior, particularly his ignoring the dispatcher's command to stay in the car.

The real threat in the wake of this verdict is that it paves the way for more George Zimmermans. Judges, juries, and executioners all rolled into one.


Agree. The whole system was gamed against justice for Trayvon from day one of the incident. Not only that, but the case is now being distorted and propagandized so that the truth has become completely pretzelized. Trayvon was just a normal kid, unarmed, walking home from the store; a kid who was profiled and stalked and killed by a crazed racist vigilante with a gun. Even the National Bar Association has come out to say that Trayvon did not receive justice.
User avatar
jonquil
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3546
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Greenest city in the world!

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Stuart » Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:55 am

Smears and Jonquil, it's one thing if you want to insist that generally speaking the sentiment of the non-emergency responder was that Zimmerman shouldn't have gotten out of his car, but I assume neither of you intend on having a debate based on the evidence when you continue to assume the non-emergency dispatcher was a 911 operator despite that I politely mentioned otherwise.

I want to say as I did elsewhere that I don't normally speak about court trials, I generally don't speak on current events at all, but I'd like to think that when I do I have a reasonable amount of knowledge of what's going on. If I don't, I'm not afraid to say I have no opinion and in the past I've admitted to being out of my depth on aspects of debates I've been in.

Someone only needs to show me what evidence there is that clearly implies his guilt and I will change my opinion, after all I haven't watched the entire trial and I have no in-depth knowledge of law.
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:23 am

Stuart.....why do you think ZImmerman got our of his car?
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25948
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Next

Return to Challenges



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users