The Zimmerman case?

[elusive4]

Zimmerman just got away with murder.

you must operate under an entirely different english definition of 'murder' to make such a claim.

the prosecution's star witness even admitted that the victim was home and then had decided to "go back"; implying to confront instead of remaining within the security of his home.

[delet...]

I agree that zimmerman had a strong case, however i don't want to get branded by this topic.

 

/exits thread tout suite

[elusive4]

what's comical is for how many intelligent souls who have the high-horse, self-proclaimed "awareness" of the "evil media" somehow fall from hook to line to sinker to victim and spoon fed exactly what they wanted to hear on this occasion. this case is more about the media than the actual event; many full on took the bait from the day the story broke (and before a schred of evidence had been made public) - that a "wanna-be cop" was racially profiling a young, harmless "boy" and had motive to take action. yet when the dust settled, many essentially had to double down on their original, emotionally-charged opinion for fear of amitting they made poor judgement on false pretenses (helplessly spoon fed by the very "media" they claim as "evil"). unable to admit they are still human and susceptable to emotionally charged, mob/herd mentality.

 

the worst? with the substancial publicity of this case, look how many still don't even have some of the most basic and fundamental facts even remotely in the ballpark of what actually took place.

[goDel]

again though, just show us why there was a good account on what had happened.

 

the only argument made here in this thread, is that there isn't a good account. so instead of taking the route of kicking against those incompetent souls, just present us with your case. makes your life easier as well, because you don't have to go all "ad hominem" at us.

[SR4]

there wasn't a good account of what happened; that's why zimmerman walked.

 

 

He's not innocent, he was found not guilty. Honestly the blame should be put on the prosecution for kowtowing to protest and media attention and going for a charge they couldn't possibly have successfully pulled.

 

 

Also keep in mind Zimmerman will still be facing trial for perjury (which he will almost certainly be found guilty), as well as a molestation charge from another unrelated case.

[essines]

what's comical is for how many intelligent souls who have the high-horse, self-proclaimed "awareness" of the "evil media" somehow fall from hook to line to sinker to victim and spoon fed exactly what they wanted to hear on this occasion. this case is more about the media than the actual event; many full on took the bait from the day the story broke (and before a schred of evidence had been made public) - that a "wanna-be cop" was racially profiling a young, harmless "boy" and had motive to take action. yet when the dust settled, many essentially had to double down on their original, emotionally-charged opinion for fear of amitting they made poor judgement on false pretenses (helplessly spoon fed by the very "media" they claim as "evil"). unable to admit they are still human and susceptable to emotionally charged, mob/herd mentality.

 

the worst? with the substancial publicity of this case, look how many still don't even have some of the most basic and fundamental facts even remotely in the ballpark of what actually took place.

the fuck are you talking about

[SR4]

he has a point that a lot of this disappointment was inevitable when most people decided to emotionally side with, well, a side than to consider how the legal system actually works when confronted with an astounding lack of evidence. Innocent til proven guilty, not the other way around, like it or lump it.

 

but to say that anyone other than Zimmerman or Martin has the fleshed out story is just pulling shit out of their ass.

[goDel]

he has a point that a lot of this disappointment was inevitable when most people decided to emotionally side with, well, a side than to consider how the legal system actually works when confronted with an astounding lack of evidence. Innocent til proven guilty, not the other way around, like it or lump it.

 

but to say that anyone other than Zimmerman or Martin has the fleshed out story is just pulling shit out of their ass.

Innocent til proven guilty, indeed.

 

He was "guilty" of shooting/killing Martin, right? So shouldn't the question be: "why would zimmerman be innocent if he killed martin?".

 

Instead, we've been presented with a case without a good account (lets put an IMO here) where the sole survivor says he acted out of self-defense. And where the prosecution had to prove zimmermans "guilt" (here meaning: he was not acting out of self defense). As far as I'm concerned, I'm completely neutral about whether or not that was actually the case. I have no opinion about that, nor do I intend to.

 

I think it's odd that in another case someone got a full 20 years for shooting a hole in a wall, and in this case someone walked away free. Comparing those cases is apples and oranges, of course. But in the context of "gun laws", it presents a pretty inconsistent picture. Again, from the point of view from a stupid half informed outsider. (could post a baby picture here...)

 

But I'm sure elusive can explain to me why it's obvious someone gets thrown into jail for 20 years while the other goes free. After he tells me how stupid I am, that is. And because he so aptly did that already, I'm looking forward to his contribution in terms of content.

[Guest A/D]

Yeah. I haven't done extensive research on the trial. Nor do I have much familiarity with Florida law. But from what I've read, the result is fair enough in that context.

 

I still think Zimmerman is ultimately responsible for starting the unfortunate chain of events, in a philosophical sense. I don't know if he can be held legally liable for this. But in a broader sense, I hope that people with guns will not have the law on their side when they follow someone randomly, especially when told by police not to.

 

Looking up the perjury stuff now, wasn't familiar with that aspect.

[SR4]

 

he has a point that a lot of this disappointment was inevitable when most people decided to emotionally side with, well, a side than to consider how the legal system actually works when confronted with an astounding lack of evidence. Innocent til proven guilty, not the other way around, like it or lump it.

 

but to say that anyone other than Zimmerman or Martin has the fleshed out story is just pulling shit out of their ass.

Innocent til proven guilty, indeed.

 

He was "guilty" of shooting/killing Martin, right? So shouldn't the question be: "why would zimmerman be innocent if he killed martin?".

 

Instead, we've been presented with a case without a good account (lets put an IMO here) where the sole survivor says he acted out of self-defense. And where the prosecution had to prove zimmermans "guilt" (here meaning: he was not acting out of self defense). As far as I'm concerned, I'm completely neutral about whether or not that was actually the case. I have no opinion about that, nor do I intend to.

 

I think it's odd that in another case someone got a full 20 years for shooting a hole in a wall, and in this case someone walked away free. Comparing those cases is apples and oranges, of course. But in the context of "gun laws", it presents a pretty inconsistent picture. Again, from the point of view from a stupid half informed outsider. (could post a baby picture here...)

 

But I'm sure elusive can explain to me why it's obvious someone gets thrown into jail for 20 years while the other goes free. After he tells me how stupid I am, that is. And because he so aptly did that already, I'm looking forward to his contribution in terms of content.

 

 

well the jury was neutral about whether or not that was actually the case. hence the not guilty verdict.

 

the 20 years thing is a completely different situation. why? well, because florida law states that you cannot fire "warning shots". you have to shoot to kill or at the very least, shoot at the attacker to prevent them from inflicting gross bodily harm. you also have two accounts (that i know of, there may have been more) that affirm the woman opening the door and then firing the warning shots happened. You also have the sporadic bullet hole patterns that indicate she did indeed, fire warning shots. There was far stronger evidence against the defense in that specific case for that specific charge.

 

is it fucked up that she got 20 years? yeah, absolutely. but that case is very very different from the Zimmerman case, for many different reasons. Its not so much the racial divide as it is absolutely fucked up mandatory minimums.

[goDel]

Completely agree on most accounts.

 

The chilling effect is, like you say, if you draw a pistol, you should either shoot on target (and kill the other "perspective" of the "account") or not at all. Or in other words, let's build some incentive into law so that people will basically shoot themselves out of "threatening" situations.

 

Another aspect of the story though, is the jury. If the jury had more "races", would the outcome (with the same verdict, btw!) be completely different? I think so.

[elusive4]

The chilling effect is, like you say, if you draw a pistol, you should either shoot on target (and kill the other "perspective" of the "account") or not at all. Or in other words, let's build some incentive into law so that people will basically shoot themselves out of "threatening" situations.

your logic is mistaken and in fact quite the opposite.

the idea is let's build some incentive such that the ideal outcome is the weapon only becomes drawn when one feels they are in a life/death situation - the absolute highest level of threat. one so drastic that there is no time for "warning-shots". the incentive to pull out the weapon at minor levels of threat is removed (deterrence re: punishment). this then cuts down the false brandishing that could and would otherwise escalate the situation: eg, minor arguement: user A brandishes gun, user B feels threatened and volleys the action. the incentive most certainly is not functioning to allow people to "shoot themselves out of any "threatening" situation". that is entirely mis-guided.

 

 

Another aspect of the story though, is the jury. If the jury had more "races", would the outcome (with the same verdict, btw!) be completely different? I think so.

i highly suggest you watch the trial. you may have some severe preconceived notions about such processes that you were unaware of.

[elusive4]

I think it's odd that in another case someone got a full 20 years for shooting a hole in a wall, and in this case someone walked away free. Comparing those cases is apples and oranges, of course. But in the context of "gun laws", it presents a pretty inconsistent picture. Again, from the point of view from a stupid half informed outsider. (could post a baby picture here...)

the scenarios themselves are not consistent in nature of which to be able to directly compare - let alone draw comparisions on each's conclusion. garbage in garbage out.

 

she consciously chose to *return_ to the scene. she was no longer in danger when she left; there was no reason for her to return, especially with a weapon. she made the decision that she was now going to confront. the situation had now been modified.

 

in this case, the victim had successfully escaped any (potential) conflict, as evidenced by the shooter's ongoing conversation with 9-11 distpatch. the victim was removed from danger, and yet consciously chose to return to the scene to confront.

[goDel]

I understand that the idea would be that way. I'm basically questioning whether that "ideal logic" actually works that way in practice. I have my doubts.

 

About that last part, I'm not sure whether or not you've understood my point. I meant the outcome in the sense of the broad acceptance of the verdict outside of court, not the verdict itself.

 

@#37

[elusive4]

perform a look-up regarding your state's laws on this matter. you cannot eliminate the exceptions, but the deterrence is set high.

[goDel]

fwi: i live on the other side of the planet in communist euro

[elusive4]

i can assure you there is deterrence against doing as you imply would be done: "that people will basically shoot themselves out of [minor] "threatening" situations."

[goDel]

does it help if i change my settings? perhaps it helps people to assume i'm not from friggin cowboy country?

[goDel]

i can assure you there is deterrence against doing as you imply would be done: "that people will basically shoot themselves out of [minor] "threatening" situations."

thanks.

 

i can assure you that incentives, like used in economics, don't quite work that way in the real world (as in irrational economics).

 

fwi.: in crazy holland, if a cop kills a person (no matter how guilty of a crime of sorts), that cop has to prove his action was proportional to the crime/threat at the scene. if he can't, he's into trouble.

in the zimmerman case, even if he was moving away and attacked by martin, he would have to show "proportionality". even if zimmerman was an actual cop.

a lot of small things in dutch law are completely backwards from the point of view of the us, as far as i can tell. that doesn't make them illogical, btw. just different. what matters is the practice. even if in holland cops are hardly able to freely pull a gun, we're pretty safe anyways. also thanks to a different set of gun laws, i guess. but i'm getting off track here.

[lumpenprol]

howdy pardner

[goDel]

Dude, you're from friggin shanghai. building kids and all.

 

Please tell me everynone wearing a hoody after 22:00 hours is shit by the communist police.

 

edit: i mean "shot" not shit.

[goDel]

off topic:

[joshuatxuk]

 

Omg

 

TAMPA, Fla. -- Marissa Alexander had never been arrested before she fired a bullet at a wall one day in 2010 to scare off her husband when she felt he was threatening her. Nobody got hurt, but this month a northeast Florida judge was bound by state law to sentence her to 20 years in prison.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1530035.html

 

Wtf

 

do you not perform any due diligence re: your commentary?

she left the scene to obtain the weapon, only then to return and fire off the shot. she had opportunity to escape; apples to oranges. oh, you may have also missed the fact that she had fired the weapon in the general direction of children.

 

 

Apples and oranges because she was actually in a position of "self-defense" far more than Zimmerman ever was. That's the absurdity of the laws and judicial system of Florida. One judge thinks a woman confronting her abusive husband isn't "standing your ground" but another judge thought a man who followed and approached an unknown kid he thought was 'up to know' good was "standing his ground." That's absolute bullshit.

 

She was charged a mandatory 20 years for a law that has unintended consequences legally, based on a law passed in 1999 intended for situations like robbery, not citizens in situations like this. If she had plead guilty for attempted murder she would of served 3, three years, and not twenty for literally discharging a gun.

 

That law, the 10-20-Life was passed in 1999, signed by the same governor, Jeb Bush, as the "Stand Your Ground" law passed in 2005. The laws are in absolute conflict with each other in regard to sentencing and intent. Even the most dumbfuck legislation could, and should, pass laws in Florida to rectify the differences, either by altering the sentencing terms or repealing the laws altogether. The fact is these are not sound and sincere laws, these were both efforts for politicians to boost their election appeal to their voter base. The 10-20-Life law was endorsed by anti-gun groups and in that year even conservative legislators were pressured act against gun violence. The Stand Your Ground Law, praised and supported by the limited government, pro-gun groups NRA and ALEC, was passed by legislators so they could boost their pro-gun, "law and order" image. Both of these absurd cases reflect the blowback from passing these laws. And instead of fixing the problems they created, the Florida legislators will simply go on Hannity or Limbaugh or Maddow or whatever fucking cable talk shows are airing right now and utter their bullshit rhetoric. The rest will stay mute and attend fundraising parties. I can guarantee you very few will try to address these issues legally.

 

As for Zimmerman, I'm not going to touch on race issues or bias or the "debatle" aspects of this case, it comes down to this: Zimmerman should of called the police, gone home, and locked his door. Period. Instead he was overzealous and irresponsible and deliberately instigated a confrontation. That's not self-defense, it's anything but. That not guilty finding is a fucking farce. Only delusions and distortions, and pure misinformation can remotely frame this as self-defense.

[jhonny]

off topic:

wtf? what's that from.

[goDel]

Josh, there's at least one awesome person working in texas government.

 

@jhonny

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/14/asiana-crash-ktvu-report_n_3593591.html