|
11059. arkymalarky - 7/11/2013 3:53:10 PM And fwiw, no one has used if...then. 11060. Wombat - 7/11/2013 3:54:02 PM Martin acted like many teenagers would have. He was minding his own business, returning to his father's unit after going out for some snacks. He noticed that he was being followed by someone (for no reason), and decided to confront him. He could have ignored Zimmerman, he could have decided to run (which would have, ironically, confirmed Zimmerman's suspicions).
Had Martin lived, he would have been able to make a reasonable case for self-defense ("standing his ground," as it were). A murder prosecution for Zimmerman is stretch; manslaughter shouldn't be. 11061. arkymalarky - 7/11/2013 3:59:04 PM I agree Wombat. 11062. iiibbb - 7/11/2013 4:15:19 PM Anomie---
I don't think it's murder... I think it's manslaughter.
I think everything that happened has a root cause in Zimmerman leaving the car and closing the distance between him and Martin. I don't think he intended to kill Martin until he was getting beat up, so it can't be murder; but if anyone was covered by Stand Your Ground law it was Martin.
Let me put it another way
The defense seems to be relying on parsing the chain of events as much as possible so that in the final moments "stand your ground" appears to apply to Zimmerman. However, over the entire timeline, Zimmerman escalated the situation 3 times (following in car, following on foot, shooting)
Martin escalated the situation only once in response to being followed by car, and then by an individual on foot --- after trying to put distance between him and the person following him for most of the initial timeline. If "stand your ground" applies to anyone, it applies to Martin.
"Stand your ground" should be off the table for Zimmerman in my mind
But do I think that Zimmerman was out to kill anyone with malice aforethought that night? No. That leaves manslaughter.
The prosecutors were dumb for even putting murder on the table IMHO. They should've stuck to the simple story... proving murder in this case seems a very tall order. 11063. anomie - 7/11/2013 4:19:44 PM 11054 - if/then
Self defense works against manslaughter as well as murder.
Arky, you are still talking as though you know without doubt what happened that night, or at least what set of things might have happened, all to the exclusion of self defense, which is a much more plausible scenario.
And see Wombat's comments on bejhalf of Martin, "if" (then) "he would have been able to....make a case".
It's like you guys suddenly came into possesion of a crystal ball showing the events of that night.
None of you can rule out self defense. 11064. anomie - 7/11/2013 4:28:13 PM 3b, good summation. You are missing one critical thing. Proof. Prove to me that Z did not act in self defense. Prove to me that he did not fear for his life. All any of you have done so far is show that Z did some dumb stuff that was perfectly legal to do.
You are all reversing the burden of proof concept. You're also just making stuff up. All of you are asserting opinion as fact to the point of sbsurdity...making up stand your ground defenses for Martin...making up self defense excuses for Martin...
I'm surprised at you all! Ha! 11065. anomie - 7/11/2013 4:30:16 PM 3b, as I said, self defense works against manslaughter too, so it matters little.
And now let's see if he is a Child abuser too. Jeesh. 11066. iiibbb - 7/11/2013 4:32:02 PM Zimmerman precipitated and escalated the situation.
Self defense is ruled out IMO. Leave it to the jury, but that's the argument. 11067. iiibbb - 7/11/2013 4:36:29 PM anomie... it all depends on how you break up the timeline... when Zimmerman pulled the trigger, I'm certain he feared for his life...
but that doesn't absolve him of circumstances that were of his own making.
Florida Stand Your Ground
776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
I don't see how Zimmerman escapes these clauses. 11068. iiibbb - 7/11/2013 4:38:09 PM ... but maybe he will... if people believe him when he says he had tried to withdraw after being confronted by Martin...
...but it is a very fine line he's walking.
Jury will decide I guess. 11069. iiibbb - 7/11/2013 4:40:35 PM It is all about the timeline of events... I haven't followed the case in detail, and admit I'm biased at this point because as someone who believes in self defense and gun ownership, he broke every rule in any training I've ever had. 11070. arkymalarky - 7/11/2013 4:43:36 PM No I'm not. You've yet to point out where. You're ignoring the ebidence even after having it clearly and repeatedly pointed out.
And Amomie, are you seriously telling me you can't tell the difference between suggesting how things might be different in another scenario and discussing what actually happened? The purpose of using alternate circumstances is to illustrate through contrast. No one is making stuff up.
I'll refrain from posting in all caps that it is not perfectly legal to do dumb stuff that leads to somebody being killed!
11071. anomie - 7/11/2013 4:44:03 PM 3b, as long as we're making stuff up, how's this: Martin precipitated and escalated the situation... I have just as much evidence as you do.
Z has no duty to escape those clauses. You have the duty to prove what he did or didn't do. See what I mean? You have no proof, so yuo're just turning the burden around.
I hate to keep appealing to your intelligence, but you are all better than this. You're better than to be a part of the mob or the witch hunt.
I scratch my head. 11072. arkymalarky - 7/11/2013 4:46:49 PM The phone records are proof. Without them you'd have an argument. With them you simply don't. 11073. anomie - 7/11/2013 4:48:28 PM Arky. Proof. Don't keep citing facts and scenarios that could be true or not. Give me proof that IN THIS CASE it was not self defense. I can agree in principle with much of what you've said, but that's not the point. 11074. anomie - 7/11/2013 4:51:10 PM Phone records? Proves it was murder/manslaughter? Proves what exactly? Are you being serious?
On that insane note, I'm quitting this discussion. I hope I'm wrong, but I see a real travesty of justice about to take place. I hope he gets a good appeal attorney.
later, ya'll 11075. iiibbb - 7/11/2013 4:54:31 PM Jury will decide...
Zimmerman's phone conversations don't seem to convey that he had knowledge that Martin had actually done something... but the law is worded "had reason to believe"
I suppose someone, particularly someone predisposed to paranoia, can talk themselves into anything then and just shoot away.
I'm not a lawyer... I'm not on the jury.
Zimmerman's story stinks. 11076. iiibbb - 7/11/2013 4:55:49 PM and I am as pro-gun, pro self defense as you can get.
just goes to show, that it is best to avoid confrontations of all kinds...... especially if you're packing a gun. 11077. arkymalarky - 7/11/2013 5:05:11 PM What's the proof OJ killed his ex wife? 11078. arkymalarky - 7/11/2013 5:07:15 PM He was acquitted and people were outraged, but there's less doubt and more evidence here than in that case.
|
