posted
Oh, no argument. It's a risky strategy and a poor decision to engage at all, gun or not, and the presence of a gun made it even more dangerous. But if Martin had managed to stun Zimmerman or knock him unconscious, he'd've had a non-zero chance of survival.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Oh, no argument. It's a risky strategy and a poor decision to engage at all, gun or not, and the presence of a gun made it even more dangerous. But if Martin had managed to stun Zimmerman or knock him unconscious, he'd've had a non-zero chance of survival.
And a non-zero chance of killing Zimmerman.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. While obviously true, I'm not sure what the point is in indicating Martin wouldn't have been shot if he'd managed to KO or otherwise bash Zimmerman's skull more thoroughly.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Edgehopper: ScottF: Based on what? I think the judge was right in the end to exclude the texts, but on a technical legal point (hearsay not quite within any exception), not on relevance or prejudice.
I'm not sure what you're asking me here...
Posts: 135 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure what the point is in indicating Martin wouldn't have been shot if he'd managed to KO or otherwise bash Zimmerman's skull more thoroughly...
I'm pointing out that portraying Martin as some kind of senseless, monstrous thug for bashing Zimmerman's head against the concrete does him a disservice, as bashing Zimmerman's head against the concrete was probably the best strategy for surviving that fight once it began.
This doesn't resolve the question of how the fight began, of course, or who is to blame for it. But once Martin realized he was in a fistfight with a gunman, the decision to win that fight decisively was no more savage than Zimmerman's decision to shoot him.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Since we are talking about a trial here, I can see why someone would object to the use of the word stalking. I bet Zimmerman's lawyer would as well.
Zimmerman's lawyer would also object to the description of Zimmerman as an idiot wannabe cop.
There is no legal definition I am aware of for the terms "idiot" or "wannabe cop", they merely express your opinion of him. Yes, his lawyers might object to it but I don't and you are free to call him that all you want.
Now if it were a crime to be an "idiot" and this was legally defined as having an IQ below 50 but Zimmerman was tested as having an IQ of 55, you could say he is really stupid but continually calling him an idiot when legally, he has been proven not to be would be just plain asinine.
Now you may think that his actions should be considered stalking but unfortunately for you, the law disagrees. You are in essence, continually accusing him of a crime he did not commit. You might as well call him a pedophile, j-walker, child pornographer, tax evader and car thief while you're at it.
I'm not a court of law and I'm not accusing him of being a criminal for virtue of being an idiot wannabe cop. I'm saying that he's an idiot wannabe cop who probably stalked martin, and I don't care if zimmerman's defense would object to this language on the basis of it not being legally applicable law language in the eyes of the law or whatever.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't your last sentence assume Martin did the bashing only after he saw a gun? If the timing of the bashing/gun discovery is part of Zimmerman's testimony then fair enough.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: I certainly believe it's about politics in general and racial politics more specifically. "Race-baiting"? I'm not sure what that means actually
We know, but keep telling us about "tribal politics" and explain away why people are defending confirmed "violent thug" martin because they are of his "tribe"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the timing of the bashing/gun discovery is part of Zimmerman's testimony then fair enough.
Zimmerman has testified that Martin saw his gun, although some people wonder how that'd be possible given how Zimmerman says he was carrying it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm pointing out that portraying Martin as some kind of senseless, monstrous thug for bashing Zimmerman's head against the concrete does him a disservice, as bashing Zimmerman's head against the concrete was probably the best strategy for surviving that fight once it began.
So imagine for a sec the counterfactual (according to you) where Martin *is* a senseless, monstrous thug.
What would that counterfactual Martin be doing? Would he perhaps be sometimes texting things like saying that another person that 'snitched' on him "hasn't bled enough for him, only his nose"?
Once we consider that Zimmerman also indeed snitched on Martin in the sense of calling the cops on him, I wonder whether that counterfactual Martin would be attempting to exact blood from Zimmerman.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure. Heck, why not just say the "counterfactual" is that Martin was a psychopath and just needed a little trigger to start trying to kill anybody, and Zimmerman saved lives by killing him young?
You can say pretty much what you like about the kid, since he's completely dead and you won't hurt his feelings.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well of course the thing is that the counterfactual Martin (according to you), is the factual Martin according to the evidence, since he really did text things like that a person who had snitched on him hadn't "bled enough".
quote:You can say pretty much what you like about the kid, since he's completely dead and you won't hurt his feelings.
I only say things that I believe to be true, because that's what my ethics allow. I only wish that Zimmerman's detractors acted according to a similar code.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*snort* No room for honest disagreement then. Climb further up onto that cross, could you? And while you're at it, further assert that you're clueless on the whole race-baiting thing. Despite, you know, multiple remarks that make people wonder, 'man, there's a whiff of something racial here'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:*snort* No room for honest disagreement then. Climb further up onto that cross, could you? And while you're at it, further assert that you're clueless on the whole race-baiting thing. Despite, you know, multiple remarks that make people wonder, 'man, there's a whiff of something racial here'.
I can't parse what you're saying.
I'm the one who *is* arguing that this involves racial politics, despite e.g. Tom's claims to the contrary.
Perhaps you've trained yourself to speak in that deceitful way long enough, that you can't actually communicate meaning directly and straightforwardly even if you tried.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well of course the thing is that the counterfactual Martin (according to you), is the factual Martin according to the evidence
No, not really. We're talking about two different scenarios -- unless you think that "thuggishness" is a universal quality that applies in all cases.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:"unless you think that "thuggishness" is a universal quality that applies in all cases."
I think that thuggishness is a personality trait, and as with all personality traits it'll reveal itself in more than one scenario.
According to the text conversation Martin was "always fighting" (according to his friend), and Martin said that the kid he just beat up will have to see him again because he didn't "bleed enough" to satisfy Martin.
Is this truly irrelevant in determining who is likely to have started the fight between Zimmerman and Martin?
When the Zimmerman haters were willing to use as evidence that Zimmerman had once shoved a person, a decade or so back, is it truly not at all evidence if Martin is shown to want to make people bleed, and not just their noses either?
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is this truly irrelevant in determining who is likely to have started the fight between Zimmerman and Martin?
Nope. It's not irrelevant at all. But of course it's merely speculation. Do you believe that your opinion of Zimmerman's innocence hinges on whether he threw the first punch or not?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you believe that your opinion of Zimmerman's innocence hinges on whether he threw the first punch or not?
If there was evidence to suggest he threw the first punch, I'd believe he should be found guilty of assault at the very least.
I consider his shouts for "help" an attempt to stop the fight regardless of who started it by bringing the community into this, so I'd still not consider him guilty of manslaughter.
But if he had neither shouted for help *and* had thrown the first punch, I'd probably consider Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps you've trained yourself to speak in that deceitful way long enough, that you can't actually communicate meaning directly and straightforwardly even if you tried.
It's a good sign of your own objectivity and thoroughness when anyone who disagrees with you is, by default, hopelessly mired in dishonesty-in unintended, instinctive dishonesty no less.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's a good sign of your own objectivity and thoroughness when anyone who disagrees with you is, by default, hopelessly mired in dishonesty-in unintended, instinctive dishonesty
Don't assume that some few people here are a representative of "anyone who disagrees with me", so that you can make assumptions about all that great group just based on my views on a few people here.
quote:What would it take for you to find him guilty of Murder 2?
My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that Florida law demands for Murder 2 "a depraved mind showing no regard for human life."
So, if I thought that *Martin* was shouting for help, and Zimmerman had shot him, I'd see that as murder two.
Actually if I thought it had been Martin who was shouting for help, I'd not care even if Martin had thrown the first punch, I'd want a murder two for Zimmerman anyway.
It'd be also what I'd want for Martin, if no shooting had occurred and Martin had killed Zimmerman with his fists, after Zimmerman was shouting for help.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Martin hadn't confronted Zimmerman and just either walked away or had just spoken to Zimmerman letting him know he lived in the neighborhood, none of this would have happened. If Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of his car none of this would have happened. Unfortunately both made decisions they shouldn't have, but only one of those decisions was against the law. (Martin attacking Zimmerman) This caused the end of his life.
It is unfortunate, but you can't place all of the blame on Zimmerman's actions. At least from the evidence I have seen.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Don't assume that some few people here are a representative of "anyone who disagrees with me", so that you can make assumptions about all that great group just based on my views on a few people here.
On this topic? It's not an isolated observation and it's with respect to more than a few people. For months now, your default position to anyone on this topic has frequently-as it did just now-included an insistence that opponents are either so mired in dishonesty they don't even know honesty anymore, or that they're simply lying for 'tribal politics' (totes not race baiting, either, not that you know what that is, right?).
-------
quote:If Martin hadn't confronted Zimmerman and just either walked away or had just spoken to Zimmerman letting him know he lived in the neighborhood, none of this would have happened. If Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of his car none of this would have happened. Unfortunately both made decisions they shouldn't have, but only one of those decisions was against the law. (Martin attacking Zimmerman) This caused the end of his life.
Wait a second, so now it's been proven that Martin attacked? Or is this just more 'default to believe Zimmerman'? Seems likely that Zimmerman will walk and, from what I've seen of the trial, that would be lawful and I don't complain. But very little in this trial has substantially corroborated Zimmerman's account of events. He'll get off because the prosecution won't be able to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, but that's not at all the same thing as Zimmerman having demonstrated his account was accurate. He hasn't.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If an young-and-healthy-looking adult male (especially one larger and heavier than me) is clearly following me at night, he's lucky if I can evade him. He's also lucky if I can outrun him.
He's probably going to need medical care if I can't get away no matter what his intentions originally were.
Granted, I do have a...naturally-overactive...threat response, that has been further trained into hyperactivity by years and years of martial arts training. However, I've never needed to use my martial arts training to protect myself, even around some very dangerous people. However, if a Zimmerman type had followed me last night while I was taking a leisurely late night stroll, and I couldn't evade or outrun him....no matter what his intentions, I'd have probably hurt him. If I had seen a gun, I'd probably have gotten control of the weapon and used it on him. Letting me see a gun in a situation like that, if I don't think running away will work, is asking to visit the hospital.
And to expect a different attitude from the average young male is unrealistic. That's just how I see it. Following someone and carrying a gun that they can see, AT NIGHT, is kind of an unspoken declaration of deadly intent.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I don't really understand the point of this post other than to brag about your l33t pwnage skillz Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: If Martin hadn't confronted Zimmerman and just either walked away or had just spoken to Zimmerman letting him know he lived in the neighborhood, none of this would have happened.
You can't envision a scenario in which martin shouts at zimmerman to leave him alone, he lives here, and zimmerman disbelieves this or otherwise chooses to continue in pursuit, or demand that martin hold still and not try to 'get away' ..?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
Steven - Your violence issues have nothing to do with the law. Assaulting someone for following you is illegal.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Steven - Your violence issues have nothing to do with the law. Assaulting someone for following you is illegal.
I'd rather err toward being illegal versus dead, if I'm forced to make the choice. But I'm far more happy about evading and running than about fighting. Fights are usually a result of poor planning, not keeping a cool head, poor understanding of how to manipulate others, a pointless attachment to the contents of your pockets, and/or a pointless attachment to your own pride. IMHO.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like the prosecution is taking ridiculous to the next level. Some people will stop at nothing for a little drama...
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The new definition for "murder two" seems to be "getting out of a vehicle in the presence of strangers".
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Looks like the prosecution is taking ridiculous to the next level. Some people will stop at nothing for a little drama...
Given some of the silliness here, that you would describe it so one-sidedly speaks really to your own bias rather than an accurate observation.
In other words: they've both done silly stuff.
------
Semi-related remark: when the hell exactly did so many almost totally uninformed laypeople become legal experts? I've heard so often random slobs go on about how stupid the judge is or how little sense her decisions make, from people who would need the rules of Clue carefully explained twice.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Looks like the prosecution is taking ridiculous to the next level. Some people will stop at nothing for a little drama...
Apropos of which i really liked your little joke during the trial opening
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Looks like the prosecution is taking ridiculous to the next level. Some people will stop at nothing for a little drama...
Given some of the silliness here, that you would describe it so one-sidedly speaks really to your own bias rather than an accurate observation.
In other words: they've both done silly stuff.
------
Semi-related remark: when the hell exactly did so many almost totally uninformed laypeople become legal experts? I've heard so often random slobs go on about how stupid the judge is or how little sense her decisions make, from people who would need the rules of Clue carefully explained twice.
Claiming someone is biased has been your go-to rebuttal in this conversation. It's like you believe your opinion to be the only informed one. Anyone making a statement you disagree with is "biased." That plan of attack does nothing to support your claims.
When it comes to silly, the prosecution really has out-performed the defense. The theatrical appeals emotion that book-ended their arguments were for those rare individuals that failed to realized the prosecution didn't have, and didn't present, a very good case against Zimmerman. This third degree murder thing is their fourth quarter Hail Mary pass.
Regarding your semi-related remark, as long as you're counting yourself among the "totally uniformed" laypersons and random slobs, then I have no point of contention. It is an odd bit of human behavior we all engage in. At least some of us have logic and cool-headed reasoning on our side.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Claiming someone is biased has been your go-to rebuttal in this conversation. It's like you believe your opinion to be the only informed one. Anyone making a statement you disagree with is "biased." That plan of attack does nothing to support your claims.
This has been what I've said in response to unreasonable and unsupported certainty. I've got nothing against anyone who thinks 'Zimmerman should be found not guilty'-in fact, I'm leaning that way myself, capax. Got anything else to say about 'bias'?
For example, I pointed out your bias when you said there was 'no evidence' Zimmerman stalked or harrassed Martin. By his own words, Zimmerman was following Martin at night, in his own neighbhorhood. I pointed out your bias in simply accepting as given that Martin was, in fact, a 'suspicious person'. You didn't say 'Zimmerman might have thought', you've bought his line straight on down the list. That's the bias. You're not even attempting to deal in uncertainties-you made up your mind quite awhile ago.
quote:Regarding your semi-related remark, as long as you're counting yourself among the "totally uniformed" laypersons and random slobs, then I have no point of contention. It is an odd bit of human behavior we all engage in. At least some of us have logic and cool-headed reasoning on our side.
I'm sorry, have I been here saying 'boy, that judge's decision made no sense'? Have I been posing as though my own armchair quarterback analysis ought to take the place of legal proceedings? No. So, you know, contend with that. It's not an odd bit of human behavior at all, and in this respect I haven't engaged in it.
As for your 'some of us'. Heh. It's so strange. It's like you simply haven't heard me, and others, say at multiple points over the months of this particular bit of current events, "I'm not at all sure Zimmerman ought to be convicted," but as for you, capax, so far as I can tell you've had certainty from the start. Very cool-headed and logical of you to simply believe, even before a trial, those things which support the shooter's claims which he would be saying if he were innocent or guilty.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
Judges can make mistakes. Me, I believe that she's made mistakes benefitting both the prosecution and the defense. I don't think she's being delibrately biased. You don't have to have gone to law school to ask questions like whether Martin was in pain as he died, or whether he had THC in his blood, should be relevant.
I also withheld my own judgement until the trial showed the the prosecution flat out doesn't have a case for murder 2. That included not jumping on the "lynch him" bandwagon even before the trial started.
IP: Logged |
posted
'His story sounds like bull' doesn't at all equal 'lynch him', despite rhetoric common to several Zimmerman defenders in this discussion.
As for not needing law school...wait, so your reasoning is that to have a good idea what a legal professional should do, you don't need to have gone to law school, because...why? That wasn't actually an argument.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
My reasoning is that you don't need to go to automotive school to know how to change a tire. Again, there might well be sufficient reason to allow things like how much Martin suffered, or his THC levels, into evidence. But I haven't heard any compelling arguments for it. And I'm pretty sure that if I spent a couple minutes looking online, I could find actual lawyers saying the same thing.
Can we agree that judges make mistakes, sometimes? We need judges to make judgments because the issues at question don't always have a clearcut answer. No one in the world is going to get it right every time.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: For example, I pointed out your bias when you said there was 'no evidence' Zimmerman stalked or harrassed Martin. By his own words, Zimmerman was following Martin at night, in his own neighbhorhood.
More of the stalking/harassing mumbo jumbo? Let's try this again: What constitutes stalking? Describe the behavior that Zimmerman engaged in that could be construed as stalking/harassing. (Following someone is not stalking so why don't you try to get further than that this time.) The prosecution has revealed practically nothing to cast doubt on this element of Zimmerman's story. If I "bought his line" it's because there's no evidence to the contrary. You've taken the position that Zimmerman is lying, so produce some substantial evidence that he was indeed actually stalking Martin.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a sign of how little you're listening that you come up with 'Rakeesh says Zimmerman is lying'.
Seriously, that's not what I'm saying and since you insist on responding as if it was all I can ask is that you please re read and keep that in mind.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another idiotic term thrown around by the anti-Zimmerman crowd is "profiling". Individuals cannot deprive someone of their civil rights. Only the State and its agents can do that. My ethics professor, (a sitting state court judge), told me this, and gave some trivial examples: if someone tells you to "shut up", you have no cause of action for him trying to deprive you of your First Amendment right to free speech. If a store posts a "no guns allowed" sign, and you walk in with a lawfully-carried firearm, you cannot sue them for trying to deprive you of your Second Amendment rights, and so on.
The police are not supposed to single people out for undue scrutiny just because of their race, because that is a violation of their rights to due process under the 14th Amendment. (The operative word there is "undue". If there's an APB out for a 7-foot tall white murder suspect, however, it's not "profiling" to question every freakishly-tall Caucasian they run across on patrol.)
But Private citizens can't "profile" anybody. They have no ongoing duty to arrest on behalf of the state except in extreme circumstances. The pro-Trayvon faction loves to throw the term around in order to blur perceptions of the public.
As Mr. Card commonly argues, people who have to rely on lies to stir up support for their position expose quickly just how weak their position is.
If you're a young kid out after curfew in an unfamiliar neighborhood, that's not exactly the smartest idea, no matter what color you happen to be. If you're really scared of someone following you, turning around and confronting them isn't a good idea, either. If you were walking through the woods and spotted a bear following you, turning around and punching it in the snout is a good way to wind up as a pile of bear dung the next day. That doesn't make it the bear's fault. If she was trying to determine the threat you posed to her cubs, you were an idiot for approaching the bear in the first place.
While it is regrettable that Trayvon wound up dead, it appears that he definitely contributed to the escalation of the incident.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
