Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«3 »
  • Locked thread
Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

Skaven spotted!


wateroverfire posted:

But seriously if Trayvon had won and killed Zimmerman he'd be able to make the same self defense claim and get acquitted (possibly).

No, had Trayvon "won" he'd be in jail on whatever bullshit charges the Florida PD could think up.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

Is a lamaphobe -->



Talmonis posted:

A fight with a 6'1 160 lb. beanpole at that.

It really doesn't matter if Martin was a hulking linebacker, Zimmerman still picked a fight with a minor and shot the kid dead after suffering superficial injuries.

wateroverfire
Jul 3, 2010



VitalSigns posted:

So unless you take jury trials as infallible gospel and never express opinions about other cases counter to what the jury decides (like say OJ Simpson: are you going to tell me you've never expressed the opinion that his trial was incorrectly decided?), then you're just arguing in bad faith because you don't want to discuss whether the actual facts met the criteria set forth by the state of Florida or not.

You're expressing the opinion that the case was wrongly decided and I'm expressing the opinion that you're wrong because the facts fit the requirements.

The requirements are these:

Zimmerman had to be 1) In a place he was allowed to be, 2) Not committing a crime, and 3) Reasonably in fear of death or grave bodily harm. Additionally, if he provoked the assault self defense is only available if he had exhausted every avenue of escape and his assailant was using enough force to justify #3.

Regardless of what happened leading up to the fight, even if Zimmerman provoked it, if he was pinned under Martin and being beaten he had no avenue of escape and reason to fear death or grave bodily harm. At that point deadly force in self defense was justified under the law.


VitalSigns posted:

Doesn't it bother you a bit about the morality of the situation if who gets the death penalty and who walks comes down to who gets off the first shot? That seems like a really bad system for encouraging people to deescalate an axplosive situation.

There was a struggle and someone was killed. That was not punishment. That was not anyone rendering judgement on a party. There's no scale to be balanced. It was tragic and in a perfect world it wouldn't have happened, but it's not moral to throw the book at the other guy out of a sense of symmetry.

You were in the military, dude. You must have been in at least some mock fights. How much deescalation is possible when you can't run and someone is beating the poo poo out of you? How just would it be to fight your way out of that situation and go to jail because the other party got hurt?

fuccboi
Jan 5, 2004

by zen death robot


I've been straddled and punched. You are incapable of rational thought. All that matters is taking a breath.

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

Is a lamaphobe -->



Being able to goad someone into temporarily giving up their legal protections while you are armed and they are not is a very attractive power fantasy to the RAHOWA set.

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

The fairy of forgiveness has gifted you this non racist image of a black man.

wateroverfire posted:

Zimmerman had to be 1) In a place he was allowed to be, 2) Not committing a crime, and 3) Reasonably in fear of death or grave bodily harm. Additionally, if he provoked the assault self defense is only available if he had exhausted every avenue of escape and his assailant was using enough force to justify #3.

You're making some pretty heavy assumptions in (2). Namely: could Martin have seen the gun at Zimmerman's hip before the fight (this is brandishing) and feared for his life and attacked him in self-defense? Or: did Zimmerman begin the fight by grabbing Martin? And with number (3): did he really try every avenue of escape? Self-defense law doesn't let you attack somebody and then shoot them when you start to lose; you've got to make an effort to escape before you can reasonably just blow someone away. I can't strap a gun on, go pick a fight with a bunch of guys, then start shooting once I begin to lose.

You're pointing to the jury verdict because six people happened to agree with you, but other more likely fact patterns fit the evidence, and I'm skeptical that had the verdict gone the other way on whether the defense had introduced reasonable doubt that you'd be arguing the opposite position because the jury ruled and they know best.

Talmonis
Jun 24, 2012
The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

Popular Thug Drink posted:

It really doesn't matter if Martin was a hulking linebacker, Zimmerman still picked a fight with a minor and shot the kid dead after suffering superficial injuries.

Definitely, but I'm trying to drive home just how ridiculous it is to claim he represented a threat to life on a much larger, adult male.

wateroverfire
Jul 3, 2010



VitalSigns posted:

You're making some pretty heavy assumptions in (2). Namely: could Martin have seen the gun at Zimmerman's hip before the fight (this is brandishing) and feared for his life and attacked him in self-defense? Or: did Zimmerman begin the fight by grabbing Martin? And with number

It would be [url=http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.10.html]brandishing[/u] in Florida if he were waving it around in a threatening manner, but probably not if it were holstered on his hip. It's also possible that Zimmerman began the fight, but who knows, and it's not relevant because at the time of the shooting (if we believe the facts presented) he was pinned on his back and getting his rear end kicked. He had no avenue of escape and he feared for his life / feared grave bodily harm. He wasn't in the process of committing a crime (and there's a list of qualifying offenses somewhere) or trespassing so that's all the law requires.

VitalSigns posted:

(3): did he really try every avenue of escape? Self-defense law doesn't let you attack somebody and then shoot them when you start to lose; you've got to make an effort to escape before you can reasonably just blow someone away. I can't strap a gun on, go pick a fight with a bunch of guys, then start shooting once I begin to lose.

If those guys have you cornered on your back and they're beating you up, you absolutely can start shooting (in Florida) whether you started the fight or not.

VitalSigns posted:

You're pointing to the jury verdict because six people happened to agree with you, but other more likely fact patterns fit the evidence, and I'm skeptical that had the verdict gone the other way on whether the defense had introduced reasonable doubt that you'd be arguing the opposite position because the jury ruled and they know best.

A verdict of not guilty is a good indication that there are not in fact more likely fact patterns that fit the evidence. Speculating is fine but the things you're adding to the scenario either aren't relevant (criminal histories) or aren't consistent with the evidence (Zimmerman could have escaped, etc). Do you have evidence that things happened some other way that for whatever reason wasn't weighed at the trial?

Martha Stewart Undying
Oct 22, 2012



Judging by the past few pages, this is the latest D&D Racist/Bad Opinions honeypot thread?

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

The fairy of forgiveness has gifted you this non racist image of a black man.

wateroverfire posted:

Do you have evidence that things happened some other way that for whatever reason wasn't weighed at the trial?

The evidence at trial was pretty damning: for the entire time that we have corroborating evidence, Trayvon was trying to escape the confrontation and Zimmerman was escalating it, Zimmerman admitted he never told Trayvon who he was, Trayvon was heard to yell "Let me go".

Then we've only got Zimmerman's word that Trayvon swung at him for no reason and was holding Zimmerman down battering him with no way to escape. Judging by Zimmerman's actions leading up to the confrontation and his history of violent behavior I don't believe his testimony.

Whether there was enough reasonable doubt for Florida is irrelevant to the thread (in which OP wants information about Trayvon's status as a gangbanger), and also to my earlier posts which dealt with whether Zimmerman was morally culpable (which he was). At best you can argue that Zimmerman was properly convicted under Florida law because there wasn't enough evidence to disprove Zimmerman's version of events beyond a reasonable doubt, and from there we have to conclude that Florida law permits and encourages gross injustices like this because the burden to demonstrate self-defense is so low compared to civilized places (namely: in Florida make sure you kill all witnesses*)

*and they are all black**
** and you are not

woke wedding drone
Jun 1, 2003

by exmarx


Fun Shoe

wateroverfire posted:

Do you have evidence that things happened some other way that for whatever reason wasn't weighed at the trial?

Yeah, statements from at least one juror after the trial indicate they did not understand the standard for second-degree murder.

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

The fairy of forgiveness has gifted you this non racist image of a black man.

Also at least one juror is a loving idiot and even more racist than OP's mom

quote:

Juror B37, whose face and body were hidden, appeared last week on Anderson Cooper's CNN show, and said she believes Zimmerman's "heart was in the right place" when he became suspicious of Martin and that the teenager probably threw the first punch.

Baselessly assuming a black kid on his way to bring his sister candy is up to no good and stalking him with a weapon, gosh what a kind man with his heart in the right place! Such a shame that things turned out so tragically, who could have foreseen such a risk?

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

Skaven spotted!


Using the verdict of the trial as some sort of "proof" that the evidence supported Zimmerman's case is completely asinine. Jurors are specifically selected to be as ill-informed and gullible as possible. You might as well point to the testimony of Joe-Jeb and his brother Jeb-Joe that they were abducted to prove aliens have visited earth.

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

Is a lamaphobe -->



Talmonis posted:

Definitely, but I'm trying to drive home just how ridiculous it is to claim he represented a threat to life on a much larger, adult male.

Oh, I read it as "Martin was big enough to do serious damage to Zimmerman" which is true, but unlikely. Zimmerman likely did fear for his life because he was getting a mild rear end whooping from what he thought was a thug but from Martin's perspective he was just emphatically asserting that Zimmerman needed to stop creeping around. The most telling part of this vague altercation is when people insist that Martin was really putting Zimmerman's life in danger. I saw it as just a simple beatdown re: don't follow me home in the dark you weirdo. Especially if you believe that Zimmerman initiated physical contact with Martin, which is more likely to me. When I was an angry teen I definitely would have punched some random dude in the nose if he tried confronting and grabbing on me.

wateroverfire
Jul 3, 2010



SedanChair posted:

Yeah, statements from at least one juror after the trial indicate they did not understand the standard for second-degree murder.

It was this one but even had she been clear on the standard, the jury probably would have found self defense.

ate shit on live tv
Feb 15, 2004

LBGT United
Did nothing wrong.

Isn't the fact that Trayvon was a child irrelevant to the argument that Zimmerman was defending himself from grievous bodily harm and also equally irrelevant is if Trayvon was a "gang-banger" and "drug dealer."

Unless of course you are a racist. But we already had a thread about that.

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

Is a lamaphobe -->



Grievous bodily harm that was completely untreated by medical professionals at the scene. Trayvon only got to the fourth stage of the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique.

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

Is a lamaphobe -->



Really though it makes a lot more sense if you assume Racist Coward George Zimmerman was ashamed that he was getting his rear end whooped by a teenager and shot the boy out due to his deep sense of emasculation.

ate shit on live tv
Feb 15, 2004

LBGT United
Did nothing wrong.

It also makes a lot of sense if you assume Trayvon was lusting for white blood from a "creepy rear end cracker" as the final ingredient in his thug-brew that goes by the street name "lean."

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

Is a lamaphobe -->



If you're a delusional racist, sure.

Then again I've never felt the urge to stalk and confront a teenage boy so what do I know.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ate shit on live tv
Feb 15, 2004

LBGT United
Did nothing wrong.

Me either, but it seems like this was anything but a cut-and-dried case and ridiculous characterizations of the players involved are more likely personal projections and prejudices then based on reality.

In other words, speculation designed to identify the "team" the speaker is on, rather then in any genuine interest in the case.

  • Locked thread
«3 »