Indeed. Imagine how much safer the world would be if nobody got out of bed every morning. Of course, If I knew I would get into an accident, I would have stayed in bed. Zimmerman is expected to have had clairvoyance. He knew before he left his home that he will run into Trayvon and kill him so why didn't he stay.
ill will is very easy to establish based on nothing. Gets done all the time. Florida's law and its enforcement are quite pathetic in many ways, but that's another topic. In this case, there was absolutely no way of convicting Zimmerman of murder. And even if he was convicted of murder, there is absolutely no way of painting Zimmerman as a racist. If some people don't understand that, well, that's too bad.
i think non-americans and those who do not live in the usa are missing the point in this case.the issue that has outraged most americans regardless of their race from the president to the ordinary man is not the law or it's application.most americans understan that laws are not perfect and they know very well that lawyers are trained and paid to interpret the law as best as they can to help their clients.the issue is common sense and ethics.you have to understand that zimmeman was the adult in this case.he was the one in his late 20s and the victim was a 16 year old kid,i repeat kid.it is not in american culture to allow adults to pick on kids.even if you try and punish your kid as a father or mother you cold be prosecuted for child abuse.it is the sense of american ethic and cultural norm that was totally destroyed by the details of this case.most people can not understand why an adult picked on a kid and why he got into a fight with kid.the law is irrelevant here,most american people prefer decency and common sense law to any written law interpreted by sleazy lawyers for their clients benefit despite knowing full well that they are on the wrong side of ethical behavior.
Your theory is irrelevant. Just as the theory of the prosecution and defense was irrelevant.
The judgement was for acquittal the moment that jury was selected, and it would have been for full punishment if the roles were reversed.
A black woman got 20 years in jail in the same state for shooting her gun (in the air) in her own home to scare away her crazy boyfriend, after her x boyfriend threatened her and wouldn't leave her house. no one was shot. No one was harmed. She is in for 20 years.
Same state, same law. the only difference is the flavor of the skittle, I guess
The judgement was for acquittal the moment that jury was selected, and it would have been for full punishment if the roles were reversed.
A black woman got 20 years in jail in the same state for shooting her gun (in the air) in her own home to scare away her crazy boyfriend, after her x boyfriend threatened her and wouldn't leave her house. no one was shot. No one was harmed. She is in for 20 years.
Same state, same law. the only difference is the flavor of the skittle, I guess
I don't know where you're going with this dude, invoking self-defence automatically means no intent!
And the other element of murder under Florida law is not that killing has to be unlawful - as long as you can prove "premeditation to kill", it is considered murder. It can still be murder if there's no pre-meditation, but someone dies while you're engaged in a pre-set list of illegal acts (like arson, trafficking, etc.). In other words, you don't need to show that the killing was pre-meditated and occurred as a result of an unlawful act - only one of those conditions would satisfy the requirements for murder under Florida law.
For manslaughter, you don't need to show pre-meditation, but you do need to show there was intent to kill, even if there was a provocation. The reason Zimmerman was acquitted was that invoking the right of self-defence and proving it, automatically meant that there was no intent, so that he could not be convicted of manslaughter.
Having said that the right of self-defence doesn't give you a blanket right to kill anyone and everyone. It simply gives you the right and justification to use force in defending yourself. That force must only be used to dispel the immediate threat that invokes self-defence and must be reasonable. In this case, it could have been argued that the use of force by GZ was NOT proportionate or reasonable in dispelling the immediate threat and therefore GZ acted with culpable negligence or recklessness, even though this homicide was not pre-meditated (murder), and he did not intend to kill Martin (manslaughter).
At least, that's the way I've understood Florida law.
And the other element of murder under Florida law is not that killing has to be unlawful - as long as you can prove "premeditation to kill", it is considered murder. It can still be murder if there's no pre-meditation, but someone dies while you're engaged in a pre-set list of illegal acts (like arson, trafficking, etc.). In other words, you don't need to show that the killing was pre-meditated and occurred as a result of an unlawful act - only one of those conditions would satisfy the requirements for murder under Florida law.
For manslaughter, you don't need to show pre-meditation, but you do need to show there was intent to kill, even if there was a provocation. The reason Zimmerman was acquitted was that invoking the right of self-defence and proving it, automatically meant that there was no intent, so that he could not be convicted of manslaughter.
Having said that the right of self-defence doesn't give you a blanket right to kill anyone and everyone. It simply gives you the right and justification to use force in defending yourself. That force must only be used to dispel the immediate threat that invokes self-defence and must be reasonable. In this case, it could have been argued that the use of force by GZ was NOT proportionate or reasonable in dispelling the immediate threat and therefore GZ acted with culpable negligence or recklessness, even though this homicide was not pre-meditated (murder), and he did not intend to kill Martin (manslaughter).
At least, that's the way I've understood Florida law.
Good god! What an example. Some black woman got sentenced while Zimmerman did not so the process is racist! Look I am not saying racist people are not around (and that aint just whites hating on blacks there is plenty of blacks hating on whites too).
But the example you used really has nothing to do with this case. The black woman was not physically assaulted. She and the ex had an argument, so she left the house went to get a gun came back and told him to leave. When he did not she fired the gun. In Zimmerman's case he was being assaulted and shot TM in self defense. Do you see the difference or your mind is occupied by skittles, white, black, and gun?
But the example you used really has nothing to do with this case. The black woman was not physically assaulted. She and the ex had an argument, so she left the house went to get a gun came back and told him to leave. When he did not she fired the gun. In Zimmerman's case he was being assaulted and shot TM in self defense. Do you see the difference or your mind is occupied by skittles, white, black, and gun?
If you're talking about that Alexander lady, she was not in her own home - she was actually in her ex-boyfriend's home whom she had received a restraining order against 9 days prior! And she did not do it to scare her boyfriend away - she calmly left the ex's house, went to her car, grabbed a gun, came back, pointed the gun at him, closed her eyes and fired a shot that missed the guy! The jury found her guilty, because there's no self-defence in this case at all! But I think you're getting your facts mixed up with another case involving a WHITE guy named Wollard in Florida who did actually fire a warning shot in the air, in his own home, to scare her daughter's boyfriend and guess what? He's spending 20 years in jail!
In the spirit of being more objective and fair, I hope you study these case in a little more depth in the future before jumping to conclusions....
In the spirit of being more objective and fair, I hope you study these case in a little more depth in the future before jumping to conclusions....
the Black woman shot the gun in the air. In her own house. and she got 20 years for it. And yes she was assaulted, the boyfriend threatened to kill her. He already had a history of violence towards the woman.
and FYI, Alan Dershowitz said on TV that in light of this case, the case of the Florida woman (which I mentioned above) should/will be reopened.
Now tell me what's your favorite flavor of skittles?
and FYI, Alan Dershowitz said on TV that in light of this case, the case of the Florida woman (which I mentioned above) should/will be reopened.
Now tell me what's your favorite flavor of skittles?
Regardless of the case, if you look at Zimmerman unbiasedly, you can see this is not a normal person and has issues. With all the calls he made to the police, having police problems in the past, etc. Possible he had a bad day and enjoyed confrontation and looking to have one over the "punks who always get away".
Whether guilty or not, lets not make him to be a saint. He is free, and even if guilty, putting him in jail will not bring back Treyvon nor help Zimmerman who seems to have problems.
I mean lets face it Flint. If you personally killed someone that you did not mean through a self defense or an accident, you will feel sorry or bad at least for that family. Zimmerman has never shown any sympathy and his actions lately, such as staging saving the family, shows that he has zero sympathy. He seems to want attention which is what he was seeking in the first place with all those calls and his confrontations. I think anyone in his place would have dissapared into quiet life. I dont think this is the last we will hear of Zimmerman and he will cause more problems to end in the news.
Whether guilty or not, lets not make him to be a saint. He is free, and even if guilty, putting him in jail will not bring back Treyvon nor help Zimmerman who seems to have problems.
I mean lets face it Flint. If you personally killed someone that you did not mean through a self defense or an accident, you will feel sorry or bad at least for that family. Zimmerman has never shown any sympathy and his actions lately, such as staging saving the family, shows that he has zero sympathy. He seems to want attention which is what he was seeking in the first place with all those calls and his confrontations. I think anyone in his place would have dissapared into quiet life. I dont think this is the last we will hear of Zimmerman and he will cause more problems to end in the news.
I am talking about the case involving a BLACK woman. Not a WHITE guy. the same case that Dershowitz was talking about in the days after the verdict on Zimmerman case came out. Even if it were the man's house, she was obviously living there too. she didn't go to his house. and there was a reason that she had a restraining order on him.
Behzad,if what you are saying is true, it is horrific, but it is not anything new. It is naive and ignorant, and one must be living in the bubble, not to know there is racism against blacks in America with police and with courts.
This by Geraldo few days before the verdict says it all:
said Friday that he thought Zimmerman would dodge a murder conviction because the nearly all-white jury would probably have killed Martin too
This by Geraldo few days before the verdict says it all:
said Friday that he thought Zimmerman would dodge a murder conviction because the nearly all-white jury would probably have killed Martin too
One critical point in Zimmerman's case was the fact that nobody knew who actually started the fight. It is my understanding that an aggressor who provokes a fight cannot claim self-defense under the Florida law (one exception is when the response from the other side is disproportionate). The prosecutor in Zimmerman case could not establish who threw the first punch and I think that was the main reason they lost the case. Based on Alan Dershowitz's interview, if you think 60%, 70% or even 80% likely that Zimmerman was guilty and did not deserve self-defense, you should vote not guilty, this is what the jurors did which was proper given their instructions as there was real doubts as to who the aggressor was.
Having said that does not mean the Zimmerman was totally innocent, he was only found not guilty. In mind of many of us not guilty equals innocent, but the words have more precise meaning in law.
Having said that does not mean the Zimmerman was totally innocent, he was only found not guilty. In mind of many of us not guilty equals innocent, but the words have more precise meaning in law.
London,
I am repeating some of the stuff that Anderson Cooper and Dershowitz were talking about on CNN. I am not saying that those two cases are exactly the same, but there are a lot of similarities. and at least, the verdicts should have reflected that. Not saying the black woman should have gone free, but 20 freaking years because she endangered someone who had a history of abusing her and had just threatened to kill her???
I am repeating some of the stuff that Anderson Cooper and Dershowitz were talking about on CNN. I am not saying that those two cases are exactly the same, but there are a lot of similarities. and at least, the verdicts should have reflected that. Not saying the black woman should have gone free, but 20 freaking years because she endangered someone who had a history of abusing her and had just threatened to kill her???
LOL. Is this about some random BLACK woman or did she have a name? Did you even bother to look up the name I gave you to see whether that was the same woman you're talking about? If it is, I suggest you look up the FACTS surrounding that case before you jump to conclusions, because the details you've mentioned don't match with any other case I've heard about, other than that WHITE guy!
Last edited:
I'm finally starting to understand what Massi's talking about, people being brainwashed down there by whatever they hear in the media! No one even bothers to do a 10 second Google search to get a couple of their 100 ducks in a row before choosing one extreme over the other! Read a couple of articles, look up a couple of laws, at least learn the name of the person you're talking about, before you decide which extreme side of the argument you want to take! Everything's Left or Right, Black or White, On or Off... really? It's the 21st century and you guys down in the US have brewed down human intelligence to binary operations?!!!
I like to think we're all intelligent adults. People should do their own fact checking for God's sake. It's one thing to come and say I checked what you presented as FACTS against this source and that source and they didn't check out and another thing to come in with no facts, not check the facts someone else is giving you and just carry-on with your case!
I actually heard about this Alexander case on Bill Maher's last show and you know how Bill is, sometimes he wants to make it look like an open and shut case too, but what I like about him is that he brings on guests that challenge him and he's open to that. One of the guests was actually Republican ex-congressman Connie Mack and he challenged what Bill was presenting quite nicely, so when Behzad mentioned the case, I just looked it up to see what was what.
I actually really liked this Connie Mack guy - very together, VERY well dressed (which is hard to find among republican guests usually
), presented his points really well, listened to what others had to say and his responses were very clam and collected - I was very impressed with him and I think in terms of personality, he's one of my favorite Republicans now (outside you guys on ISP of course ). My favorite was his grin when Dan Savage (gay activist) said he keeps inseminating his husband hoping God will give them a baby (around minute 3:00 in the clip below) - check out Norquist's reaction in comparison - it was priceless! The whole clip is actually pretty funny with some great arguments so definitely worth a watch. Love Dan's shirt btw - would have totally pulled that off in my metro days when I wasn't 30 lbs. overweighed!
[video=youtube_share;uqZDUGHRcTU]http://youtu.be/uqZDUGHRcTU[/video]
I actually heard about this Alexander case on Bill Maher's last show and you know how Bill is, sometimes he wants to make it look like an open and shut case too, but what I like about him is that he brings on guests that challenge him and he's open to that. One of the guests was actually Republican ex-congressman Connie Mack and he challenged what Bill was presenting quite nicely, so when Behzad mentioned the case, I just looked it up to see what was what.
I actually really liked this Connie Mack guy - very together, VERY well dressed (which is hard to find among republican guests usually
), presented his points really well, listened to what others had to say and his responses were very clam and collected - I was very impressed with him and I think in terms of personality, he's one of my favorite Republicans now (outside you guys on ISP of course ). My favorite was his grin when Dan Savage (gay activist) said he keeps inseminating his husband hoping God will give them a baby (around minute 3:00 in the clip below) - check out Norquist's reaction in comparison - it was priceless! The whole clip is actually pretty funny with some great arguments so definitely worth a watch. Love Dan's shirt btw - would have totally pulled that off in my metro days when I wasn't 30 lbs. overweighed! [video=youtube_share;uqZDUGHRcTU]http://youtu.be/uqZDUGHRcTU[/video]
My husband....I think if gays want to break away from the traditional family structure they should coin their own terms. How do we know he has a "husband" and not a wife? What is the determining factor? Of course, now that the road is paved, truth comes out. It was about money. Nothing wrong with that and everybody knew it but they always coached it in terms of civil rights etc. What is Norquist doing on that panel? I am sure he was wondering about that too. Trying to make them sign his tax pledge?