REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

"George Zimmerman got away with murder, but the law couldn't prove it."

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Friday, August 2, 2013 08:18
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7329
PAGE 2 of 2

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:28 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The 65 year old had not had a finger laid on him and the only evidence was his word. Two men dead and there killer never even faced trial simple on his word.



So you have to let the other guys try to kill you first?





Yes. That's actually how self-defense is defined. There has to be an escalation of force before hand, and you can only respond with lethal force if you are threatened by lethal force. In some states it you can also respond with lethal force if you are trying to stop a felony, but it varies.

You can argue about whether or not it's a very good system (I think Frem would have some amusing comments to make on that count), but that's the way the law works.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:30 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
I can't know the precise situation, obviously. I only know that Zimmerman's wounds weren't life threatening, he had a gun, and logic dictates Martin shouldn't have lost his life for walking home bothering nobody. It is my own opinion that knowing the law and having the mentality that numerous things have shown I believe he had, Zimmerman felt okay with shooting Martin. That should not be.

"The question is what is worse, letting a guilty man go free, or jailing an innocent man?" I don't think that's the question. The only thing I can reply to that question is "a man in jail is still alive". But the real question for me is whether we should allow laws to be passed which reflect the agenda of special interests which result in the death of innocent people.




Zimmerman's injuries were not life threatening, but would they have been had he not had a gun and Martin continued to beat him? You have to look at it from the stand point that Zimmerman was inoccent of wrong doing. Do you think that approching someone and asking them what they are doing warrents getting beaten? Logic would also dictate that this encounter should not have resulted in violence of any kind. Well you know as well as I do logic goes out the window many times in the real world.



I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:33 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The 65 year old had not had a finger laid on him and the only evidence was his word. Two men dead and there killer never even faced trial simple on his word.



So you have to let the other guys try to kill you first?



Getting kicked off a boat will kill you? How do we even know the shooter was threatened? See that is the problem with the law. As long as you leave no witnesses you can get away with murder.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:34 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The 65 year old had not had a finger laid on him and the only evidence was his word. Two men dead and there killer never even faced trial simple on his word.



So you have to let the other guys try to kill you first?





Yes. That's actually how self-defense is defined. There has to be an escalation of force before hand, and you can only respond with lethal force if you are threatened by lethal force. In some states it you can also respond with lethal force if you are trying to stop a felony, but it varies.

You can argue about whether or not it's a very good system (I think Frem would have some amusing comments to make on that count), but that's the way the law works.



Well that is the way if should work. It is not that way in Florida and that is the problem.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 9:13 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The 65 year old had not had a finger laid on him and the only evidence was his word. Two men dead and there killer never even faced trial simple on his word.



So you have to let the other guys try to kill you first?





Yes. That's actually how self-defense is defined. There has to be an escalation of force before hand, and you can only respond with lethal force if you are threatened by lethal force. In some states it you can also respond with lethal force if you are trying to stop a felony, but it varies.

You can argue about whether or not it's a very good system (I think Frem would have some amusing comments to make on that count), but that's the way the law works.



Well, no, actually.

It takes a threat, overt or implied. Two large, drunk/drugged up, men (one was an ex-professional wrestler), would, I'd suspect, seem pretty threatening to a disabled 65 year-old guy who was on his own property, even if they weren't verbally threatening him (and do you really think they weren't?). At the very least they were threatening to physically remove him (wanna let two drunks with a grudge get their hands on you?) and take his boat.

And once again, like the Zimmerman case, there's plenty of facts neither of us know.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 10:09 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
[Well, no, actually.

It takes a threat, overt or implied. Two large, drunk/drugged up, men (one was an ex-professional wrestler), would, I'd suspect, seem pretty threatening to a disabled 65 year-old guy who was on his own property, even if they weren't verbally threatening him (and do you really think they weren't?). At the very least they were threatening to physically remove him (wanna let two drunks with a grudge get their hands on you?) and take his boat.

And once again, like the Zimmerman case, there's plenty of facts neither of us know.




The boat was till legally one of the victims and they were 20 feet away from the shooter when he fired.

The problem is we don't know what happened other than two men were killed and the person that killed them walked simply because he claimed to be scared.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 11:38 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

Well, no, actually.

It takes a threat, overt or implied. Two large, drunk/drugged up, men (one was an ex-professional wrestler), would, I'd suspect, seem pretty threatening to a disabled 65 year-old guy who was on his own property, even if they weren't verbally threatening him (and do you really think they weren't?). At the very least they were threatening to physically remove him (wanna let two drunks with a grudge get their hands on you?) and take his boat.

And once again, like the Zimmerman case, there's plenty of facts neither of us know.




I don't know the case you're referring to. But if we're still talking about Florida, or... Anywhere, really, then as far as I know it still has to be a threat of lethal force.

In the Zimmerman trial, the defense argued that the cement that Martin was purportedly smashing Zimmerman's head into was a lethal weapon and as such the situation had escalated such as to justify use of lethal force.

Which is not exactly what the law is intended to mean, but the judge and jury went with it so I guess it has precedence now.

If the two men you refer to had brandished a knife or a gun at the 65 year old, then yes, that would be a lethal threat, and would justify lethal force under the law. Or maybe according to the Zimmerman results, if an improvised weapon or ongoing assault were sufficient to make the victim of the attack fear for their life.

A "threat" as you call it is too vague a term to understand exactly what is being described. Did they threaten the man verbally? A "death threat", which is still not the same in the legal sense as a "threat of lethal force?"

Only a threat of lethal force (in other words brandishing a lethal weapon) justifies the use of lethal force. This is the case in every self defense law I've ever seen. It was true in the Zimmerman trial as far as I can tell, it is true in other self-defense claims I've seen from Florida (the defendant generally claims that the victim pulled a gun), and theoretically should apply to this case that you're talking about.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 1:20 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
You might want to edit that sentence, NewOld, the grammar is pretty convoluted. ;o) But the statement is pretty horrific.

In other words, if I invite someone over, and maybe get them drunk to help my story, I could kill them and say I did it in self-defense, if there are no witnesses or evidence to the contrary.




Now I've done it. I got myself confused, thinking that Geez was responding to me when he was To YOU. Now I've got YOU calling somebody else NewOld, responding to another post I don't think I wrote. I've goofed up YOUR brain.

Maybe my incipient OldTimer's Disease is contagious.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 3:34 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Hee, hee, hee; one of the problems with the internet. You start talking to someone back and forth, someone else posts into the conversation and you don't notice it's not the person you were "talking" to. Duh!

Sorry about that. And NICK, sorry, I didn't realize it was you. Eep...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 3:50 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I don't know the case you're referring to. But if we're still talking about Florida, or... Anywhere, really, then as far as I know it still has to be a threat of lethal force.



So as long as the assailant promises to only break your legs, you can't defend yourself? I don't think so.

Quote:

If the two men you refer to had brandished a knife or a gun at the 65 year old, then yes, that would be a lethal threat, and would justify lethal force under the law. Or maybe according to the Zimmerman results, if an improvised weapon or ongoing assault were sufficient to make the victim of the attack fear for their life.


Per FBI stats, 728 people were killed with "Personal weapons (hands, feet fists, etc.)" in 2011.

Quote:

A "threat" as you call it is too vague a term to understand exactly what is being described. Did they threaten the man verbally? A "death threat", which is still not the same in the legal sense as a "threat of lethal force?"


So you have to know positively that the assailant is for sure going to try to kill (not just injure) you before you can defend yourself? Or if he's beating you with his fists, you may only use fists to defend yourself? What if he's much bigger or stronger than you? I suppose that a woman couldn't use lethal force to defend from rape, since her life wouldn't be in danger.

Quote:

Only a threat of lethal force (in other words brandishing a lethal weapon) justifies the use of lethal force.


As noted above, fists, feet, etc. can be lethal weapons.


Quote:

This is the case in every self defense law I've ever seen. It was true in the Zimmerman trial as far as I can tell, it is true in other self-defense claims I've seen from Florida (the defendant generally claims that the victim pulled a gun), and theoretically should apply to this case that you're talking about.


I've always understood self-defense claims to be based on what a reasonable person would consider fear for your life. That depends on a lot of circumstances, which is why we have trials and juries - to analyze those circumstances and decide of the accused was in reasonable fear for his life. One size does not fit all. It's a judgement call.

---------------------------------

So far, we have Niki saying the self-defense law isn't right in some unpecified way.

We have nickerson...
Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
No, she is saying that laws in Florida should be changed that if you shoot and kill someone and claim self-defense you should have to prove that.


...saying that the defendant should have to prove he's innocent instead of the State proving he's guilty.

we have Kiki saying...
Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
What I would like is a re-trial.


...and undercutting the whole concept of double-jeopardy.

We got you saying that you shouldn't be able to defend yourself until someone actually tries to kill (not injure) you.

So how far are you guys really willing to go in your quest to get vengence upon George Zimmerman? How many of the legal protections we all have, and that have been put in place for good reason, do you want to overturn?


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 7:32 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I don't know the case you're referring to. But if we're still talking about Florida, or... Anywhere, really, then as far as I know it still has to be a threat of lethal force.

In the Zimmerman trial, the defense argued that the cement that Martin was purportedly smashing Zimmerman's head into was a lethal weapon and as such the situation had escalated such as to justify use of lethal force.

Which is not exactly what the law is intended to mean, but the judge and jury went with it so I guess it has precedence now.

If the two men you refer to had brandished a knife or a gun at the 65 year old, then yes, that would be a lethal threat, and would justify lethal force under the law. Or maybe according to the Zimmerman results, if an improvised weapon or ongoing assault were sufficient to make the victim of the attack fear for their life.

A "threat" as you call it is too vague a term to understand exactly what is being described. Did they threaten the man verbally? A "death threat", which is still not the same in the legal sense as a "threat of lethal force?"

Only a threat of lethal force (in other words brandishing a lethal weapon) justifies the use of lethal force. This is the case in every self defense law I've ever seen. It was true in the Zimmerman trial as far as I can tell, it is true in other self-defense claims I've seen from Florida (the defendant generally claims that the victim pulled a gun), and theoretically should apply to this case that you're talking about.



Bytemite you are incorrect regarding the Florida law. While the defense did argue that Martin was using deadly force they did not need to. In Florida you only need to have a reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death to use lethal force.

Many of the cases in Florida that seen people granted immunity based on the law have had unarmed victims.

Here is the statute...

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute
&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 7:36 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
We have nickerson...
Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
No, she is saying that laws in Florida should be changed that if you shoot and kill someone and claim self-defense you should have to prove that.


...saying that the defendant should have to prove he's innocent instead of the State proving he's guilty.



You know what, fuck it. If you want to frame it that way fine. Yes, I think you you shoot someone and claim self-defense I think you should have to prove that claim, or at least provide some type of evidence to support your claim. If not it becomes way to simple to murder someone.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 7:52 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Bytemite you are incorrect regarding the Florida law. While the defense did argue that Martin was using deadly force they did not need to. In Florida you only need to have a reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death to use lethal force.

Many of the cases in Florida that seen people granted immunity based on the law have had unarmed victims.

Here is the statute...

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute
&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html





Sounds like it depends on how the law is interpreted. Seems to me the claim of a weapon in play would be the quickest way to gain credibility that there was "reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death to use lethal force."

Which is probably why in many of the unarmed victims cases that I've seen from Florida, the shooter claimed that they THOUGHT they saw a gun or THOUGHT the victim was armed.

And also why Zimmerman's defense tried to bulk up his claim by arguing that the cement constituted a lethal weapon.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 7:59 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Nick, I hear your frustration. Don't let him get to you; by now you must know he, like others, will go around and around with circular "logic", mis-stating, misrepresenting and falsely claiming what others have said, mean, think, and everything else. There can be no communication; trying will just give you a headache.

And that is the point I've been making all along:
Quote:

I think you you shoot someone and claim self-defense I think you should have to prove that claim, or at least provide some type of evidence to support your claim. If not it becomes way to simple to murder someone.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 8:30 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Nick, I hear your frustration. Don't let him get to you; by now you must know he, like others, will go around and around with circular "logic", mis-stating, misrepresenting and falsely claiming what others have said, mean, think, and everything else. There can be no communication; trying will just give you a headache.

And that is the point I've been making all along:
Quote:

I think you you shoot someone and claim self-defense I think you should have to prove that claim, or at least provide some type of evidence to support your claim. If not it becomes way to simple to murder someone.





So you are also fine with taking away the presumption of innocence that is pretty much the cornerstone of our judicial system, and requiring the accused to prove he's not guilty?

How do you feel about Kiki's idea of retrying someone until the State gets the verdict it wants?


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 8:41 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


See? He's fully aware that's not what either of us are saying. Why bother?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 9:49 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
So you are also fine with taking away the presumption of innocence that is pretty much the cornerstone of our judicial system, and requiring the accused to prove he's not guilty?



In cases where a person has killed someone, admits that killed than but claims self-defense, yes. As stated in many states a person has to prove, or at least have some evidence to support such a claim. So as much as you are trying to pigeon hole me this is not some outlandish idea.

Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
How do you feel about Kiki's idea of retrying someone until the State gets the verdict it wants?



Stupid idea. However I don't remember see Kiki posting that.


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 10:08 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
See? He's fully aware that's not what either of us are saying. Why bother?



Different takes on the argument with difficulty seeing eye-to-eye.

In other words, I don't think this is actually deliberate, or that Geezer is being obtuse or trying to frustrate you, insult you, or rile you. Instead he is interpreting and processing the scenario you're discussing in a different way than you are.

You're arguing that when someone kills someone else and uses a self-defense claim, they need to prove that it was actually self-defense, which is difficult because if only one person survived the encounter, they can frame the story how they want to. This is a valid concern.

Geezer's argument is that if someone is accused of murder, and the law is that burden of proof is on them if they claim that they killed in self defense, then that is the same or similar to requiring them to prove they are not guilty instead of assuming innocence first then the state producing and considering evidence of guilt. Which is ALSO a valid concern.

His comment about 1kiki "retrying until the state gets the conviction it wants" is an exaggeration, true, but 1kiki DID mention a retrial, which is actually a bad idea for a number of reasons in a legal sense. There's a reason the concept of double jeopardy exists. While it was NOT what 1kiki was saying or supports, Geezer's statements appear to represent a concern that if the state allows for retrials, that process could become abused.

To Geezer: You promised to try to stay civil if you weren't provoked. I know what Niki said could be taken as a provocation, but could you try to ignore that and remain civil anyway?

As an alternative, it's possible that this thread has become too frustrating for either side of the debate to make much headway, and it might be time to abandon it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 5:07 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
To Geezer: You promised to try to stay civil if you weren't provoked. I know what Niki said could be taken as a provocation, but could you try to ignore that and remain civil anyway?



I am really trying. However, it seems to me that Niki, Kiki, and Nikerson are so interested in finding George Zimmerman guilty of something that they're willing to write off "innocent until proven guilty", "double jeopardy", "jury trial", and other of the very underpinnings of our judicial system.

It really does disturb me that folks would voluntarily give up the protections that generations have worked so hard to build into our judicial system, just so thay could punish one man - that a jury said was not guilty.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 5:49 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


I think maybe the verdict reached was the appropriate verdict in the Zimmermen case: " Not Guilty under FLORIDA law."

And I'm reminded of another interesting case, State of California vs Orenthal James Simpson. He wasn't guilty either.

The Juice is in the news again-- Over in Nevada, where he's doing time for robbery, etc., he argued to his parole board that he's served 5 years, been a model prisoner, and has no other criminal record. They ruled that he's entitled to parole and probation on several counts of his sentence, and could be released on probation, for time served. He still has to serve several more years, maybe 4 or 5, on the other counts.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 6:17 PM

OONJERAH



O.J. wasn't guilty under criminal law. That means,
it was not proven to the jury that he killed them.

Nevertheless, he had to face a wrongful death suit?
How can that be right?
Many believed he was guilty & got away with murders.
So ... get him any way you can? That's harrassment.

Myself, never had a firm opinion on his guilt or innocence.
Wish that dog coulda talked better.
(Too far off topic?)


======================
A man's gotta know about truth or consequences.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 6:29 PM

BYTEMITE


Oh whoops. I didn't even see Geezer's response here.

Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I don't know the case you're referring to. But if we're still talking about Florida, or... Anywhere, really, then as far as I know it still has to be a threat of lethal force.



So as long as the assailant promises to only break your legs, you can't defend yourself? I don't think so.



Not at all.

The principle of self defense laws as I know it is that you CAN defend yourself if someone else tries to break your legs... But you can't use LETHAL FORCE until they threaten lethal force. You see my meaning?

If you have like a bar brawl and you knock someone unconscious with your fists and they recover, but everyone there says that the other guy started it, your assault would be defensible by a self-defense argument. You might even be able to get out of paying any medical or insurance bills.

But if you accidentally killed the guy, you could be potentially up for manslaughter because nothing warranted lethal force in the situation.

Quote:

Quote:

A "threat" as you call it is too vague a term to understand exactly what is being described. Did they threaten the man verbally? A "death threat", which is still not the same in the legal sense as a "threat of lethal force?"


So you have to know positively that the assailant is for sure going to try to kill (not just injure) you before you can defend yourself? Or if he's beating you with his fists, you may only use fists to defend yourself? What if he's much bigger or stronger than you? I suppose that a woman couldn't use lethal force to defend from rape, since her life wouldn't be in danger.



A rape is a felony, as is murder or attempted murder. Self-defense is applicable if it is used to prevent a felony in many versions of the law - it also protects a person if they were an interloper preventing said rape or murder.

Although I think there might also be some argument about whether the woman's life is in danger there, because women commonly die from injuries sustained from violent rape.

Quote:

So how far are you guys really willing to go in your quest to get vengence upon George Zimmerman? How many of the legal protections we all have, and that have been put in place for good reason, do you want to overturn?


I have no idea WHERE you got that I'm somehow calling for Zimmerman's blood. I haven't called for anything about George Zimmerman. Guy got off, wasn't exactly innocent, but I don't support our justice system anyway because it's fascist police state bullshit. It's GOOD he got off! I never bought into this idea 'bout incarceration as a compensation for someone dyin' let alone an eye for an eye and a death for a death.

I knew he would get off, wasn't upset or shocked about it BECAUSE it was JUST THAT OBVIOUS. And while I might not think much of the guy because of stuff he said about it bein' "god's plan" that the kid died that night, I could care less what George Zimmerman does now, provided he keeps his damn nose clean and doesn't try to use this situation for some kind of financial advantage or chases his infamy ride like a glory hound.

As for what I would OVERTURN, I already commented about it being a bad idea to overturn double jeopardy protections and what's more I'M PRO SELF-DEFENSE! As should be blatantly obvious!

I'm just having a philosophical conversation about the way the laws theoretically are supposed to work and EXPLAINING IT TO YA, despite the fact that I have zero inclination for observing any laws whatsoever. I'm allowed to have intellectual and hypothetical conversations sometimes - I'm not precluded from them just because I'm an anarchist and a crazy psycho nihilist.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 11:31 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Oonjerah:

O.J. wasn't guilty under criminal law. That means,
it was not proven to the jury that he killed them.

Nevertheless, he had to face a wrongful death suit?
How can that be right?




The language in the Constitution (or Bill of Rights, I'd need to refresh my memory to say which.) goes something like, "No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb." (Same answer, I'd have to check it to get the quote exact, but that's pretty close, off the top of my head.) That means tried in criminal court, where they can penalize you that. That's also where the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The wrongful death lawsuit was in civil court, where all they can do is rule that you have to pay out money. The standard of proof there is lower too, something about "showing by a preponderance of the evidence."

When I was much younger, I also thought that that was awful close to double jeopardy, but many lawyers explained at the time that that was not true, that criminal trial not guilty, followed by civil trial was a common legal precedent

My wife watches The People's Court. You see it there often, for lesser stakes: somebody does something, gets charged with a crime, then gets sued for damages over it. The judges there rarely go against the verdict in the criminal case, figuring that with the higher standard of proof and higher stakes allowing more investigation and time mean that the criminal court got it right.

E-T-A: went and looked it up. just last month read a book, Miracle at Philadelphia , about the Constitutional Convention, so it was kinda fresh in my mind.

Article V ( Fifth Amendment) as ratified,

(some snipped.)
Quote:


nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 2, 2013 2:35 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
I am really trying. However, it seems to me that Niki, Kiki, and Nikerson are so interested in finding George Zimmerman guilty of something that they're willing to write off "innocent until proven guilty", "double jeopardy", "jury trial", and other of the very underpinnings of our judicial system.

It really does disturb me that folks would voluntarily give up the protections that generations have worked so hard to build into our judicial system, just so thay could punish one man - that a jury said was not guilty.



I remember saying that I did not think Zimmerman should have been found guilty under any good self-defense law. There was plenty of evidence to support his self-defense claim.

Thing is a person that has killed someone and admits that is admitting guilt. So the notion of innocent until proven guilty gets blurred in these cases. As I said defenses such as self-defense and temporary insanity had traditionally been affirmative defenses.

Now you can keep yelling "innocent until proven guilty" but that has never ment that a defendent could sit back and offer nothing for a defense and expect to be found not guilty. Sometimes the lack of evidence is just as telling as evidence.



I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 2, 2013 2:49 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


"Not Guilty under FLORIDA law"--I repeated that so many times it was obvious, and said clearly that my problem is with the LAW, not that I wanted to do any of what Geezer tosses out. Bad laws need to be reviewed and changed when they're shown to be bad laws. I'm pretty sure Geezer fully understood my point, but it would require discussing the nuances of that law; it's easier to misrepresent, which in my opinion is what he's been doing.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 2, 2013 3:36 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The principle of self defense laws as I know it is that you CAN defend yourself if someone else tries to break your legs... But you can't use LETHAL FORCE until they threaten lethal force. You see my meaning?



I see your meaning, but I'm kind'a confused about how you, as someone being assaulted, can know precisely when the assailant crosses the line between just trying to hurt you badly, and trying to kill you.

Quote:

If you have like a bar brawl and you knock someone unconscious with your fists and they recover, but everyone there says that the other guy started it, your assault would be defensible by a self-defense argument. You might even be able to get out of paying any medical or insurance bills.

But if you accidentally killed the guy, you could be potentially up for manslaughter because nothing warranted lethal force in the situation.



Once again, it depends.

If the guy was, say, beating your head against the bar rail, how do you know that he's not trying to kill you? It's quite possible that he could. Do you ask him his intentions?

This is where the "Reasonable Man" doctrine comes in. If a reasonable man (or in this case the reasonable members of a jury) would consider his life endangered by Bluto beating his head on the bar rail, it's self-defense.

Quote:

A rape is a felony, as is murder or attempted murder. Self-defense is applicable if it is used to prevent a felony in many versions of the law - it also protects a person if they were an interloper preventing said rape or murder.


Assault or Malicious Wounding can also be a felony.

Quote:

Although I think there might also be some argument about whether the woman's life is in danger there, because women commonly die from injuries sustained from violent rape.


Which is kind'a my point in this post. In the middle of an assault situation, you can't know for sure. You can't ask the guy/girl attacking you to sign a notarized statement that they'll just hurt, and not kill, you. You have to respond based on your perceptions of what the outcome could be. If you consider that outcome to be your death or serious injury, you may believe you need to use lethal force to defend yourself. Then a jury decides if they, as reasonable people, would have acted the same way.

Quote:

I have no idea WHERE you got that I'm somehow calling for Zimmerman's blood.


Sorry if that's not your intent.

Just seemed that you were trying pretty hard to finesse self-defense laws in such a way as to make it pretty difficult to successfully claim it. Since this is, after all, a thread about Zimmerman, in someone's opinion, getting away with murder...


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 2, 2013 3:48 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
"Not Guilty under FLORIDA law"--I repeated that so many times it was obvious, and said clearly that my problem is with the LAW, not that I wanted to do any of what Geezer tosses out. Bad laws need to be reviewed and changed when they're shown to be bad laws. I'm pretty sure Geezer fully understood my point, but it would require discussing the nuances of that law; it's easier to misrepresent, which in my opinion is what he's been doing.




Okay.

So, once again, what particular part of FLORIDA law do you have a problem with? An extract from the Florida Statutes or a cite would be nice.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 2, 2013 4:42 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:


If the guy was, say, beating your head against the bar rail, how do you know that he's not trying to kill you? It's quite possible that he could. Do you ask him his intentions?



It's really not that hard to tell when someone's trying to kill you versus they're just drunk and trying to hit you. Your example of a bar brawl with lots of witnesses and being hit around the head with a metal pole would be pretty clear cut self defense.

The Zimmerman case really had two problems. The cement and the repeatedly hitting against the cement could be the same as the bar pole scenario above, but Zimmerman's attorney called that a "lethal weapon" in the lethal threat sense which has a very clear definition under the law. I wouldn't call either one constituting a lethal weapon in the way you would call a gun or a knife a lethal weapon. Both the pole and the cement can be used to deadly effect, but an improvised weapon is a different thing than a lethal weapon which was manufactured for a particular purpose. I mean you can kill with a PEN or a PENCIL too. The idea of someone saying "they threatened me with a pencil so I shot them" is a little laughable, see. And logically that's why the definition of lethal weapons shouldn't be stretched to include improvised weapons just because intent to kill may have been there.

The other problem with the Zimmerman case is that it is pretty much impossible to establish who really started anything and more importantly who was on top when they were purportedly struggling on the ground.

But the state's charge for murder really didn't have enough evidence either, just as Zimmerman's self defense claim didn't really have enough evidence, and reasonable doubt leading to no conviction was the only possible outcome for the trial.

There's also uses of this interpretation of the law you'd actually like though. For example, if someone used a non-lethal self-defense technique like mace, and used the mace within the manufacturing specifications, and their attacker had an unexpected reaction to the mace and died or something, I don't think they could be convicted.

The downside of this is that police use that same defense and avoid conviction, but they often tamper with their tasers to deliver far higher voltage than was intended by the manufacturer, or deliver more shocks in a minute than is recommended by their guidelines. So when people have heart attacks...

Well, I'm just saying there's a lot of nuances to the self-defense laws in a lot of places.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 2, 2013 7:05 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
It's really not that hard to tell when someone's trying to kill you versus they're just drunk and trying to hit you.


I'd have to disagree with that. I'm sure that in a lot of instances it's just "good-natured" brawling, but how can you tell when a good-natured drunk is going to either turn mean or not control their actions to the point that fatality is a probable outcome.

Quote:

The Zimmerman case really had two problems. The cement and the repeatedly hitting against the cement could be the same as the bar pole scenario above, but Zimmerman's attorney called that a "lethal weapon" in the lethal threat sense which has a very clear definition under the law. I wouldn't call either one constituting a lethal weapon in the way you would call a gun or a knife a lethal weapon. Both the pole and the cement can be used to deadly effect, but an improvised weapon is a different thing than a lethal weapon which was manufactured for a particular purpose. I mean you can kill with a PEN or a PENCIL too. The idea of someone saying "they threatened me with a pencil so I shot them" is a little laughable, see. And logically that's why the definition of lethal weapons shouldn't be stretched to include improvised weapons just because intent to kill may have been there.


As noted above, mere hands, fists, and feet were lethal weapons in a murder around 800 times in 2011. The fact that a weapon is improvised doesn't make it any less deadly, given the proper circumstances. If you were cornered by two large men who picked up chairs and threatened to beat you to death with them, would that be less serious than if they had knives or guns? What if they threatended to drown you in a kiddie pool? Would you be less dead than if they'd shot you?

Quote:

The other problem with the Zimmerman case is that it is pretty much impossible to establish who really started anything and more importantly who was on top when they were purportedly struggling on the ground.
Well, that's the problem with any homicide case where there is only one surviving witness. It's up to the State to prove murder.

Quote:

But the state's charge for murder really didn't have enough evidence either, just as Zimmerman's self defense claim didn't really have enough evidence, and reasonable doubt leading to no conviction was the only possible outcome for the trial.


But the system is that the State has to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Zimmerman's lawyers don't have to prove it was self-defense, they only have to cast reasonable doubt on the State's case that it wasn't.

Quote:

There's also uses of this interpretation of the law you'd actually like though. For example, if someone used a non-lethal self-defense technique like mace, and used the mace within the manufacturing specifications, and their attacker had an unexpected reaction to the mace and died or something, I don't think they could be convicted.
If it was self-defense, I'm not sure why they'd be convicted anyway.

Quote:

The downside of this is that police use that same defense and avoid conviction, but they often tamper with their tasers to deliver far higher voltage than was intended by the manufacturer, or deliver more shocks in a minute than is recommended by their guidelines. So when people have heart attacks...


Don't know about that, but whatever.


Quote:

Well, I'm just saying there's a lot of nuances to the self-defense laws in a lot of places.


True. There pretty much have to be, as each case has unique facts and a unique situation. That's why we have the jury system; to analyze all those facts and conditions and determine whether the State has proven someone guilty of a crime beyound a reasonable doubt, or not.

Interesting that during this discussion, I received a summons for jury duty in the mail yesterday, so I may have some practical experience in a couple of weeks.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 2, 2013 8:18 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

good-natured drunk is going to either turn mean or not control their actions to the point that fatality is a probable outcome.



You can tell when someone turns mean. They'd have to be pretty good at concealing their emotional responses for you to not get an inkling when something's wrong.

I'm even not so good at it, and as I've said, I'm a vicious little bastard. I rely on concealing my intentions right up to the moment when I strike.

Here, an example. I was sparring with some wooden sticks with a friend of a friend once, mostly friendly. But the guy was a bit unstable, and he also was part of an organized SCA fight group, and I have good enough reflexes that we were pretty evenly matched despite my lack of training. That was a blow to his pride and he got mad to the point of berserking on me, and this was back in the time when my emotional capacity had been neutered by some medication I was on, so I couldn't berserker right back at him.

He was going to try to kill me, and it took a lot of yelling on my part and my friend to snap him out of it. No drinks involved, but the change was REALLY damn obvious. If you saw it, you'd know it instantly. And I've seen it a lot in my life.

Heh. I'm pretty annoying if I do say so myself.

Anyway. If someone doesn't see the change, they're not paying attention. That's one of the first things any self-defense class or instructor will tell you - PAY ATTENTION.

Quote:

As noted above, mere hands, fists, and feet were lethal weapons in a murder around 800 times in 2011. The fact that a weapon is improvised doesn't make it any less deadly, given the proper circumstances.


Never argued it's not. And I PREFER using fisticuffs and improvised weapons.

Just explaining the view of the law and why the law makes a distinction.

Side note: Why do you THINK I prefer barehanded fighting?

Quote:

Well, that's the problem with any homicide case where there is only one surviving witness. It's up to the State to prove murder

...

But the system is that the State has to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Zimmerman's lawyers don't have to prove it was self-defense, they only have to cast reasonable doubt on the State's case that it wasn't.



Didn't say otherwise. That's why the outcome of the Zimmerman case was so obvious.

Quote:

If it was self-defense, I'm not sure why they'd be convicted anyway.


You mean not sure why they'd be CHARGED. But that's up to the prosecutor and the state does have to investigate deaths you know. It would likely be a case where they wouldn't be convicted though... Not unless we're talking a really corrupt court, which we could be. Or if it was self-defense against a COP, in which case you're probably gonna fry so kiss your ass goodbye. Hell, in that case it'll be amazing if you even make it to trial before becoming a bloody stain on the asphalt somewhere.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts
Tucker Carlson
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:24 - 132 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL