Victim of perceived thug does end up in jail

[Formaldehyde]

Are you claiming that "neighbourhood watch volunteer" and "stalker" are mutually exclusive categories?

That certainly fits a lot of neighborhood watch people I have seen. They are quite frequently "get off my lawn" types who think it now pertains to their entire community.

My point is, as an attorney you fully know that the other two cases didnt have the possibility of self-defense via 'stand your ground'. People around here know that you are an attorney and value your opinion as informed. The least you can do is offer your opinion as a bit more informed than that so that others that are far less educated than you about the law wont think that all 3 of those cases are just the same.

Isn't it interesting how JR's "informed" opinion about the law disagrees so frequently with your own?

And aren't you assuming a lot about how stupid and ignorant some forum members must be to jump to a conclusion about their ability to discern what he really meant? How could those cases possibly be "just the same"?

Your're an attorney. When giving legal opinion, act like it.

Why should JR have to act like he is before a judge while posting in an internet gaming forum when you quite likely don't act as though you would if you were surrounded by your own superiors when discussing military affairs?

Besides, I see nothing wrong with any of his comments. You are frequently pointing out that those who were not found guilty in a court of law are innocent when they quite likely were extremely guilty, but the prosecution simply did not have strong enough of a case to convict. This case may very well be yet another one.

Why is there a double standard in this matter?

 

[Disgustipated]

So wasn't Martin essentially standing his ground against Zimmerman? Wasn't Martin entitled to use deadly force against Zimmerman?

If anything, Martin should be arrested (had he lived) for attacking Zimmerman, and Martin should be using the stand your ground law as his defense. Yes I realize I may be reversing my opinion on this case. But I hadn't previously thought that Martin was just standing his ground against Zimmerman. This means Zimmerman is guilty of 1st degree murder.

I still think it's silly liberals are slamming stand your ground laws when the law could be used to defend Martin's actions. Martin had justification to attack Zimmerman because of stand your ground laws.

 

[Formaldehyde]

What I think is "silly" is the notion that one can now kill someone for merely thinking they might be physically threatened. We haven't had absurd "laws" like that since the days of the Wild West when such acts were apparently even quite rare.

And such laws obviously lead to escalation of violence, which is why most of those in law enforcement and the judicial system are so opposed to them. What percentage of assaults prior to this law led to someone's death? If it was extremely high, I could at least understand this growing paranoia over personal safety, but it has not. The reason why this law was even created was due to false perceptions over a man supposedly protecting his wife from a non-criminal who was merely trying to flee his armed aggressor.

 

[Berzerker]

It cannot be an 'injustice' to put an innocent person on trial. A trial is the official process by which someone's guilt or innocence is decided, given that there is any doubt as to their innocence.

Official process or not, it aint "just" to put an innocent person in a cage and risk their life in a trial making them drain their life savings to hire lawyers. You wanna call it a necessary evil, go ahead, but dont deny the injustice done to that innocent person.

I'm just going to reiterate my view on this: Zimmermman caused a confrontation while armed with a deadly weapon. He should not have been armed. He should not have followed Martin. He should not have ended up in a physical confrontation. Martin should still be alive. Since Zimmerman repeatedly failed to act in a responsible manner and someone else paid with their life he should face an appropriate jail term.

Zimmerman attacked Martin?

It is clear that he killed Martin. There is evidence on both sides of whether it was self defense. The facts are in dispute.

The likes of Berzerker are claiming there is no evidence that Zimmerman did not act in self defense even a post after arguing against such evidence.

If I'm arguing against your "evidence", that means I dont consider it evidence.

Just because you can make an argument against some evidence does not mean it is not evidence. It just means you have something to convince the jury to be skeptical about in regards to such evidence.

You need the evidence first, where's the evidence for murder? Please dont point to a dead body and tell me the prosecutor has the evidence.

I mean, just look at Berzerker's last post - accusing me of convicting Zimmerman and not allowing him to make a self defense claim when I am merely calling for a jury trial with full expectation that Zimmerman will make the self defense and stand your ground claims.

I was pointing out your double standards, you said Martin may have been justified attacking Zimmerman but deny Zimmerman the justification to defend himself if he was attacked. And you have convicted Zimmerman, you got him guilty regardless of who started the fight.

It is Berzerker that wants to proclaim Zimmerman's absolute inncocence by advocatoing for no trial. Neither of us know the complete facts. My call for a jury trial is so that the facts get out before the institution in our system assigned to judge them. Zimmerman is not the only one with a stake in this - there is also Martin's family to think of. If your child was killed and there was a dispute in facts, would you want the killer to walk merely because he claimed self defense? Or would you want a jury trial?

"Absolute innocence"? What I've said is you need evidence to put someone on trial for murder. I dont see anything, nada... Everything points to a disgruntled teen attacking a neighborhood watch volunteer for asking what he was doing in the neighborhood.

 

[JollyRoger]

Well, we are at a stalemate since it appears you are limiting the definition of evidence to "something I agree with". I could see the case going either way as there is evidence that supports and undercuts self defense.

 

[Disgustipated]

Bezerker, what do you say that the disgruntled teen was just standing his ground. He had a right to be there, and was there legally.

It is most likely that Martin attacked Zimmerman first, but like I said above, he was just standing his ground, and I see no problem with Martin attacking Zimmerman. If you are going to have such a silly law, then it applies to Martin just as much as it applies to Zimmerman. Martin had no idea what Zimmerman was going to do to him. He's not obligated to flee based on the stand your ground law.

note: we have a stand your ground law too, but it's not as lenient as Florida's.

 

[MobBoss]

Isn't it interesting how JR's "informed" opinion about the law disagrees so frequently with your own?

I'm not an attorney, Form, but it may come as a surprise to you that attorneys make their living 'disagreeing' over the law.

Duh.

 

[Formaldehyde]

They actually don't "disagree over the law" much at all. After all, they are all officers of the court.

"Duh."

The point remains. Again, why the obvious double standard?

 

[Core Imposter]

Bezerker, what do you say that the disgruntled teen was just standing his ground. He had a right to be there, and was there legally.

It is most likely that Martin attacked Zimmerman first, but like I said above, he was just standing his ground, and I see no problem with Martin attacking Zimmerman. If you are going to have such a silly law, then it applies to Martin just as much as it applies to Zimmerman. Martin had no idea what Zimmerman was going to do to him. He's not obligated to flee based on the stand your ground law.

note: we have a stand your ground law too, but it's not as lenient as Florida's.

So your reading of the law is that if approached by someone whose intentions are unclear you can just break their nose and pound their head into the sidewalk? Thats your definition of standing your ground?

 

[JollyRoger]

So your reading of the law is that if approached by someone whose intentions are unclear you can just break their nose and pound their head into the sidewalk? Thats your definition of standing your ground?

Depends on the aggressiveness of the approach and the persistance, among other things. If I see the guy on the phone, I might think he is calling fellow members of his gang to help him out.

 

[Berzerker]

Well, we are at a stalemate since it appears you are limiting the definition of evidence to "something I agree with". I could see the case going either way as there is evidence that supports and undercuts self defense.

What evidence undercuts a self defense claim? What evidence do you have Zimmerman attacked Martin first? Thats the only evidence that matters... Even if Martin attacked Zimmerman out of fear it doesn't matter, Zimmerman was justified in responding. Arguing that Martin was justified too misses the point...

Bezerker, what do you say that the disgruntled teen was just standing his ground. He had a right to be there, and was there legally. It is most likely that Martin attacked Zimmerman first, but like I said above, he was just standing his ground, and I see no problem with Martin attacking Zimmerman. If you are going to have such a silly law, then it applies to Martin just as much as it applies to Zimmerman. Martin had no idea what Zimmerman was going to do to him. He's not obligated to flee based on the stand your ground law.

Thats true for both of them - they were both legally there. But Martin wasn't under attack, he approached Zimmerman and started asking him questions. The people accusing Zimmerman made a big deal about how he "confronted" Martin. Thats not what happened, Martin confronted Zimmerman and he didn't like being asked to justify his presence. From what I've seen their conversation went like this:

Martin: why are you following me?
Zimmerman: what are you doing here?
Martin: you got a problem?
Zimmerman: no
Martin: you do now

The girl Martin was talking with heard part of that conversation and it doesn't sound like Martin feared a stalker, it sounds like he's pissed at Zimmerman for watching him as if he was a criminal. Stand your ground doesn't mean you get to attack people for asking or answering a question.

 

[bernie14]

ABC News Exclusive: Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations After Trayvon Martin Shooting

so....are these documents, doctored?

apparently, zman was on both amphetamines and hypnotics

 

[MobBoss]

They actually don't "disagree over the law" much at all. After all, they are all officers of the court.

Well, and here I thought attorneys argued in court. Good thing I have you, Form, to let me know that all they are doing is agreeing.

"Duh."

The point remains. Again, why the obvious double standard?

Lilke it or not, attorneys are supposed (or are at least called to) obey a higher ethical standard than the rest of us by virtue of being members of the state bar. By virtue of thier status via the law, they are called upon to serve their community by those ethical standards.

Thats why there isnt a double standard.

 

[JollyRoger]

Last time I checked, this was an internet forum, not a courtroom. If you want the real deal, you will have to come up with a sizeable retainer.

 

[MobBoss]

Last time I checked, this was an internet forum, not a courtroom. If you want the real deal, you will have to come up with a sizeable retainer.

Ah, I see....ethical if there is a fee involved.

 

[woody60707]

Ah, I see....ethical if there is a fee involved.

I don't see how that is at all funny?

 

[Flying Pig]

I'm not an attorney, Form, but it may come as a surprise to you that attorneys make their living 'disagreeing' over the law.

Duh.

I should imagine that they mostly agree over the law, they just disagree as to whether such laws are applicable (for example, they agree that the law says that murder is a crime, but disagree that the defendant is a murderer)

 

[brennan]

Official process or not, it aint "just" to put an innocent person in a cage and risk their life in a trial making them drain their life savings to hire lawyers. You wanna call it a necessary evil, go ahead, but dont deny the injustice done to that innocent person.

It is no more an injustice to be put in trial if there is evidence that you may have illegally killed someone than to be put on trial for suspicion of walking on the grass in violation of local by-laws. It would be an injustice to be found guilty of something you did not do, but being put on trial is merely the process that is supposed to determine the facts.

Is his life on the line? In a sensible country *ahem* it wouldn't be.

Zimmerman attacked Martin?

No. from what I understand it seems likely that Martin attacked Zimmerman. But given that such a confrontation could easily have been avoided if Zimmerman had acted responsibly, and that the presence of a lethal weapon was again Zimmerman's responsibility, then he has behaved extremely negligently and deserves to pay the price for his poor choice of actions - given that they have resulted in a death.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/negligent-homicide/

Negligent homicide is the killing of another person through gross negligence or without malice. It often includes death that is the result of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, which includes the operation of a boat or snowmobile. It is characterized as a death caused by death by conduct that grossly deviated from ordinary care.

I have already linked neighbourhood watch advice from the source used by Florida Neighbour Watch organisations. Zimmerman violated the advice not to act as a vigilante - i.e. to do nothing but observe and report suspicous behaviour - and also the advice not to carry a weapon. Given that he has violated such advice and thus 'grossly deviated from ordinary care' I see no reason not to charge him with negligent homcide.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well, and here I thought attorneys argued in court. Good thing I have you, Form, to let me know that all they are doing is agreeing.

"Duh."

As FlyingPig just pointed out, isn't it obvious that they rarely attack the laws themselves, being officers of the court and all? Do you think any attorney would get very far not even knowing the rudiments of his profession?

Again, I can certainly see why you and JR disagree so much over legal matters.

Lilke it or not, attorneys are supposed (or are at least called to) obey a higher ethical standard than the rest of us by virtue of being members of the state bar. By virtue of thier status via the law, they are called upon to serve their community by those ethical standards.

"Like it or not", military personnel are as well, especially in regard to discussing military matters.

But I seriously doubt you are going to get too far with any state bar claiming that internet posts in a gaming forum are part of this "higher ethical standard". Why don't you give it a try if you feel so strongly about it?

I don't see how that is at all funny?

It isn't.

 

[Berzerker]

The media continues its excellent reporting, now they're telling us the gun was fired from "intermediate" range. WTH does that mean? If it means more than 4-5 ft that could be trouble for Zimmerman.

It is no more an injustice to be put in trial if there is evidence that you may have illegally killed someone than to be put on trial for suspicion of walking on the grass in violation of local by-laws. It would be an injustice to be found guilty of something you did not do, but being put on trial is merely the process that is supposed to determine the facts.

So getting or risking jail for life (or getting the death penalty) is the same injustice as walking on the grass? If you are innocent and you are put on trial, that is an injustice. Putting Zimmerman on trial for murder when the evidence shows he acted in self defense is an injustice.

Is his life on the line? In a sensible country *ahem* it wouldn't be.

You dont think its life threatening to be decked and your head turned into a basketball? I've seen this argument before, y'all are nuts. How would you respond if it was your head bouncing off the concrete?

No. from what I understand it seems likely that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Then he'd be innocent

But given that such a confrontation could easily have been avoided if Zimmerman had acted responsibly, and that the presence of a lethal weapon was again Zimmerman's responsibility, then he has behaved extremely negligently and deserves to pay the price for his poor choice of actions - given that they have resulted in a death. I have already linked neighbourhood watch advice from the source used by Florida Neighbour Watch organisations. Zimmerman violated the advice not to act as a vigilante - i.e. to do nothing but observe and report suspicous behaviour - and also the advice not to carry a weapon. Given that he has violated such advice and thus 'grossly deviated from ordinary care' I see no reason not to charge him with negligent homcide.

Because you just identified Martin as the likely attacker... And Zimmerman "never" confronted Martin, thats media BS. All that "advice" is irrelevant, its "legal" to ask strangers what they're doing in the neighborhood. If they attack you, its legal to defend yourself. Imagine the chaos if y'all had your way... We can walk into other people's neighborhoods and attack them if they ask us what we're doing there.