Likes: 
Faceplams: I wouldn't be surprised if they end up bringing him to a civil suit, and probably winning.
Active Member
I wouldn't be surprised if they end up bringing him to a civil suit, and probably winning.
Administrator
It's a systematic injustice, not geographical. POC are routinely stopped and harassed by the NYPD under Stop and Frisk laws, for example, and yet Mayor Bloomberg has the audacity to say that whites are targeted more than minorities, which is a bold faced lie.Originally Posted by allegro
Talk about cognitive fucking dissonance.
Digital Chaos said earlier that this trial was over politicized. You're damn right because politics is what created laws like Stand Your Ground, that statistically disfavor minorities. Politics is what allowed pundits to paint Trayvon Martin as a pot-smoking, gangsta thug who was in the "wrong" neighbor and *pearl clutching* called Zimmerman a "cracker". Politics allowed people to sell practice sheets with Martin's face as the target. Politics allowed the defense team to use character assassination tactics on Martin and Rachel Jeantel, which the god damn media amplified to nth degree, because discussing a young woman's vernacular is sooooooo important.
Active Member
Yea, except this had nothing to do with Stand Your Ground. It wasn't even invoked in this trial. Why let the media lead you around on a leash like that?
Bite me
Now HERE is what I've been looking for:
Zimmerman jury instructions
EXCUSABLE HOMICIDE
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the three following circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the attempted killing is not done in a cruel and unusual manner. “Dangerous weapon” is any weapon that, taking into account the manner in which it is used, is likely to produce death or great bodily harmMANSLAUGHTER
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Trayvon Martin is dead.
2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicideIn order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that George Zimmerman had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.
If you find George Zimmerman committed Manslaughter, and you also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the Manslaughter, George Zimmerman carried, displayed, used, threatened to use, or attempted to use a firearm, you should check the appropriate box on the verdict form which I will discuss with you later in these instructionsIn deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Last edited by allegro; 07-14-2013 at 12:43 PM.
Throbbing Member
It may not have been invoked, during the trial, but, it was an element of this case. Just because Zimmerman's legal team felt their odds of "winning" would increase by not invoking the law still doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman initially acted under the belief that he was covered by "Stand Your Ground" (SYG). Instead, the defense did not want its client to take the stand, as most defense lawyers don't since their clients often harm themselves on the stand. And before anyone asks, yes, I have a J.D. and have worked for both defense attorneys and the D.O.J. This was most certainly about SYG, notwithstanding the easy belief that the big bad media is to blame. Further, a study on SYG found that if you are white, homicide is 354% more likely to be found to be justified if your victim is black instead of white. This is not media hype; it's ugly truth: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...r-ground-laws/
Bite me
Actually, in reading the jury instructions, which I hadn't seen until now, I agree. Ultimately, the jury can only decide based on the facts presented at trial in correlation with the charges and the laws of that state. The Defendant is always innocent until proven guilty.
Last edited by allegro; 07-14-2013 at 01:34 PM.
Active Member
What I get from the verdict is that, any knucklehead with a gun in the state of Florida, can chase down and pick a fight with someone and execute the other person if he fights back.
Not sure if I'd feel safe living in Florida.
Bite me
well there is one good thing about all this: maybe we won't hear about Paula Deen for a while.
Active Member
Your statistics also line up with many other crime statistics. It sure seems like those unbalanced statistics are a symptom of a problem much higher up the chain than a cause of the problem. Is it the fault of SYG that there were a large number of burglaries in that neighborhood by young black males? Is it the fault of SYG that black people are much more likely to commit robbery in the state of FL than any other race?
For someone with a law degree you suck at causation analysis.
Active Member
"fights back"?
I understand that much of the public is infantilized and bigoted but cmon... it's ok to at least educate yourself on self-defense even if you refuse to use it. Assaulting someone who is following you in a public area is totally unjustified. Shooting someone who is assaulting you is frequently justified.
FATUM NOS IUNGET
Perhaps one of the main issues people have with you in this thread stems from shit like this. Down to brass tacks, you come off as a heartless, cold prick....but most likely a self-aware prick, which makes me shake my head even more. Compassionate people can (and some do too often) react with too much emotion sure, but decent people usually have some kind of emotional response. It affects them, and they must use restraint to keep that animal caged in and do their best to look at the facts. When you post after a tragedy, it's never 'What an awful thing. Let's hope that....' It's always 'AWWW FUCK, WELL HERE COMES THE ARMCHAIR JURY BEING SWAYED BY THE MEDIA. NO ONE GIVES TWO FUCKS ABOUT THE __ AMENDMENT APPARENTLY.' It's stale and unoriginal as fuck. Ugh.
Active Member
I am absolutely blunt and willing to let my own emotion show when stating the facts that I see. I just don't let my emotion become the facts.
Emotions have a place. It's not in the application of law. Emotion is too volatile and subjective to produce a fair environment for people. Emotions are exactly what lead to the very bigotry you think you see in this case.
You want to convey emotion? Do it. But don't bring out the pitchforks and ask for blood, asking for new laws, etc.
Active Member
Yeah because that's what they teach you in self-defence classes... too kill the other guy by shooting a bullet in his head.
I love that you think killing other people is just so casual. I think might be afraid of you to be quite honest.
Active Member
Decided to fact check this beyond my original hunch.
Here is the raw data: http://tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/data
Here is a more in depth analysis from a local news group: http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/...nd-law/1233152
• Whites who invoked the law were charged at the same rate as blacks.
• Whites who went to trial were convicted at the same rate as blacks.
• In mixed-race cases involving fatalities, the outcomes were similar. Four of the five blacks who killed a white went free; five of the six whites who killed a black went free.
• Overall, black defendants went free 66 percent of the time in fatal cases compared to 61 percent for white defendants — a difference explained, in part, by the fact blacks were more likely to kill another black.
The Times analysis does not prove that race caused the disparity between cases with black and white victims. Other factors may be at play. The analysis, for example, found that black victims were more likely to be carrying a weapon when they were killed. They also were more likely than whites to be committing a crime, such as burglary, at the time.
The analysis, however, is supported by numerous studies showing disparities in the way whites and blacks are treated by the criminal justice system. "It's very difficult to isolate the data on one law,'' she said, "when we have so many laws where blacks are disproportionately not released, not given the kind of equity you want in justice."
Bite me
According to those jury instructions, it appears that if you feel threatened (like Martin evidently felt), it is justified. Neither of us is a black teenager, so I don't think we can begin to imagine the fear that Martin most likely felt when he told his friend on the phone that he was being followed by a creepy dude.
Active Member
See, now THAT is more concerning to me. But it certainly changes my legal perspective on the self-defense escalation (Martin seems less "guilty" of overstepping). It's kind of nuts that you are allowed to assault someone in a public area just because you are afraid of them. In most places, they have to be inflicting some sort of harm (or attempting to).
It almost seems like Zimmerman would have been more justified in his self-defense if it happened out here in California. wtf
Throbbing Member
I would have been happy to further discuss this on an intellectual level; but, flinging insults, especially with an intellectual inferior? Not worth my time. Further, given how you find it appropriate to joke with your cute little "spoiler alerts" during a discussion involving an unarmed 17-year-old kid who was fatally shot, you really are not worth my time. Moving on...
Active Member
ooooo
a weak attempt at character assassination to avoid providing anything of substance to support yourself. You do have a law degree! Too bad you weren't on the prosecuting team in this case.
but seriously, thanks for stopping by with that cherry picked data. That's something that I saw floating around and wanted to investigate. My suspicious seem correct.
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 07-14-2013 at 05:23 PM.
Active Member
so there's this....
http://intellihub.com/2013/07/14/rap...erman-verdict/
FATUM NOS IUNGET
Someone's boooooorrrred.
Bite me
Throbbing Member
We had a case in Belgium a couple of years ago where a jeweller who'd been robbed for the third time in a short period, shot an unarmed burglar running away from his home after having burgled it in the back and killed him. Apparently: that was self-defense, because the burglary constituted signifcant material harm.
And then there's the feeling of threat, of real danger, that comes from being followed around and not knowing what will happen. It's a feeling a lot of women are familiar with: someone tries to chat you up, you turn them down politely, they start following you. They're following you to your train platform, into a shop they clearly have no bussiness in, suddenly turn up at the bar you were meeting your friends... They're not doing anything, and yet it's an incredibly powerful fear that sweeps to you. I've had friends call their partners to pick them up after a night out because they didn't feel safe walking the short distance to their own house.
But: no physical or material harm.
I can sympathize with someone merely feeling threatened and attacking out of self-defense. I'm not saying it's not problematic, but I do definitely understand. And I understand it a great deal better than killing a guy who robbed your house and no longer is a threat at all.
Bite me
^^ SO true!!!
FATUM NOS IUNGET
Active Member
I don't know if it's the website I'm visiting but from the comments I'm reading, it appears a vast majority are satisifed with the outcome of Zimmerman's trial.
Disturbing ..
Active Member
From the comments on that article you'd think Trayvon Martin and some witness were the ones on trial, really awful racism you wouldn't expect from readers of business week
Active Member
So Zimmerman's brother goes on CNN and trashes Trayvon by saying he might have been growing marijuana plants and was allegedly looking to acquire a firearm.
So I guess according to this asshole, it's ok for his brother to have a gun but not a black person?
I had to post this clip.
Throbbing Member
This blogpost by David Simon is not what's on my mind, but powerful nonetheless.
One man accosted another and when it became a fist fight, one man — and one man only — had a firearm. The rest is racial rationalization and dishonorable commentary.
If I were a person of color in Florida, I would pick up a brick and start walking toward that courthouse in Sanford. Those that do not, those that hold the pain and betrayal inside and somehow manage to resist violence — these citizens are testament to a stoic tolerance that is more than the rest of us deserve. I confess, their patience and patriotism is well beyond my own.
Bite me
Active Member
I know some of you appreciate Cenk Uygur's views on some topics.
Reply With Quote
