Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Tangent #654

Everyone of my brothers have scars and stiches and even I've had broken bones. He was injured. Ok. We get it.

*sigh*

This thread has become tedious. Would you like to touch my monkey?

"Now is the time on Sprockets when we dance!"

Cue a sped up version of Kraftwerk's "Electric Cafe"

"Forced" by who?

Whom!

The US government.

Uncle Sam was holding a gun against their heads?

Checking in.
Somebody mentioned Trayvon having a right to be nervous because he was being stalked by an old white guy with a gun. Trayvon couldn't have known he was armed. Zimmerman didn't draw the gun until he was having his head smashed against the ground after Trayvon allegedly said "You're going to die tonight."

I think somebody mentioned the stand-your-ground law? As has been mentioned repeatedly over the decade, that doesn't apply to a case where someone is literally pinning you to the ground.

Anna mentioned Zimmerman has has some domestic abuse accusations since the shooting. That speaks to his demeanor AFTER the shooting - most people go through serious emotional changes after shooting someone. It has little to do with his personality before the shooting. He may be scum now, but merely a hapless idiot before.

Like I've said before, being found not guilty of murder doesn't mean Zimmerman isn't an idiot, it just means he didn't commit murder.

It means 12 people looked at 2 other people's presentations that may or may not be based on fact, but speculation and one person's testimony that may contradict the dead victim's and said "I believe this guy".

It certainly does NOT mean Zimmerman didn't commit murder.

You really wanna defend this take, pal? That his shooting a kid made him into a wife beater?

Like I said, a lot of people involved in defensive shootings have personality changes. Not sure why you think saying that is a bad thing, it's the simple truth. I'm saying it may have no bearing on his personality at the shooting if it's a post-shooting development. If you think I'm defending his wife-beating, you're completely wrong.

Actually, he did commit murder, but it was justifiable due to our rules about killing people. He killed treyvon and used an affirmative defense which means yes he fucking did it, but whypipo let him.

There is this group of people who feels zimmerman somehow did not kill treyvon because he was not found guilty. That is simply not the case. Zimmerman had to admit to killing and murdering treyvon in order to make the case it was OK because he was a violent black kid in a white neighborhood who he was stalking and got into a fight with, but treyvon got the upper hand because zimmerman was a lazy POS and he was afraid the boy would not stop killing his worthless ass. But he did murder him, and the jury said OK.

No, this is why GZ was stalking a 17 year old black teenage boy. GZ is an abusive bully. He was so bad before this even the cops were unwilling to take him. That was why he was cosplaying police as part of the neighborhood watch. The reason he had a gun was because he knew women and skinny little black kids might get the drop on him when he tried to fuck with them, and he needed some way to defend himself considering donuts were a bit much for him to wrastle down and kill for dinner.

The evidence shows this. GZ was rejected by the police for being a lump. He was smacking his ex wife around. His parents knew he was a loser and were giving him money so he could play cop. He saw a skinny black teenager wandering down the street and had to go start a fight with him because he wanted to feel big. It was a one sided fight where treyvon kicked his ass, and then he shot the kid. Then he tried to have his dad and police friends get him out of trouble. Now he is off beating up the stupid women who date him, and selling pictures he draws because no one want a lazy lump working for them.

This is who the guy is. Is it any surprise we went from him to trump in the right wing worship a worthless fuck society?

I think it's more likely he was a piece of shit before, during, and after the shooting. Doesn't mean he committed murder (which is a purely legal term meaning unlawful homicide).

He was in the South, and more importantly, in Florida. It is far more likely to encounter someone with a gun than someone without a gun there. I think the only Florida resident to not pack heat was Rose from the Golden Girls (the other three were definitely packing, especially Sophia).

That's what turned Dayton into a wife beater.

I agree with you as to Zimmerman being a piece of shit regardless of the time frame. But I hate to admit I also agree with Tererun. Zimmerman technically did commit murder (or at least unlawful homicide), but self-defense is a legal defense to unlawful homicide, so he was found not guilty because his homicide was justified (I think his self defense was largely made up, but that's another issue). The undisputed facts are that he killed Martin. If he was found not guilty because of self defense (I don't recall exactly what the jury found), that necessarily means the jury thought he committed unlawful homicide, but was legally justified in doing so.

Think of this another way. You're navigating a boat in a storm with 10 passengers on board. You'll sink/crash and most likely kill everyone on board, including yourself, if you don't tie up to the first dock you see, which happens to be a privately owned. You tie up to that dock and walk ashore onto private property. You are technically trespassing on private property because you don't have permission to be there, but the law excuses that under the circumstances of saving 11 lives. This is the defense of necessity. That doesn't mean you didn't commit the underlying offense, it just means you have a legal justification as to why you shouldn't be held liable.

No, and no. I know the area and it is a possibility, not a probability.

That makes no sense. As far as criminal law is concerned, using deadly force in self defense against an imminent deadly threat is perfectly legal. If you have legal justification for committing an act, then how can that act be unlawful? Justifiable homicide is totally different from mitigating circumstances.

If the underlying conduct is not present, then the defense itself is entirely irrelevant and unavailable. I'm not sure why that doesn't make sense. You can't claim self defense to get out of speeding ticket or for committing fraud, generally speaking, because you didn't batter or kill anyone.

What the fuck!?!Save that shit for your dayton account.

I'm not sure why that's a controversial statement. Unless you attacked or killed someone, you aren't able assert the defense of self-defense. That's very basic and not difficult to understand.

An affirmative defense excuses or alters someone's criminal culpability (or civil liability). It's essentially saying "yeah that happened, but here is why it was excused."

While killing in self defense is indeed "homicide" ("justifiable homicide"), it isn't called "murder."

Right - self-defense excuses the culpability of murder (or some other form of homicide or use of force).

It doesn't make sense because using deadly force in self defense against an imminent threat isn't unlawful....full stop. You don't even have to prove it was self defense. I don't know if you even have to claim it was self defense.

Alternatively, if a statewide speed limit is 35 mph unless otherwise stated, driving 54 mph isn't speeding when the sign says 55.

If it's excused, it isn't murder. Murder is a legal term first and foremost. The normal definition is the unlawful premeditated killing of another.

Killing and murder aren't direct synonyms.

No. Self defense excludes any culpability of murder. If it was in self defense, then it wasn't murder. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

You absolutely have to claim it was self-defense and request a jury instruction to that effect. How else would it be brought up?

The law may be different in your state, but generally self-defense requires the party asserting it to demonstrate some degree of evidence to support the defense. Sometimes it's a preponderance of evidence, but other times it's plausible evidence that then shifts the burden to the prosecution to disprove.

Again, if there is no underlying conduct (homicide or use of force) that would even implicate self-defense, it wouldn't be available. If you're charged with a nonviolent crime, self-defense wouldn't come into play--it necessarily applies to violent crimes. I don't know how much clearer that can be.

To this day it amazes me how hard it is for guntards to just say having a gun encouraged zimmerman to confront treyvon and kill him.

You do all this dancing around the issue and you end up defending a guy who really should not have been doing what he did as a neighborhood watch guy. He was angry about some crimes that were committed by another kid who was caught before all tbis happened and he was going to stop the next one even if it was a kid in his own neighborhood.

All these years later and guntards are still trying to make excuses for him. This is why you re guntards and not responsible people. A responsible gun owner looks at zimmerman and says no way should he be stalking the neighborhood with his pistol looking for criminals. That is a fucking dayton, and you don't give a gun to a dayton.