Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Tangent #654

Sorry, excuse was the wrong word. Self-defense is a justification to homicide. Justification and excuse are similar in that they admit the accused carried out the underlying conduct, but negate culpability. Again, if there is no underlying use of force (i.e. killing) why even bring up self-defense?

It sounds like you're talking about Stand Your Ground. And why do you assume a jury would have anything to do with it. I would bet in most genuine cases of self defense no one is arrested or charged.

Homicide/use of force and murder aren't the same thing. All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murder.

The part that doesn't make any sense is you claiming that someone would have to unlawfully kill someone in order for it to be self defense. If someone with a big knife is actively trying to stab me to death unprovoked, and fearing for my life and unable to retreat, I hit him in the head with a brick, what law did I break?

I'm not denying the fact that a use of force has to have occurred for someone to defend themselves through use of force. I'm questioning why you say that use of force would be unlawful if it was genuinely used in self defense.

@Fisherman's Worf is correct in that "self-defense" is a legal defense for the charge of murder.

You murdered someone.

But .. but, it was self defense.

Oh, ok, then that's acceptable.

Coming late into this tangent, but just wondering if anyone still believes that O.J. was actually innocent?

Of course OJ is innocent. Obviously, Ron and Nicole were killed by George Zimmerman.

Let's say you kill someone and are arrested and charged with murder.

At your trial, you give a compelling argument that it was a self-defense issue.

If the jury returns a verdict of "not guilty" due to the jury actually believing you and finding that it was actually self-defense, this does not mean "you murdered a guy but it was ok because it was justified".

It means "you did not murder a guy".

It's not that you didn't murder a guy.

The legal term then is "non-criminal" homicide. But, it is still "homicide".

homicide is killing another human being.

Murder is "homicide committed with malice aforethought" - or "unjustified" killing.

Either way, it's a defense. It's not a legal status.

You're not innocent. But, what happened wasn't committed with "malice aforethought".

You are wrong, per the definition of every dictionary and law book out there.

But hey, at least you are consistent.

Here's Cornell Law on it:

Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/homicide#:~:text=Homicide is when one human,wex definitions

So it's a fact that you are wrong.

Will this change your mind?

Evidence to this point shows no, it won't.

At this point, it's a matter of semantics and which dictionary you use. So, sure,you're right.

But wait. Oh, you fuck off. Because someone else's definition is different than the one you presented.

https://murphylawoffice.org/john-mu...micide committed,it is an unjustified killing.

The difference between murder and homicide is all in intent.

But, will *you* change your mind? Evidence to this point shows no, you won't.

You aren't smart enough to realize your definition is still the same as mine.

So no, I won't be changing my mind when you repeat exactly what I said back to me. Still proves you are wrong. Homicide is not murder, it is however killing. To kill and to murder are not the same thing.

Y'all are being dumb shits because the imaginary guy in the sky says, and I quote, "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

Period.

There's no qualifications.

There's no difference in the hallowed Sixth Commandment between homicide, murder and manslaughter.

Don't fucking kill.

Or you're going to the imaginary fireplace in the ground.

Q.E.D.

It also didn't stop you from saying what I said was wrong, but when you repeat it, it's right.

That sounds a lot like mansplaining to me.

I see @Demiurge lost his sense of humour after his last vacation.

Maybe posting some South Park centipede memes will brighten this place up!

First, who gives a shit what tribal elders in the stone age thought about this. Imaginary sky daddy is imaginary.

Second, even that is wrong, because they tell you to kill all the time. Hell, there's a psalm about how joyous it is to smash babies heads on the rocks, if they are Babylonian. They deserve it. The babies.

So congratulations. In a group of really dumbass posts, yours manages to be the MOST dumbass. Take a bow.

Son, I refer to you my previous post, which clearly anticipated your response.

Second, a remedial lesson in using quote tags wouldn't hurt.

Third, grow a sense of humour.

I take it back, Borgs. THIS is the dumbest post.

If it helps, you're both doing a great job of being dumb shits.

Sorry Borgs, hard to tell exactly how stupid you are sometimes. I mean, I know it's on the scale, but sometimes it's up and sometimes it's down.

There's a way to convey humor on the internet, but you never seem to have gotten that lesson.

So I guess remedial emoji lessons seem in order.

See what I did there?

Yes, you basically used the dumbest form of comedy.

Whereas, in my post about the sixth commandment, your first clue that I was being completely not serious would be the use of the phrase "imaginary guy in the sky."

Subtle, I know, and perhaps somewhat more sophisticated than your limited intellect permits.

Because that's how affirmative defenses work. If successful, an affirmative defense negates liability even if the underlying unlawful conduct occurred (e.g. the unlawful conduct was justified or excused). It's not saying the accused is guilty, it's saying they are innocent even though they carried out the underlying conduct.

Depends on the source, sometimes it's the 5th, sometimes it the 8th. But I'm sure you knew that.

It was just a useless troll for drama, and you made sure to post while I was responding. But like I said, your stupid is on the scale.

Not quite...

It's not like a pardon. You aren't admitting guilt.

You are stating that you are not guilty due to an affirmtive defense.

And the result is you are acquitted. Acquitted always means not guilty.

Why is this such a difficult concept?

Allow me to cut the chase:

Anyone who ran away crying like a little kid because someone posted a screen shot from South Park is in absolutely no position to claim the moral high ground.

Good day to you, sir.

Depends on what your morals are, little Borgsie.

Or if you have any.

Now fuck off little boy, smart people are talking. Occassionally you yip in the background, but that's not the same thing as being part of the discussion, is it?

Maybe I wasn't being clear, but I didn't say it was an admission of guilt (or at least that wasn't what I intended to say), and it sounds like we're mostly in agreement. If the facts establish someone committed the underlying conduct, then they committed the underlying conduct (that is not to say they are guilty or innocent, just that they committed that conduct). But if they succeed in a self-defense argument, that means they were justified or excused in committing the underlying conduct, and so they are innocent/not guilty/acquitted.

Thanks for the clarification, yes, I'm in total agreement.

The question then comes into parlance. The thing is murder pretty much has the same legal and common parlance definition. Absolutely Zimmerman killed, and is thus a killer. He isn't however a murderer.

And anyone who says they know for sure that he did mean to murder Martin that night when he followed him is ignoring pretty much all the evidence we have.

But it's hard to admit when you are wrong, so we still have people emotionally invested in it a decade later.

Maybe if we bothered to express things like 'I believe he murdered him' as opposed to 'he is a murderer' it would be easier to resolve. I'm fine with the first, even if I disagree, but the 2nd is a totally different statement.

A) Zimmerman killed Martin
B) Zimmerman claims self defense.

A must happen before B can happen.

You can't be accused of self-defense and then be guilty or not guilty.

The verdict may be not guilty by reason of self defense.

But, A still happened regardless of B.

OK, Jenee, one more time: Killing = homicide, homicide ≠ murder, as even your own link said.

How you feel about that doesn't change anything.