Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Hardman Knott
Gym climber
Muir Woods National Monument, Mill Valley, Ca
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 03:59pm PT
|
Agreed, Hardman, but we do have a lot of facts now, the 911 tapes most significantly. None of which make Zimmerman look good, IMO.
If he really said "fućking coons" on the 911 tape (and it certainly sounds like it), then there should be hell to pay, regardless of the circumstances of the shooting. It does sound like the wanna-be cop was looking for a fight, his bravery bolstered by the firearm.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 04:14pm PT
|
It's interesting to me how an initial discussion about the "Florida Stand Your Ground Law," about which we have virtually all available information, morphed into a Martin/Zimmerman discussion, about which we lack some (though, in my opinion, not a whole lot of) information.
Sure, there are people who will use any excuse, legitimate or otherwise, to stir things up. To me in this case, however, the facts we already know about the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy (I assume that no matter how you feel about this, any time an unarmed man is shot dead [and even some times when an armed on is] constitutes a tragedy) make a discussion of the wisdom of that law timely and rather important.
I guess I analyze it this way. If someone shoots another in self-defense, no [edit: United States] law of which I am aware authorizes prosecution. Florida's law differs from that norm because its interpretation lacks objectivity in determining self-defense.
The law itself requires a "reasonable" belief. That implies an objective standard. Unfortunately, as I understand it, the case law undermines that objectivity to the point where prosecution becomse difficult if the defendant can provide evidence of fear, even if a reasonable person would not so fear.
If I am correct, does such a law make for a safer society? That, to me, should constitute the policy debate. those who decry the press's playing of this in a manner of "Judgment first, then trial" (as the Queen of Hearts said in Through the Looking Glass) have, I think, a legitimate point, although I know of almost nowhere else where Zimmerman would still be free and uncharged. That doesn't apply, however, to a discussion of the Florida law. How many more Trayvon Martin's can we bury and maintain our souls?
John
|
|
Hardman Knott
Gym climber
Muir Woods National Monument, Mill Valley, Ca
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 04:18pm PT
|
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 04:24pm PT
|
Agreed Hardman. We don't know a lot. And the media does not get details right frequently in cases like this.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 04:48pm PT
|
If he really said "fućking coons" on the 911 tape (and it certainly sounds like it), then there should be hell to pay, regardless of the circumstances of the shooting."
what if he didn't make any racist comment but really did kill martin for racial reasons? how would you prove that? would you argue that his volunteer tutoring of black children on the weekends was just a cover, to help in his defense when he just happened to find the perfect opportunity to kill an innocent black man in a scenario that he could plausibly argue self-defense, something he's been dreaming about his entire life? would you argue that his black friends who are defending his character were also part of his grand scheme to hide his racism? would you argue that these men are too naive to recognize a racist when they meet one or that they are victims of some deeply psychological self-loathing inspired by their racist society?
and what if he did make the comment? would that make him a racist? ever call a woman a 'bitch'? does that make you a misogynist? you say, 'regardless of the circumstances': what if martin did attack him? would the comment be a sure sign of racism? or fear? or anger? what if i come home to find a black man raping my wife and i call him a "coon" as i shoot him? am i guilty of a hate crime? can you prove, based only on that extraordinary moment, that i'm a racist?
consider: i murder a black man because...
1) i want to take his watch
2) i want to see what it's like to watch a man die
3) i want to prove i'm tough
4) i think it's fun
5) i felt dissed when he stepped on my toe
6) i was mugged by a black man and want revenge
7) i was hired to kill him
8) i hate black people
now, which is the worst? only one murder is given special designation by federal legislation and it's one that is virtually impossible to prove
when we have members of congress declaring this was a murder before a trial, before a grand jury, before any charges, and before the evidence has been made public; when we have an elderly couple forced to flee their home for their own safety just because somebody named george zimmerman once lived at that address and their address was tweeted TWICE by a celebrity with thousands of followers; when we have a racial organization offering a cash "bounty" for a man that hasn't been charged and is not a fugitive, we need to seriously step back and consider the possibility that this could turn into something far worse
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 05:00pm PT
|
The law itself requires a "reasonable" belief. That implies an objective standard. Unfortunately, as I understand it, the case law undermines that objectivity to the point where prosecution becomse difficult if the defendant can provide evidence of fear, even if a reasonable person would not so fear.
The word "reasonable" in the statute doesn't "imply" an objective standard, it is an objective standard.
Can you cite the case law (or explain the basis for your "understanding") that, if I understand you right, someone can be immunized from prosecution on the basis of an unreasonable fear?
If your understanding is right, then I would agree that the law --as interpreted by the courts-- has a major flaw, but that flaw isn't at all apparent from the text of the law.
(Some other parts of the law, such as the notion that it changes the burden of proof in civil suits, may indeed be FUBAR, but I don't seen any connection between that and your point above.)
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Ice climber
Pomfert VT
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 28, 2012 - 06:07pm PT
|
Quite certain that Obama was commenting that a child who looked a lot like what his son would have looked like was killed. I see this at work all the time. Guys on the construction site who have daughters have zero tolerance for raunchy humor directed twords young girls. Its a parent thing. You can turn it into a race thing if you want but INMOP the gut reaction was a parent thing.
Just have to say this again as it is just so blareingly obvious and disgusting.
The modern day conservative seems to foster a sh#t ton of small minded mean spirited weirdos. My dad was as Republican as you could get back in the day before it was spelled Repuglican. Decorated WW11 vet who took on Tiger tanks with a bazooka. I garentee you that if he was alive today that he would disown the current repuglican party and there is no way in hell that he would be sticking up for zimmerman. My dad was a man of integrity and compasion. Two qualitys almost completly lacking in the modern day conservative.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 06:52pm PT
|
The Florida special prosecutor investigating the Trayvon Martin shooting is bringing in independent voice analysis experts to go over the 911 tapes. Zimmerman said it was him screaming for help, if it's determined in was Martin, Zimmerman will be in deep sh#t. If it's Z unfortuneatly we probably won't learn much about what really happended but it will bolster his claim of self defense.
This case kind of strikes a chord with me. When I was in college a friend and I got the address of a rental house from an agent who told us we could go take a look. I guess we did look suspicious, we were there at dusk, in an empty van, looking in the windows with a flashlight. But it was an empty house.
A cop showed up, started questioning us, and a jackass, beer bellied, low class, neighbor comes up accusing us of being the thiefs that have been buglarizing the neigborhood. For about 10 minutes we were polite, understanding, and explained the situation. But the neighbor started addressing me directly accusing and cussing at me, I finally lost my temper and went off saying something like "You say we were here for 10 minutes or more looking in the windows right? It's an empty house idiot, how long are we going to case an EMPTY house?, You are totally wrong right now but you are too stupid or stubborn to realize it and you are accusing innocent people. You're the one causing the problem right now. There's no way we'd rent this place with an as#@&%e neighbor like you next door. Call the listing agent and see if we talked to her earlier today." After my outburst the cop stopped believing the nieghbor and started believing us because what I said made sense, but the neighbor still was unconvinced and pissed that the cop didn't think we were guilty at that point. The cop left but my friend and I had to sit there in his van for another 15 minutes or so because his van has a glitch where it wouldn't start until it cooled down. The whole time we were waiting for the neigbor to come back out with a gun or something.
And we were college student white kids. I can't imagine what would have happened if we were black. The cop seemed reasonable and it probably wouldn't have mattered to him, but the neighbor was an as#@&%e who couldn't see he was wrong even when I told him how illogical his view was, just the type to be racist.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 07:00pm PT
|
JE: If someone shoots another in self-defense, no [edit: United States] law of which I am aware authorizes prosecution. Florida's law differs from that norm because its interpretation lacks objectivity in determining self-defense.
In Canada, and I believe many US states, an independent party or parties - police, prosecution, grand jury - determines whether it appears that there was an objective, reasonable basis for the claim of self-defence or not, based on the evidence. In turn, a court hears the evidence and makes the decision. Laws like this allow an interested party, who may often be the only surviving witness, to make that decision.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 07:40pm PT
|
JE: If someone shoots another in self-defense, no [edit: United States] law of which I am aware authorizes prosecution. Florida's law differs from that norm because its interpretation lacks objectivity in determining self-defense.
MH: In Canada, and I believe many US states, an independent party or parties - police, prosecution, grand jury - determines whether it appears that there was an objective, reasonable basis for the claim of self-defence or not, based on the evidence. In turn, a court hears the evidence and makes the decision. Laws like this allow an interested party, who may often be the only surviving witness, to make that decision.
JE hasn't responded to my earlier post, but it appears that he is wrong in his clam that Florida's law "lacks objectivity in determining self-defense." (If he or anyone else can show I'm wrong, notwithstanding the "plain meaning" of the statute, which requires reasonableness, I'll give thanks for the correction.)
MH--I'm not an expert on Florida criminal law, but I've yet to see any suggestion that the Florida law would be applied any differently from any other criminal law statute (and US criminal law is almost entirely statutory). The law in question doesn't change how the system works (police investigate, DA decides whether to bring charges, defense doesn't apply if the defendant's behavior isn't "reasonable"). There may (or may not) be problems with the FL law, but so far no one has shown any connection to those perceived problems and anything that has happened in the investigation of this case.
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Ice climber
Pomfert VT
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 28, 2012 - 07:59pm PT
|
Bla bla bla, take it you have not read any of refrences to multiple cases where the FLA law has made it difficult for prosecuters to have a case resulting in letting the murderer free. In most states the shooter has to prove that the person he shot was in the preocess of taking the shooters life or that of annother person. The perp must have the intention to kill and the means to kill . In VT if I think you are trying to kill me and I waste you and your gun turns out to be a bag of skittles I go to prison. IN FL I walk without even a trip to the police station.
In FL the threat does not have to be real. The way it is worded the court has ruled by the letter of the law VS the intent of the law setting pressidence that the threat does not have to be real, it can be imagined. If you are afraid for your life you may shoot regardless of the fact that your life was not actually in danger.
That precidence that has been established in FL greatly affected this case. The cops knew they couldn't make anything stick so they didn't try very hard.. The SYG law set the precidence. The shooter walks without even a trip downtown.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 09:24pm PT
|
thought experiment
Is there any chance in hell that if a Black guy shot an unarmed White guy in Florida that he wouldn't have been charged or taken to jail
I think no chance at all
which is the problem
Peace
Karl
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 09:45pm PT
|
this thread is so full of outright BS from both sides that it is hilarious.
the police at the scene wanted to arrest the Zman so dont sh#t on them.
many of you want to condemn Zman without a trial, do you need a noose? really?
none of us know the facts until we actually sit in the jbox during the trial. all you f*#ks are doing is proving what blind as#@&%es you are whether you are on one side or the other......
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Ice climber
Pomfert VT
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 28, 2012 - 09:48pm PT
|
Not sure if we do know that is zimmerman? if it is it is the first time that I was aware that they brought him downtown for questioning? he certainly looks physicaly fine in the video.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 10:19pm PT
|
This shows why in the old days the trials were more speedy.
The longer this drags on the more polarizing it becomes.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Chula Vista, CA
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 11:06pm PT
|
Zimmerman is not a cop. He had absolutely no business following and confronting Martin, who nobody has alleged or even hinted was committing a crime of any sort. The 911 dispatcher instructed him to desist. He didn't, but rather continued to stalk Martin and at some point confronted him.
There is no "defense" here, only aggression on the part of Zimmerman.
The investigating detective wanted to file homicide charges. Apparently he was overridden by a state judicial official.
Zimmerman should be arrested and there should be a trial.
@blahblah - Your statments are the stupidest thing I've read in many years.
|
|
Gary
climber
"My god - it's full of stars!"
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2012 - 11:32pm PT
|
Is there any chance in hell that if a Black guy shot an unarmed White guy in Florida that he wouldn't have been charged or taken to jail
Google Trevor Dooley and your question will be answered, Karl.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2012 - 07:16am PT
|
zimmerman was taken to jail and released when the da determined there was not enough evidence to hold him; however, that was not the end of the investigation
f displays his limited vocabulary when he claims "kill" is synonymous with "murder"; he also shows his contempt for the justice system by admitting he does not need to hear any evidence to determine if a crime has been committed
|
|
Gary
climber
"My god - it's full of stars!"
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2012 - 10:53am PT
|
Karl has so little faith in his fellow man. I would hope that equal treatment would take place.
As my grandpa used to say, "Hope in one hand and sh#t in the other and see which one fills up first."
Google Trevor Dooley.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2012 - 11:01am PT
|
Zimmerman is not a cop. He had absolutely no business following and confronting Martin,
Personally, I'd rather wait to hear the evidence, but I would like to point out that the common notion that it is only the job of the police to confront criminals is disingenuous.
The main job of police is to clean up messes. Being pro-active is great, but they can't be everywhere at once.
The front line in the war on crime is and always has been right in everyone's face. Certainly an uncomfortable notion but deal with it!
You can run and hide, put three locks on the door, or you can chose to become pro-active.
The truth is that far more criminals are justifiably shot by civilians than cops.
That said, if Zimmerman was out looking for somebody to shoot, then put him in prison.
But if he was performing a legitimate neighborhood watch and confronted a suspicious person who became suddenly so violent that he had little time to react, then I don't intend to second guess him from the comfort of my gun room.
Nor do I think anyone who hasn't been the victim of a felony ought to be.
Let the justice system chew on this one.
I still stand by my prediction;
Federal charges for civil rights violation, civil mega-judgement but little coin to show for it
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!