Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Expect an arrest soon.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Chula Vista, CA
|
|
^Thanks FAT. So there is possibly some judicial precedent for stalking to have occurred in a single act. Be interesting to know if the judge ever actually used the term stalking.
Kidding and arguing aside, it seems a tragedy that z-man did not follow the tenets of police recommended neighborhood watch procedure and just wait for them to arrive. I wonder why?
I'm curious if someone just got him aside and asked now, whether he'd say, yeah I wish I would have stayed in the truck like they to wanted me too.
^michaeld - good point. I watched it twice (you get a different anti-smoking message each time, sure glad I don't use 'em). Offends the hell out of me. It's a strange phenomenon, how one story take off (obviously this one wasnt' completely ignored since you have the link) and another doesn't. If I figure it out, I'll let everyone in on it after a make a billion dollars in advertizing consulting.
|
|
michaeld
Sport climber
Sacramento
|
|
Why would Treyvon hang up on his girlfriend if he got attacked?
I've heard conflicting stories where she said after the fact that she heard him get into an altercation with someone.
Then another where she said he'd call her back.... Which is it?
|
|
michaeld
Sport climber
Sacramento
|
|
Everything you just posted is the confusion. There is no evidence. It's all opinions on what happened. What can ya do?
Go climb.
|
|
monolith
climber
albany,ca
|
|
It's clear now from mm's link that blacks will kill whites. Thanks.
No wonder Zman was afraid for his life. He was confronting a black kid.
Zman was just doing his part to even the score against blacks.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
Because Zimmerman called the guy a coon,
Except he never did.
He said it was "f*#king cold"
There's been a lot of irresponsible reporting on this case that should rise to the level of criminality.
Seems there's a huge market for angertainment
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
He said it was "f*#king cold"
The latest was he said "punk" (not coon and not cold).
I feel slightly vindicated in my post way upthread to the effect of "who the heck says coon these days"? (A few people responded that the term is in current use in their families and I'm sure they're telling it like they see it, but I still got a little smug satisfaction when the enhanced audio shows he didn't say coon).
Re: posted link of people (who happened to be black) beating the hell of some some guy (who happened to be white), laughing and videoing it--didn't have anything to do with race, at least I didn't hear any suggestion from the newscasters that it did. Us simpletons need to be told when race is a factor in a crime (Zimmerman) and when it doesn't (Baltimore beating), because it's not totally obvious until someone tells you . . .
|
|
monolith
climber
albany,ca
|
|
F*#king cold? Good time to put up the hoodie.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
that he followed him after
the dispatcher said that they dont need him to? how does that show racial
motivation? anyone?
good point, actually!
Yes, quite possible Zimmerman did not know the race of the adult looking person.
But, what Zimmerman DID know for sure was that he personally had a gun.
Zimmerman also knew that he could just turn around and LEAVE, but chose not to.
In fact, he was TOLD to let it go, "we don't need you to do that".
Instead, Zimmerman chose not to just simply get away, to leave the scene.
And if he would have, the kid would very probably still be alive.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Chula Vista, CA
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 12:26am PT
|
at 6' tall and wearing a hoodie, he could have been any age.
at that time in feb., its dark. how does zman know that martin isnt armed?
he doesnt. that he followed him after
the dispatcher said that they dont need him to? how does that show racial
motivation? anyone?
He followed and got out of his truck against the expressed intent of the dispatcher and his prior indoctrination into the neighborhood watch program. Read above if you can't find it. If it had been a six foot tall unarmed white girl with a hoodie would he have killed her too. It was dark you know. Or do you? How much lighting is there on the path? Some folks are saying it's race related, it may or may not have been, still more than likely it was murder. He's getting away with it so far because of a bizarre law on the books in Florida. Take some time and read the law.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 01:22am PT
|
Some folks are saying it's race related, it may or may not have been, still more than likely it was murder. He's getting away with it so far because of a bizarre law on the books in Florida. Take some time and read the law
Your injunction to "take some time and read the law" is good advice--I've done that and don't see how the law changes the proper outcome of this case as compared to the laws in any other state (and many have laws similar to Florida's).
But that's all been hashed out. What's more interesting to me is your observation that "more than likely it was murder." I may or may not agree with that (I'd prefer to wait until the investigation is complete.) But if the strongest you can come up with is "more than likely," then he shouldn't in fact be charged with anything.
People charged with crimes must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You may feel it's significantly more likely that he's guilty, and even that the evidence against him is "clear and convincing," but that's not enough to get a conviction.
A consequence of our guilt beyond a reasonable doubt standard is that in some cases people who many of us think are guilty, and who probably are guilty to the extent such a thing can be objectively determined, will escape justice. That's just the way the system works--it's not perfect, but it's better than most of the alternatives!
Here's my crash course legal lesson of the day (and as always, there are exceptions, these are the general rules):
In civil cases, the party bringing the suit must prove the charges against the defendant by a mere "preponderance of the evidence," that is, anything even a smidge greater than 50%;
In criminal cases, the state must proves the charges "beyond a reasonable doubt" (which can't be quantified, but everyone would agree that it's something MUCH greater than 50%).
This knowledge may explain some seeming anomalies in the law, such as how OJ could have acquitted in his murder trial but found liable in the civil trial brought by the victims' families.
I would have liked to see someone try to get standing to represent Caylee Anothony (get appointed "next friend" or executor of her estate or something) and sue Casey for killing her!
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Chula Vista, CA
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 01:05pm PT
|
I've done that and don't see how the law changes the proper outcome of this case
You've determined the proper outcome? You don't see how the law factors in?
People charged with crimes must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You may feel it's significantly more likely that he's guilty, and even that the evidence against him is "clear and convincing," but that's not enough to get a conviction.
Can't get anything either way without him being arrested, charged and tried. It is my opinion that he is "more than likely guilty", which I'm entitled to and which more than likely would keep me off the jury in Florida.
"Reasonable" is a horrendous legal myth, but it's in the law - read above.
I've done that and don't see how the law changes the proper outcome of this case as compared to the laws in any other state (and many have laws similar to Florida's).
Since you've read it, then you've probably observed that it's a horribly drafted law, whose language allows the self-defense assertion in a completely overly broad range of circumstances. Take a look through the literature and see where it has been invoked.
Which states' laws have you read in order to make the above comparison?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 01:43pm PT
|
Since you've read it, then you've probably observed that it's a horribly drafted law, whose language allows the self-defense assertion in a completely overly broad range of circumstances. Take a look through the literature and see where it has been invoked.
Which states' laws have you read in order to make the above comparison
Vermont's and Florida's specifically as related to this issue, and generally common law and "general" United State's law (things like miscellaneous cases from around the US, Model Penal Code for illustrative purposes) in law school.
Vermont's law may actually be more favorable to someone alleging self defense in this type of instance. Pretty funny VT case noting that a coward may have a greater right to use self defense that a person of normally bravery! You can't make that stuff up (and I'm not making it up).
The Florida law may well be horribly drafted, but no one on this thread (that I've seen, and I've followed it pretty closely) has been able to identify how any problems with it may apply to this case. (Lots of the law has to do with things like rights to self defense in vehicles and dwellings.)
Care to enlighten us? People like tradman will point out that they read something where a FL police chief or prosecutor said it's a bad law. That may well be true, but is entirely unpersuasive to anyone who knows anything about law.
And get the jargon right--if you're referring to cases (which are the only places where the law could actually be "invoked"), that's not referred to as "literature" in the legal world.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Chula Vista, CA
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 04:34pm PT
|
^
I didn't realize this thread was in the "legal world". Folks invoke their constitutional right not to answer a question when they appear before a congressional committee. These clearly are not cases in the legal world or anywhere else. I've noticed that people weak in the ability to reason often lapse into jargon, or the defense of it's use, to cover over the deficieny.
In the real world two is not many (VT, FL).
I'm not gonna look it up, but I'm sure you can find where the police "invoked" the law as their justification for not arresting zman.
I'll repeat it:
Can't get anything either way without him being arrested, charged and tried.
Re-read section 776.041 which describes when the defense will not be allowed. None of these determinations is specified to be made by the police, they are determinations that must be made at the time of the trial, after the arrest.
EDIT: Out of curiosity I surveyed 3 successful attorneys (all top of the class Stanford Law grads, and one who clerked for a Federal judge. None found the use of the term literature offensive or incorrect when referring to legal writings.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 04:47pm PT
|
So here is how this works- NRA for better or worse gets no retreat law passed. Local DA/Police chief have "close" call under that law. 99.9% of arrests and prosecutions concern people who are undeniably guilty. The DA and police chief are politicians. Arrest and and attempt to prosecute zimmerman = huge fight with NRA funded defense. Lose and you are probably out of a job. Easy answer.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 05:12pm PT
|
The saddest part (other than the death of the young man) of this event, is that it will make it clear to everyone in a state with similar laws that all they have to do in order to kill people they don't like is catch them alone.
No witnesses = "I was in fear for my life." = No legal proceedings.
And where does that lead? To an endless chain of murder and counter-murder.
Something Mr. Zimmerman is no doubt thinking about now.
It reminds me of a murder that happened in Vancouver about twenty years ago. A friend of mine was the lead detective on the case, which went to trial, and which featured incontrovertible evidence of the killer's guilt. But the verdict was "Not guilty." I think either the police or the prosecutor's office made an error somewhere along the way, and some of the evidence was ruled inadmissible, and the guy walked.
I commented to Robb the next day that he must be pretty upset at seeing justice denied on a technicality, but he just laughed and said something like "Nah. He'll be dead in a week. He'd have been safer in jail."
And so it turned out. Shot dead within a few days of walking out of the courtroom. And this was in peace-loving Canada, not the US where every second person is packing.
Seems to me that this law gives anybody who doesn't like you the ability to kill you and walk away unworried - as long as they catch you alone.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 05:49pm PT
|
No one here really knows what happened and much of the press coverage has been "angertainment" and completely speculative when it hasn't been intentionally misleading.
To start with the "gated community" is a rather ordinary high density condo / apartment complex with 60% minority residents.
The only time line I've heard from anyone with even second hand knowledge (interview with Zimmerman's father so there's obviously a bias, but just about all of this would be verifiable in an investigation.) goes like this.
Zimmerman is on his way out of the complex to go grocery shopping (not patrolling) when he sees someone, not a resident, prowling around units that had been previously robbed multiple times.
Z calls cops and begins following Martin
M ducks down a walkway between units and Z looses sight of him.
Z is driving down the parking side of the complex and stops to walk to the other side of the complex down a transverse walkway to get an address off the other side for the cops. Still hasn't seen M since he first disappears
On the way back to his car M comes up the walk between units and approaches Z saying "you got a problem"
Z replies "no I don't have a problem"
M punches Z, knocks him down and starts pounding on him.
Z pulls his pistol and shoots M.
If those are the facts, there shouldn't be any charges. The "Stand Your Ground" law would have no bearing on the case at all.
The forensics would show contact powder burns on W's clothing and body
Eyewitnesses saw M on top of Z and Z screaming.
Pure self defense and all Z's statements checked out.
It may be as simple as that.
|
|
michaeld
Sport climber
Sacramento
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2012 - 06:42pm PT
|
What's W stand for?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!