The Glade 4.0

If Zimmerman was actually intentionally show his gun to Martin, that would be a threat, not "provoking someone to self defense." Following someone is not a threat; that person may feel threatened, but there's nothing about it that inherently shows the intent to do harm.

The Bush doctrine has nothing to do with it. Nations are not people; they do not have to follow legalities of self-defense, unless failing to do so will piss off a bigger, stronger nation willing to do something about it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

And I concede that in my post. Now instead it is ok for creepy dudes to roll around and follow little girls because they are "acting" suspicious, which is a top of mind concern for me based on the number of disappeared kids in the Cleveland area. Sometimes they are found 10 years later as you all saw nationally a few months back but for the most part they aren't.

We need more **** statutes and less good-samaritan laws.

_________________

Then that's a case for the legislature, not for the courts. He could be guilty of stalking or some other non-manslaughter statute? Again that's not the case before this court. This court needs to deal with the facts of this case. Period.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

To me, the though process behind this feels very similar to gay marriage opposition talking about people being able to marry dogs.

No, what we need is less people inventing ridiculous scenarios. If someone is following a little kid around, call the **** police. That isn't "provoking" anyone to "defend" the kid; maybe they thought the kid was lost. In point of fact, Zimmerman himself called the cops because he thought a little boy was lost at least once; yet another incident the press just couldn't get right and claimed he was reporting the kid as "suspicious".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That's just ****.



Is it "ok", no. Is it "legal" yes.



Absolutely the opposite of my opinion. We need fewer laws altogether, and we need more good samaritans. We need more people who give a **** enough about their community to get to know their neighbors, care about their neighbors' kids, and be willing to act when something isn't "right". We need fewer people who aren't willing to say anything when a kid is grabbed off the street because they are afraid someone will tell them to "****". But, hey, if people are more willing to tell other people to "****", and even want laws to that effect, they better be willing to have the Gov't dig into their lives even more than they do now. When you ask the Gov't to fix your problems, they will, but you might not like the results.
The thought of hearing: "We're from the Government, we're here to help", sends chills down my spine. YMMV

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

+1.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I agree.

The other thing is that, with more "mind your business" statutes, people will be more afraid to act when something isn't "right." I know that I, for one, will be more afraid to defend myself if Zimmerman is convicted of Murder 2 than I already am. Much less to defend someone else.

Ban or curtail sheepdogs and don't be surprised if you get more wolves.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

So you want me acting out what I feel is right given your abhorrence of my position?

_________________

say it to who?

_________________

Threats of riots if Zimmerman not found guilty

unsure of the veracity of this but presented as is...

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

lol @ "16 year old academic scholar". Martin was so not that.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Well, it's not very surprising in view of the fact that this nonsense is what's being said by black journalists who are probably not in the NBPP.

A few gems:



Yes, that's what you get when we start worrying about "racial, political, and social economics" instead of.. the facts. A total disregard of the circumstances in favor of only the aspects that make it look like some sort of out-of-the-blue execution. Or, we could stop letting people appeal to "racial, political, and social economics" they're just assuming in the first place.


So, you're complaining that someone on trial is being regarded as innocent until proven guilty? Why would we grant that to the "victim", when they aren't even on trial?



No, it really doesn't seem that way at all.



No reason other than the fact that legal homicides are not murder, and Zimmerman has not been convicted you mean.


Where exactly did Zimmerman get "trained to kill"? How did he "Gun him down in the streets?" But she is, sort of, right. You shouldn't have to wear those shirts. And here's the cool part - you don't have to wear those shirts, because the case basically bears no resemblance to the way you're thinking about it.

This sums up the entire controversy in this case - Because Martin was unarmed, a teenager, and black, for many people, and probably the vast majority of blacks, he must have been murdered in cold blood because to admit otherwise would mean that racism really is not driving the train all the time. This case fundamentally threatens the worldview that most blacks under about 60 years old have had foisted upon them. None of the facts and circumstances matter; the only thing that matters is confirming the truth of racism - either a racist justice system that acquits Zimmerman, or a racist Zimmerman that demonstrates how whites "really" think of blacks.

Until people stop allowing claims of racism to be heard as legitimate political discourse, we won't ever get past this.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Can, in Florida, GZ be convicted of a lesser crime say Manslaughter if the 2nd degree murder doesn't stick? or did by State screw itself by going for the big one?

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

As I understand it, the state had the option of providing both charges of manslaughter and Murder 2 to the jury and letting them pick of which, if any, he was guilty. They declined to do this and left Murder 2 as the only option.

If GZ is found not guilty, double jeopardy will apply, they can't retry him on any charges for this.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

George Zimmerman is Charged with 2nd DegreeMurder and any lesser offense for which charges may apply after acquittal or inability to convict on the first. Currently, they have the option in the Zimmerman case of pursuing manslaughter and aggravated assault, both with firearm involvement escalations.

_________________

In other words, they can keep him locked up for years in court.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

No. FindLaw blog says that the judge added the option of manslaughter conviction today, and it would need to be found guilty on this trial. Self-Defense is still an affirmative defense against manslaughter, so this doesn't change Zimmerman's defense tactics at all, but juries are notoriously less stringent about proof on manslaughter charges than murder, seeing it as a "compromise" because they aren't sure. Of course, this is a problem. If they aren't sure, then the correct verdict is always "Not guilty." Regardless, the results of this trial will settle all criminal cases involving this incident. That doesn't rule out civil suits.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/0 ... aw+Blotter)


My personal opinion: Manslaughter conviction being available turns the whole case into a farce. Self-Defense is an affirmative defense that is valid against both Murder and Manslaughter charges. If he was not acting in self defense, then this was murder. If he was acting in self defense, then he cannot be guilty of manslaughter. You have to pick murder or manslaughter, you can't present both options in a case like this.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I'm assuming his story is accurate, until I hear EVIDENCE to the contrary. The only one here assuming things without any evidence is you.

If everyone was forced to "mind their own **** business" those girls would not have been rescued.

Yeah I really don't understand how you can support your position here Hopwin - your assuming things and some of them go against both testimony and recorded facts.

Do you have some kind of dog in the game?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Yea I posted that before I read that they're allowing a different charge at the same trial. I thought the previous poster meant they could level new charges and re-try.

That said, this case is already a farce. This most recent development makes it flat-out a frightening undermining of the rule of law.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I know you said it's your personal opinion, but just to clarify on the law of self-defense: there's a legal concept called "imperfect self-defense" which serves as only a partial excuse (i.e. it reduces the level of the charges but doesn't eliminate them entirely). The two quintessential examples involving homicide are (i) where the defendant genuinely believed lethal self-defense was necessary, but that belief was unreasonable and (ii) where the defendant genuinely believed lethal self-defense was necessary and that belief actually was reasonable, but the defendant's own seriously wrongful actions had provoked the other guy into attacking him in the first place. In such cases, the law recognizes that the defendant isn't as culpable as a willful murderer, but he's not wholly blameless either, so it allows for a claim of "imperfect self-defense" to reduce the level of the offense from murder to manslaughter (or sometimes from voluntary manslaughter to involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide, etc.).

Also, the prosecution can levy charges in the alternative like this, where they charge both murder and manslaughter and leave it to the jury to decide which charge (if any) is more appropriate. Like you, though, I'm inclined to disagree with that, because it allows the prosecution to just throw everything at defendants in the hope that something will stick and because it encourages/tempts juries to enter "compromise" verdicts that find defendants guilty on whatever the lesser charge happens to be.

I just want to point out to people here:

READ RangerDave's last post. That's completely typical of his posting style. It's logical, concise, and presents two sides of an issue.

I swear, half of you, on reading a response like that, would fly off the handle and call him all sorts of slurs for liberal, and not even notice that he mostly agreed with you, while nitpicking at minor points he disagreed with.

Anyway, RD, I'll trust your knowledge on the "imperfect self defense" concept. I've never heard of it, but I'm not in the legal profession. My bigger concern with the manslaughter verdict being an option, now, is that the jury will compromise rather than do their duty with regard to reasonable doubt.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

^ yayomgthis