or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

killing Trayvon - Page 169

post #2521 of 6250
This case is not a slam dunk either way. What everyone needs to keep in mind is that a prosecutor shares the ethical responsibilities of all lawyers, and possesses the additional ethical responsibility to do justice. That means that a prosecutor should only bring criminal charges for which she believes a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Is this prosecutor unethical or willing to sacrifice her professional reputation just to satisfy the public's demand for a trial? I haven't seen any evidence of that.
post #2522 of 6250
Just because you don't see it does not mean it isn't happening. This case is so high profile you can bet it's influencing the people involved and that includes the prosecutor.
post #2523 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambulance Chaser View Post

This case is not a slam dunk either way. What everyone needs to keep in mind is that a prosecutor shares the ethical responsibilities of all lawyers, and possesses the additional ethical responsibility to do justice. That means that a prosecutor should only bring criminal charges for which she believes a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Is this prosecutor unethical or willing to sacrifice her professional reputation just to satisfy the public's demand for a trial? I haven't seen any evidence of that.

I take it you didn't see her press conference, then.
post #2524 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambulance Chaser View Post

This case is not a slam dunk either way. What everyone needs to keep in mind is that a prosecutor shares the ethical responsibilities of all lawyers, and possesses the additional ethical responsibility to do justice. That means that a prosecutor should only bring criminal charges for which she believes a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Is this prosecutor unethical or willing to sacrifice her professional reputation just to satisfy the public's demand for a trial? I haven't seen any evidence of that.

There is some evidence to this effect including the filing of a document that has been roundly criticized by Dershowitz and others for being poor quality.
post #2525 of 6250
Dershowitz is a defense attorney, and thus as objective on criminal law issues as Nancy Grace.

The entire case turns on factual disputes -- Who started the altercation? Was Zimmerman's fear of death or serious bodily harm reasonable? -- which in turn depends on Zimmerman's credibility. I look forward to his testimony if the case reaches that point.
post #2526 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambulance Chaser View Post

The entire case turns on factual disputes -- Who started the altercation? Was Zimmerman's fear of death or serious bodily harm reasonable? -- which in turn depends on Zimmerman's credibility. I look forward to his testimony if the case reaches that point.

Zimmerman started the entire chain of events. Just based on the physical evidence submitted I wouldn't have any doubt that he believed he was in imminent danger of life and limb. Credibility can either reinforce or discount certain aspects of his story but in no way does it discredit physical evidence.

At this time the point of contention seems to be whether or not he broke off an active pursuit. There's a lot of evidence that highly suggests he did and little if any to the contrary.

Did he make significant errors in judgement? I think so. Does he appear to have an attitude? Yep but that can be nothing more than a product of his perception that the bad guys get away with all kinds of things. Does he have a skewed perspective of empowerment? I think so as well.

Do I think he's a bad guy all in all? Not at all. Does he deserve a fair shake in the eyes of the law? Absolutely. Will that happen? Most likely when it's all said and done, depsite all the misinformation and drama.
post #2527 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter View Post

look, the difference is that I have gotton up in the morning and gone out to kill people. I don't have a problem with that, and I don't regret it. but if I was faced with a situation where there were people dealing crack on my street, I would do ever fucking possible thing to make sure that I didn't have to kill them. and then if I did, I would put my finances in order, and clean my house, and send my family off on vacation, and set myself up and alibi, and go out and kill them. and if I had to go to jail, then so be it. but it would be a calculated risk. .

Fair enough, but the hypo and what I was reacting to was not "should you go rouge and start killing" it was "if you say anything to a person, even someone involved in criminal and/or anti-social behaviour, YOU are the one causing the problem, are in the wrong, and should not protect yourself, or even be prepared to protect yourself, in the event they decide to escalate."

If someone is being an asshole, and you let them know and ask them to alter their behaviour and they decide to attack you, THEY are in the wrong, not you, even if you took precautions to defend yourself.
post #2528 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter View Post

look, the difference is that I have gotton up in the morning and gone out to kill people. I don't have a problem with that, and I don't regret it. but if I was faced with a situation where there were people dealing crack on my street, I would do ever fucking possible thing to make sure that I didn't have to kill them. and then if I did, I would put my finances in order, and clean my house, and send my family off on vacation, and set myself up and alibi, and go out and kill them. and if I had to go to jail, then so be it. but it would be a calculated risk.
I don't think Trayvon was a girl scout, but I also don't think that he deserved to die. but, he might have been an actual very tall 12 year old black girl scout, for all Z knew. without really thinking about anything, he went out and put himself in a situation where there was a good chance that somebody could get killed.
This would make an awesome movie. Kind of like an urban Predator except with a deadly, stylish bowling ball instead of an alien. bounce2.gif
post #2529 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter View Post

look, the difference is that I have gotton up in the morning and gone out to kill people. I don't have a problem with that, and I don't regret it. but if I was faced with a situation where there were people dealing crack on my street, I would do ever fucking possible thing to make sure that I didn't have to kill them. and then if I did, I would put my finances in order, and clean my house, and send my family off on vacation, and set myself up and alibi, and go out and kill them. and if I had to go to jail, then so be it. but it would be a calculated risk.
I don't think Trayvon was a girl scout, but I also don't think that he deserved to die. but, he might have been an actual very tall 12 year old black girl scout, for all Z knew. without really thinking about anything, he went out and put himself in a situation where there was a good chance that somebody could get killed.
post #2530 of 6250
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal View Post


If someone is being an asshole, and you let them know and ask them to alter their behaviour and they decide to attack you, THEY are in the wrong, not you, even if you took precautions to defend yourself.

if someone is in the wrong, and you put a gun in your pocket because you feel that you are unsafe confronting them without a gun, then you are in the wrong.

if they are that much in the wrong, get the authorities involved. when you put that gun in your pocket you were making a decision that it was worth killing them to change the situation. now, if you have thought that through, and you are convinced that it is worth while killing them, go ahead, if you go out in a half assed manner with a gun in your pociket to confront people, and then kill them, don't say that it wasn't premeditated.
post #2531 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal View Post


What the fuck are you talking about? You're just making shit up. What about the Unicorns?

 

did you eat lead paint chips as a kid?

you are one fucked up individual

post #2532 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur PE View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal View Post

What the fuck are you talking about? You're just making shit up. What about the Unicorns?

did you eat lead paint chips as a kid?
you are one fucked up individual


450
post #2533 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter View Post

if someone is in the wrong, and you put a gun in your pocket because you feel that you are unsafe confronting them without a gun, then you are in the wrong.
if they are that much in the wrong, get the authorities involved. when you put that gun in your pocket you were making a decision that it was worth killing them to change the situation. now, if you have thought that through, and you are convinced that it is worth while killing them, go ahead, if you go out in a half assed manner with a gun in your pociket to confront people, and then kill them, don't say that it wasn't premeditated.

Bullshit. But ultimately this is a cultural disagreement. I don't feel that taking prudent measures to protect yourself from the .001% of situations that get violent makes you in the wrong, even if you chose to engage. Engaging is a social responsability.

I will say this: 999/1000 times a personal confrontation IS the better option and will have better results than calling the cops. Often a situation is made much, much worse by calling the cops and it is a HUGE and often unnec. esculation of a situation. Society is ultimiately held accountable by its self and the fact that so many people have passed the buck is a huge and self replicating problem.

There will certainly be times when the police are FAR better equipted and trained to handle a situation, but remember what I intially reacted to. Several people seem to think that simply opening your mouth and talking to someone about their behaviour puts you in the wrong.
post #2534 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal View Post

There will certainly be times when the police are FAR better equipted and trained to handle a situation, but remember what I intially reacted to. Several people seem to think that simply opening your mouth and talking to someone about their behaviour puts you in the wrong.

Was anyone other than Fraiche suggesting that? I said that you probably shouldn't run up to someone and start screaming at them and then call self-defense, not sure why you called me out about that.
post #2535 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal View Post

Bullshit. But ultimately this is a cultural disagreement. I don't feel that taking prudent measures to protect yourself from the .001% of situations that get violent makes you in the wrong, even if you chose to engage. Engaging is a social responsability.
I will say this: 999/1000 times a personal confrontation IS the better option and will have better results than calling the cops. Often a situation is made much, much worse by calling the cops and it is a HUGE and often unnec. esculation of a situation. Society is ultimiately held accountable by its self and the fact that so many people have passed the buck is a huge and self replicating problem.
There will certainly be times when the police are FAR better equipted and trained to handle a situation, but remember what I intially reacted to. Several people seem to think that simply opening your mouth and talking to someone about their behaviour puts you in the wrong.

Do you have any idea what vigilantism is? Do you have any real idea of when deadly force is acceptable under the law for a typical citizen out in the street? I'll agree that engaging a situation is the responsible thing to do. The caveat is that it be done by using the in place systems. That's what responsible citizens do. You aren't a cop so don't go out and play one. Why? Because law enforcement is trained for this and they have a hard enough time rightly discerning the law. Who are you? You mentioned something about prudent measures. The real weapon isn't a gun it's the grey matter between your ears. If more people used it instead of one of the tools used for force multiplication everyone would be much better off. If zimmerman used the real weapon (his brain) in a responsible manner then this whole thing would be a non issue because it would have never happened.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon