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

killing Trayvon - Page 284

post #4246 of 6250
The case had nothing to do with SYG.
post #4247 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post

No Mr. President I will do no such thing. This is a tragedy but in no way is Martin some kind of martyr. He was shot and killed in a self defense case. That means he was actively involved in something that caused another person to believe that they were going to die. That would mean Mr. President, that Martin was committing a serious crime or at the very least was intent on doing so..

Was listening to some legal analysis this morning, and that part is not necessarily true. Both Zimmerman and Martin could have been engaged in legally justifiable self defense under Florida law. Martin thinks he's being stalked and fears for his life, he's engaged in self-defense when he attacks Z.
post #4248 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Was listening to some legal analysis this morning, and that part is not necessarily true. Both Zimmerman and Martin could have been engaged in legally justifiable self defense under Florida law. Martin thinks he's being stalked and fears for his life, he's engaged in self-defense when he attacks Z.

The problem with that is the evidence/testimony indicates Zimmerman was withdrawing from the scene. By the fact Zimmerman is withdrawing it is hard to maintain Trayvon reasonably could feel in threat of his life from the retreating person. Of course many people are convinced Zimmerman was actually running at Martin with gun drawing and screaming like a banshee, but the thing is, there is nothing to support that claim.
post #4249 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Martin thinks he's being stalked and fears for his life, he's engaged in self-defense when he attacks Z.

What is the proposed event timeline for this theory? What was Martin doing between Zimmerman's 911 call and the time he was shot? I didn't see the trial, so I don't know. Did the prosecution propose a timeline?
post #4250 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

Well, interesting, if you find bookish nerds interesting. I'm probably the real wannabe fascist of the bunch, sadly.
If I believed you were really as humble about your lack of competence outside your narrow field as you sometimes claim, this would not worry me. That you consider your being the only wannabe fascist sad, does worry me.[/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

On a less glib note: what I've been most intrigued by is the sense (ON ALL SIDES, GODDAMMIT), that "good" politics (whatever that means) implies knowledge-claims rather than simply ideals. Politics as the inheritor of religion, etc.
What does this mean?
post #4251 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Was listening to some legal analysis this morning, and that part is not necessarily true. Both Zimmerman and Martin could have been engaged in legally justifiable self defense under Florida law. Martin thinks he's being stalked and fears for his life, he's engaged in self-defense when he attacks Z.

Really? I'll make it a point to make sure I don't hire any of the lawyers who said this.
post #4252 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcaimen View Post

I am not a lawyer but I dont think the Stand Your Ground law had anything to do with this case. I think it was just purely self defense. If someone is straddling you and smashing your head into the concrete you do not have the choice to either withdraw or stand your ground. As far as the Stand Your ground Law in general, what evidence do you have that it is exacerbating the relatively rare phenomenon of provoking a fight in order to shoot your victim without consequence? It doesnt seem to be a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post

The case had nothing to do with SYG.

Had read a brief comment about how Stand Your Ground might've mattered (despite Zimmerman not having appealed to that law in his defense) because of the instructions to the jury. Turns out that was kind of true, kind of not:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

The phrase itself is there but whether that's a meaningful allusion is more of a literary question than a legal one, I suppose.

Question to the practicing lawyers: would some sort of provision insisting on a duty to retreat in limited case where you help to initiate the altercation (i.e., being a drunken asshole and getting in someone's face, etc.; obviously not if you're sitting at home and someone intrudes) be feasible or a total mess?
post #4253 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post


Had read a brief comment about how Stand Your Ground might've mattered (despite Zimmerman not having appealed to that law in his defense) because of the instructions to the jury. Turns out that was kind of true, kind of not:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

The phrase itself is there but whether that's a meaningful allusion is more of a literary question than a legal one, I suppose.

Question to the practicing lawyers: would some sort of provision insisting on a duty to retreat in limited case where you help to initiate the altercation (i.e., being a drunken asshole and getting in someone's face, etc.; obviously not if you're sitting at home and someone intrudes) be feasible or a total mess?

By being drunk you are sunk. /Jackie Chiles

As I understand it the Florida law for self defense is pretty standard and has been on the books well before STYG, i.e. totally unrelated.
post #4254 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post


I know all of these remarks are barbed (treating me as if I were an idiot, etc.), but I'll respond sincerely. I am curious (really, since I know nothing about Florida law) how the Stand Your Ground Law doesn't exacerbate rather than alleviate the simple problem of one's ability to act like an egregious asshole, provoke a fight, then respond with lethal force.

This strikes me as an imaginary problem, to say the least. And self defense and SYG both require a reasonable fear of death or substantial bodily harm. Basically you would have to provoke a fight (without committing an assault) and then wait for the person to get to the point where your life is at risk before responding lethally. Hopefully you can really nail that moment, because if you wait too long you are dead, but you're going to have to be able to convince the DA, or at least a jury, to make this nefarious plan work. And all for what? So you can kill a person? Seems like it would be easier just to follow them until they are alone and blindside them.
post #4255 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure 
Question to the practicing lawyers: would some sort of provision insisting on a duty to retreat in limited case where you help to initiate the altercation (i.e., being a drunken asshole and getting in someone's face, etc.; obviously not if you're sitting at home and someone intrudes) be feasible or a total mess?
I think you would have to tease out what it means to start an altercation. Say you insulted some big bruiser. Would that be enough to lose your right to defend yourself if he physically attacked you. Imagine yourself in one of these situations. In which clip is the right to self-defense forfeited:
Edited by dopey - 7/15/13 at 1:43pm
post #4256 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

This strikes me as an imaginary problem, to say the least. And self defense and SYG both require a reasonable fear of death or substantial bodily harm. Basically you would have to provoke a fight (without committing an assault) and then wait for the person to get to the point where your life is at risk before responding lethally. Hopefully you can really nail that moment, because if you wait too long you are dead, but you're going to have to be able to convince the DA, or at least a jury, to make this nefarious plan work. And all for what? So you can kill a person? Seems like it would be easier just to follow them until they are alone and blindside them.

BTW, this whole scenario is sort of the premise of this Western



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Name_on_the_Bullet
post #4257 of 6250
ETO - it wasn't really directed at you, though I suppose halfheartedly in your vague direction. That said, given what I've seen in FB feeds lately from ivy-educated white people, it appears that it's a concept that might be embraced.

At least one guy has changed his profile pic to Trayvon in hoodie.
post #4258 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey View Post

If I believed you were really as humble about your lack of competence outside your narrow field as you sometimes claim, this would not worry me. That you consider your being the only wannabe fascist sad, does worry me.

You won't believe me anyways, but I'm even humbler about my lack of competence inside my narrow field.

Also, my cuddly freedom-loving upbringing will prevent me from ever maturing into an effective fascist. Sadly.
Quote:
What does this mean?

I think this case has really highlighted the pressure to make the link from "I believe X about how things work and how things should be in this country" to "I know the story in this particular case." The pressure is certainly not universal (I count myself among the many people who disclaim precise knowledge about what happened) but my hunch is that the pressure still exists, at different ends of the political spectrum. And I think this impulse is disturbing, but also fascinating: what is it about the structure of having political convictions that makes us confuse factual knowledge for ideals and values? To what extent is this "confusion" not just a confusion but actually points to something real about how knowledge is acquired (and facts are adjudicated) all the time? Etc.
post #4259 of 6250
Basically, SYG extends your "castle" to your "bubble," provided you are some place where you have a legal right to be. In most other states, if you're outside your home, you have a duty to retreat from danger before taking action. If you are pursued and therefore prevented from taking refuge, you are entitled to take proportional action. Inside your domicile most places there is a "castle doctrine", meaning that if someone invades your home and menaces you, it's assumed you have no ready means to avoid any attack, and so are entitled to take action, and it generally does not need to be limited proportionally.
post #4260 of 6250
Some of these FB reactions are really interesting. Some folks I would not have imagined are just going apeshit.
Quote:
MAJORITY WHITE COMMUNITY COULD INACT AND APPLY A JUDGEMENT AND A SENTENCE UPON DEFENDENTS WHO WERE MOSTLY BLACK. FOR MANY YEARS IN COUNTRY , JURIES WERE ALWAYS ALL WHITE . THEREFORE THIS JURY SYSTEM WAS DEFACTO LEGALIZED LYNCHING ESPECIALLY WHILE THERE WAS NO DIVERSITY IN THE JURY BOX. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE ZIMMERMAN TRIAL IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, WHICH HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR IT'S RACIAL INEQUITIES IN THE PAST, REMINDS US THAT AN PRACTICALLY ALL WHITE, JURY YET AGAIN EXONERATED A MURDERER WHO COLD BLOODEDLY GUNNED DOWN AN UNARMED 17 YEAR OLD BLACK BOY. THIS REMINDS US AGAIN THAT IF YOU TAKE THE LIFE OF A BLACK CITIZEN IN FLORIDA YOU WILL NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. THE PRESENT HAS AGAIN BECOME THE PAST.

This person is calling for a boycott of Florida and Florida-based businesses.

Someone I never would have imagined would flip the bit quite like this.
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