Risso Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 decent article from the americanthinker - American Thinker? If that's what they call thinking, God help the poor sods. File next to 'military intelligence'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 It's a tad worrying that people want Zimmerman to be found guilty despite no witnesses. How on earth can you find him guilty when nobody can refute his account of what happened. We can all assume he is seriously at fault here but this is a murder trial not a civil suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 It's a tad worrying that people want Zimmerman to be found guilty despite no witnesses. How on earth can you find him guilty when nobody can refute his account of what happened. We can all assume he is seriously at fault here but this is a murder trial not a civil suit. Actually I think that's a good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 It's a tad worrying that people want Zimmerman to be found guilty despite no witnesses. Depends what you want him found guilty of .... the law in America is the arse in this case. It permits vigilante action on the basis of 'the dude looked dodgy to me'. Scary country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 this is a murder trial not a civil suit. Actually I think that's a good point. Surely at the very least he's guilty of manslaughter? The 'problem' is the crazy laws in the US of A have given him partial consent to do what he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 this is a murder trial not a civil suit. Actually I think that's a good point. Surely at the very least he's guilty of manslaughter? The 'problem' is the crazy laws in the US of A have given him partial consent to do what he did. It's either the first sentence or the second, but it can't be both. Clearly he's not guilty of manslaughter, hence the verdict. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 He's not guilty of manslaughter because he wasn't charged with manslaughter. The prosecution decided to go for second degree murder which was always going to be difficult to prove when the only other witness is dead. But he killed a 17 year old. Thought he looked suspicious. Why? It must have been the skittles. Or was it the hood? Oh, those hoods! They always get away with it. So Zimmerman followed him. He had a gun. They got in a fight, for one reason or another. We don't know. But it resulted in Zimmerman shooting and killing him. Zimmerman claimed the right to stand his ground. Where was Trayvon's right to stand his ground? He was being followed in the dark by a man with a gun. Anyway. Zimmerman is going home with his gun and a heap of money fundraised for him. The properties are safe. I don't respect a country that puts such a low value on human life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 this is a murder trial not a civil suit. Actually I think that's a good point. Surely at the very least he's guilty of manslaughter? The 'problem' is the crazy laws in the US of A have given him partial consent to do what he did. Just because we have moral objections to what happens in America in relation to gun laws and the criminal justice system doesn't make him guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on those laws. There is no witness, he did not flee the scene. He gave an account of self defense on the basis of fear for his safety. He has rightly been acquitted. I'd rather 100 guilty people go free than for a system to fail an innocent person. And like it or not it's going to be a black person the system will fail more than a white person. This case is a sidetrack from the large problems the USA faces. A large part of what Americans treasure or value is abhorrent to myself and many others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Zimmerman claimed the right to stand his ground. Where was Trayvon's right to stand his ground? He was being followed in the dark by a man with a gun. "Stand your ground" wasn't raised by either side in this case, according to the accounts I've read. It rested on self-defence instead. However, if I've understood this odd law correctly, if Martin had been armed he could have quite legally shot Zimmerman instead of punching him, on the basis that he felt threatened (which would have been a reasonable belief). So the message this sends out seems to be to go armed, and shoot people you find threatening, before they have the chance to do something to you. Though I suppose if you're a young black man, you would doubt the law would find you within your rights in shooting a white guy in those circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Zimmerman claimed the right to stand his ground. Where was Trayvon's right to stand his ground? He was being followed in the dark by a man with a gun. "Stand your ground" wasn't raised by either side in this case, according to the accounts I've read. It rested on self-defence instead. However, if I've understood this odd law correctly, if Martin had been armed he could have quite legally shot Zimmerman instead of punching him, on the basis that he felt threatened (which would have been a reasonable belief). So the message this sends out seems to be to go armed, and shoot people you find threatening, before they have the chance to do something to you. Though I suppose if you're a young black man, you would doubt the law would find you within your rights in shooting a white guy in those circumstances. Excatermundo Mr Mountie. It's crazy stuff, in a crazy country. You do get the feeling that the states would be quite happy in simply arming everybody, and just let 'em shout it all out between themselves. Shoot someone with no witnesses, on the street? No problem, as long as you feel 'threatened'. Bizzare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) Am I right in thinking that this couldn't happen in this country? Not that I mean the crime couldn't happen, but that the guy would go down, probably for murder, and it would be fairly cut and dried? Edited July 16, 2013 by Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 If what I have read is correct, then according to Zimmerman's account of events, he wasn't just "feeling threatened", he was mounted by Martin and being repeatedly punched in the head and threatened with death. He had stopped following the kid and was in fact approached and punched by him. I'm not saying that he is definitely telling the truth or that it in any way excuses shooting him, but there seems to be an awful lot of presumption that Zimmerman is lying based on not much at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 If what I have read is correct, then according to Zimmerman's account of events, he wasn't just "feeling threatened", he was mounted by Martin and being repeatedly punched in the head and threatened with death. He had stopped following the kid and was in fact approached and punched by him. I'm not saying that he is definitely telling the truth or that it in any way excuses shooting him, but there seems to be an awful lot of presumption that Zimmerman is lying based on not much at all. The problem I have with it all is that in the states, the people have seemingly become the police. It's lawful over there not just to own a gun, but follow someone down a street with it (loaded) with the intent of surveilling them/having words/arresting them/shooting them. Once you start giving the people this sort of leeway/licence, then this sort of thing is going to happen. It's endemic to their society. The view the right to defend themselves and their property (and seemingly their 'neighbourhood'), with deadly force, as sacrosanct. Ans the law allows for it. Bonkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Am I right in thinking that this couldn't happen in this country? Not that I mean the crime couldn't happen, but that the guy would go down, probably for murder, and it would be fairly cut and dried? Of course he would. He took a gun into the streets and shot an unarmed kid. He'd go away for murder for sure. Because he'd have no legal defence for bringing a gun into the streets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 It's a tad worrying that people want Zimmerman to be found guilty despite no witnesses. How on earth can you find him guilty when nobody can refute his account of what happened. We can all assume he is seriously at fault here but this is a murder trial not a civil suit. I don't think he can be found guilty in the absence of evidence. But surely the anger is not so much about a wrong verdict in the face of overwhelming evidence (which would be a reasonable basis for a retrial) as about perceived failings of the justice system as a whole (in which case a retrial won't solve the problem, but perhaps just acts as an expression of discontent)? Some of the evidence which will now never be available would include whether Zimmerman was under the influence of drugs. For example, he had apparently been taking Adderall, which can lead to depression, hostility and paranoia. The police chose not to test him for drugs, so it will never be known whether this or any other drug might have influenced his behaviour. As well as not drug-testing him, they let him go, and let him keep his gun. I don't imagine there's a single person who believes that if the roles had been reversed, Martin would have been released that evening without charge, without testing, and with his gun. So I see the call for a retrial as more of an expression of anger with the system as a whole, than something which can offer a way forward in the current case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 If what I have read is correct, then according to Zimmerman's account of events, he wasn't just "feeling threatened", he was mounted by Martin and being repeatedly punched in the head and threatened with death. He had stopped following the kid and was in fact approached and punched by him. I'm not saying that he is definitely telling the truth or that it in any way excuses shooting him, but there seems to be an awful lot of presumption that Zimmerman is lying based on not much at all. You'd think that he must have had visible injury to have the police not investigate the matter further at the time. Of course they could have been self inflicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 If what I have read is correct, then according to Zimmerman's account of events, he wasn't just "feeling threatened", he was mounted by Martin and being repeatedly punched in the head and threatened with death. He had stopped following the kid and was in fact approached and punched by him. I'm not saying that he is definitely telling the truth or that it in any way excuses shooting him, but there seems to be an awful lot of presumption that Zimmerman is lying based on not much at all. The "feeling threatened" point is about the "stand your ground" defence, which wasn't raised in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 It's a tad worrying that people want Zimmerman to be found guilty despite no witnesses. How on earth can you find him guilty when nobody can refute his account of what happened. We can all assume he is seriously at fault here but this is a murder trial not a civil suit. I don't think he can be found guilty in the absence of evidence. But surely the anger is not so much about a wrong verdict in the face of overwhelming evidence (which would be a reasonable basis for a retrial) as about perceived failings of the justice system as a whole (in which case a retrial won't solve the problem, but perhaps just acts as an expression of discontent)? Some of the evidence which will now never be available would include whether Zimmerman was under the influence of drugs. For example, he had apparently been taking Adderall, which can lead to depression, hostility and paranoia. The police chose not to test him for drugs, so it will never be known whether this or any other drug might have influenced his behaviour. As well as not drug-testing him, they let him go, and let him keep his gun. I don't imagine there's a single person who believes that if the roles had been reversed, Martin would have been released that evening without charge, without testing, and with his gun. So I see the call for a retrial as more of an expression of anger with the system as a whole, than something which can offer a way forward in the current case. I agree with all of that. There should be formal procedure for police to follow which should include drug test, confiscation of fire arm and mandatory questioning at the station. Not just at the scene. But of course this make not be legal if the assumption at the scene is that it was self defense he could then sue the Police for detention etc.. When he acted inside the law. Personally I think we need to stop being outraged at things that happen in the States. It's more and more becoming disconnected with the moral values we have in Europe on all levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 It's a tad worrying that people want Zimmerman to be found guilty despite no witnesses. How on earth can you find him guilty when nobody can refute his account of what happened. We can all assume he is seriously at fault here but this is a murder trial not a civil suit. I don't think he can be found guilty in the absence of evidence. But surely the anger is not so much about a wrong verdict in the face of overwhelming evidence (which would be a reasonable basis for a retrial) as about perceived failings of the justice system as a whole (in which case a retrial won't solve the problem, but perhaps just acts as an expression of discontent)? Some of the evidence which will now never be available would include whether Zimmerman was under the influence of drugs. For example, he had apparently been taking Adderall, which can lead to depression, hostility and paranoia. The police chose not to test him for drugs, so it will never be known whether this or any other drug might have influenced his behaviour. As well as not drug-testing him, they let him go, and let him keep his gun. I don't imagine there's a single person who believes that if the roles had been reversed, Martin would have been released that evening without charge, without testing, and with his gun. So I see the call for a retrial as more of an expression of anger with the system as a whole, than something which can offer a way forward in the current case. How is the Adderall claim any different to the claim that the kid might have been high on pot at the time? Even if the guy was on medication it would not be enough to prove murder over self defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 If what I have read is correct, then according to Zimmerman's account of events, he wasn't just "feeling threatened", he was mounted by Martin and being repeatedly punched in the head and threatened with death. He had stopped following the kid and was in fact approached and punched by him. I'm not saying that he is definitely telling the truth or that it in any way excuses shooting him, but there seems to be an awful lot of presumption that Zimmerman is lying based on not much at all. The "feeling threatened" point is about the "stand your ground" defence, which wasn't raised in this case. That's (kind of) what I'm saying. He wasn't "feeling threatened" - it went beyond a feeling - he was actually violently attacked (if he is to be believed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts