• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 430 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Do you think the verdict would have been different without those instructions? I realize its hypothetical, but I don't see how given it wasn't a defense tactic.

But I'm curious what you think...
It could have been, but the jury instructions were always going to have that language included because it is an integral part of a self-defense claim in Florida. If the SYG did not augment what is considered "self-defense" then yes, I do think the verdict could have come out differently. Jurisdictions treat self-defense differently, and in some, the fact that Martin had no traditional weapon would weigh heavily toward it not being reasonable for Zimmerman to use lethal force. In many jurisdictions, the question of who actually instigated the confrontation would have been very important. It certainly would have been more likely that he would have been convicted of something.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,280
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
It could have been, but the jury instructions were always going to have that language included because it is an integral part of a self-defense claim in Florida. If the SYG did not augment what is considered "self-defense" then yes, I do think the verdict could have come out differently. Jurisdictions treat self-defense differently, and in some, the fact that Martin had no traditional weapon would weigh heavily toward it not being reasonable for Zimmerman to use lethal force. In many jurisdictions, the question of who actually instigated the confrontation would have been very important. It certainly would have been more likely that he would have been convicted of something.
i'm no attorney, but to me it seemed reasonable to say that Zimmerman's reckless behavior in leaving his vehicle made him responsible for the confrontation, and therefore guilty of involuntary manslaughter. admittedly I don't know what the rules of the watch program were, but in my old neighborhood they were explicitly told not confront possible burglars etc.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,659
0
0
patricknd said:
i'm no attorney, but to me it seemed reasonable to say that Zimmerman's reckless behavior in leaving his vehicle made him responsible for the confrontation, and therefore guilty of involuntary manslaughter. admittedly I don't know what the rules of the watch program were, but in my old neighborhood they were explicitly told not confront possible burglars etc.
I agree 100%. I don't give a damn about the racial profiling, I'm far from convinced it even existed - but the one thing that got me was that Zimmerman pursued Trayvon, and by the rules of the road I grew up with, therefore deserved to be engaged in a fight. Which fight he responded to with unreasonable force.

There must be something in the Fla law that nullifies this, as the discussions I've heard at least mention this in passing. But, afaic, the jury got it wrong.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
patricknd said:
i'm no attorney, but to me it seemed reasonable to say that Zimmerman's reckless behavior in leaving his vehicle made him responsible for the confrontation, and therefore guilty of involuntary manslaughter. admittedly I don't know what the rules of the watch program were, but in my old neighborhood they were explicitly told not confront possible burglars etc.
....there is a post upthread that has a relevant quote from the manual issued to registered Neighborhood Watch participants....short story, Zimmerman was not associated with a registered group...in fact, by carrying a weapon and by initiating a confrontation he contravened important parts of the Neighborhood Watch protocol ...

....so to continually describe Zimmerman as a Neighborhood Watch volunteer is plain wrong....not only was he not a "watcher", though he wandered around as if he was, but more importantly he did not act as a "watcher", in fact quite the opposite.....and those non-protocol actions led directly to this tragedy ( no weapons...no confrontation...)....and it is worth noting that Zimmerman had plenty of time and opportunity to join a registered group and operate within the bounds of its protocols....that he didn't I find kinda strange because he was doing his special thang for a long long time...

Cheers
 
Scott SoCal said:
Who's ****ed off again? Who is apoplectic over the verdict? Who is literally making **** up about the case and was from the beginning?

The race baiters, many in the MSM and much of the left wing anti-gun crowd.

Look, in fairness, SYG laws look to be unevenly applied and very poorly interpreted... It really looks to be bad law. But SYG wasn't used as a defense in this case. The FBI investigation eliminated a prosecution based on a hate crime. The prosecutor used her power of intimidation to wrongfully bring the case and then proceeded to violate exculpatory evidence laws (which, for the life of me, I can't figure out why you and others aren't outraged at the conduct of Angel Corey).

No way to know what may have happened but given this exact case without SYG, Zimmerman walks on simple self defense.
Sure, Scott, though it is the philosophy behind the SYG law that's so fcuked up, which is the product of a system that's all too influenced by the mentality of the gun lobby. It's just not civil, at least that much is clear.

Progressive democracy means promoting non-violence and hence civility. In this case just the opposite is true. As Amster has correctly pointed out the court must decide whether or not the crime, for that's what were talking about, merits punishment or not. However to deny that a crime was even commited sends the wrong message and that's what people are getting angry over. Does this not register, I've asked? And it is soooooo obvious elsewhere.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
rhubroma said:
Sure, Scott, though it is the philosophy behind the SYG law that's so fcuked up, which is the product of a system that's all too influenced by the mentality of the gun lobby. It's just not civil, at least that much is clear.

Progressive democracy means promoting non-violence and hence civility. In this case just the opposite is true. As Amster has correctly pointed out the court must decide whether or not the crime, for that's what were talking about, merits punishment or not. However to deny that a crime was even commited sends the wrong message and that's what people are getting angry over. Does this not register, I've asked? And it is soooooo obvious elsewhere.
...given the tone of this post wonder how long it will take BroDeal to blow a fuse and start to hurl toys out of his pram....and then start puking all over this thread...and I really hope when he does show up that he at least has the decency to change his diaper ( because his last appearance was real yucky )....

Cheers
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
rhubroma said:
Sure, Scott, though it is the philosophy behind the SYG law that's so fcuked up, which is the product of a system that's all too influenced by the mentality of the gun lobby. It's just not civil, at least that much is clear.

Progressive democracy means promoting non-violence and hence civility. In this case just the opposite is true. As Amster has correctly pointed out the court must decide whether or not the crime, for that's what were talking about, merits punishment or not. However to deny that a crime was even commited sends the wrong message and that's what people are getting angry over. Does this not register, I've asked? And it is soooooo obvious elsewhere.
Merika has never been a pacifist nation.

What don't you understand about self defense?
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Merika has never been a pacifist nation.

What don't you understand about self defense?
....here is what I understand....the first and most important part of self defense is never put yourself in a dangerous situation...

Cheers
 
Scott SoCal said:
Merika has never been a pacifist nation.

What don't you understand about self defense?
That it doesn't necessarily me extinguishing the life of another and, under the given circumastances, what is proportional and what isn't. In any case the law should be contemplated in terms of what's most civil, not most barbarous. At least that much is clear.

Then each individual case is up for tribunal analysis, though it's the principle of civility that's legally guiding (and binding).
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
blutto said:
....here is what I understand....the first and most important part of self defense is never put yourself in a dangerous situation...

Cheers
....and you may want to take a boo at the following exerpt....contrasting the self defense issue in Florida now and a time long ago...

".... is just wrong. "Stand Your Ground" isn't some stand-alone law, it's a complete modification of Florida's rules governing the use of deadly force for self-defense. As a result, it played an essential role in the Zimmerman trial. In fact, it created two different standards by which the six jurors judged both George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

As former Florida State Senator Dan Gelber has pointed out, pre-Jeb Bush, pre- Koch Brothers, and pre-ALEC Florida law would have required the following instructions to be read to a jury in a self-defense murder trial:


"The defendant [George Zimmerman] cannot justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless he used every reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to that force. The fact that the defendant [George Zimmerman] was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force."

Note that according to these jury instructions, the defendant must do everything possible, including retreating, before attempting to use deadly force.

When confronted with a threat in 2005 and before, whether it was a deadly threat or simply the threat of violence, or even when confronted with actual violence, like being punched in the face or knocked to the pavement, the legal obligation was to work yourself free and run.

All that changed in Florida in 2006, when Florida's brand-spanking new and ALEC-promoted Stand Your Ground and Shoot First law came into effect.

Since 2006, post-Jeb Bush, post-Koch Brothers, and post-NRA and ALEC, the Stand Your Ground and Shoot First concept has become fully integrated into Florida's law regarding self-defense and the use of deadly force."

....might not be the definitive understanding of this complex issue, it is an opinion after all ,but maybe a good conversation starter?....

Cheers
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Yeah. That's it in a nutshell. Zimmerman believed that's what was about to happen, he defended himself with lethal force and the jury believed him based on the evidence.

Funny how that works.
er, no, that's not what happened. The only narrative available about what happened was Zimmerman's, he claimed it was self defense after Martin initiated the physical confrontation, and there weren't any eyewitnesses or enough evidence to contradict his version. Well there was one other eyewitness but he's dead. Funny how that works.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
VeloCity said:
er, no, that's not what happened. The only narrative available about what happened was Zimmerman's, he claimed it was self defense after Martin initiated the physical confrontation, and there weren't any eyewitnesses or enough evidence to contradict his version. Well there was one other eyewitness but he's dead. Funny how that works.
Corroborating evidence. Look it up some time.

 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
....here is another excerpt from the article that I quoted earlier....speaks to a theme brought forward by several posters in defending their hero's actions...

"And in the media trial of Trayvon Martin, commentators have repeatedly asked, "why didn't the seventeen year-old just run away from the armed man who was chasing him?"

As one of Florida's most famous white pastors, Bill Keller, argued in a nationally published op-ed, "The facts were clear that Trayvon Martin had more than enough time to get back to his father's house, but chose instead to confront Zimmerman, break his nose, and continue the violent attack." In other words, Trayvon Martin should have run away.

So, the question: Why was Trayvon Martin judged, both in the trial and in the media, on the basis of the pre-2006 Florida self-defense law that requires a person to do everything they can to avoid violence up to and including running away?

And, equally troubling, if that was the standard that Trayvon Martin was held to, why was George Zimmerman, who actually held the gun and fired the shot, held to a different standard and allowed to stand his ground and kill an unarmed teenager without penalty?

Remember, nobody ever seriously suggested, in the trial or in the media, that Trayvon Martin had a right to stand his ground. Instead, everybody wanted to know why he didn't run.

And remember that over and over again the media, George Zimmerman's lawyers, and Judge Nelson herself explicitly said that George Zimmerman had the legal right to stand his ground and use deadly force if he even felt threatened. While Trayvon should have run, Zimmerman didn't have to run.

Remember the actual instructions that Judge Nelson read to the jury about the standard to which George Zimmerman should be judged:..."

Cheers
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
blutto said:
As former Florida State Senator Dan Gelber has pointed out, pre-Jeb Bush, pre- Koch Brothers, and pre-ALEC Florida law would have required...
Are you sure Limbaugh, Karl Rove, and the black helicopters were not in on the conspiracy as well? You might want to loosen that tinfoil hat of yours.

blutto said:
Note that according to these jury instructions, the defendant must do everything possible, including retreating, before attempting to use deadly force.
It is hard to retreat when your back is on the ground and you are being punched, which is why the defense did not assert SYG.

blutto said:
When confronted with a threat in 2005 and before, whether it was a deadly threat or simply the threat of violence, or even when confronted with actual violence, like being punched in the face or knocked to the pavement, the legal obligation was to work yourself free and run.
Nice fantasy. The whole purpose of ground and pound is to put your opponent in a position where he cannot work himself free.

[/quote]
Since 2006, post-Jeb Bush, post-Koch Brothers, and post-NRA and ALEC, the Stand Your Ground and Shoot First concept has become fully integrated into Florida's law[/quote]

Don't forget the Illuminati. The Free Masons might have had a hand in this as well.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
BroDeal said:
Are you sure Limbaugh, Karl Rove, and the black helicopters were not in on the conspiracy as well? You might want to loosen that tinfoil hat of y

It is hard to retreat when your back is on the ground and you are being punched, which is why the defense did not assert SYG.

Nice fantasy. The whole purpose of ground and pound is to put your opponent in a position where he cannot work himself free.
....I defer to your superior knowledge of the black helicopter field...

....see Chewie's article on the subject of SYG....and I trust Chewie's judgement in legal matters...yours not so much....and for that I'm sorry


....oddly enough there has been some discussion about the Judge Zimmerman's close relationship to the Free Masons and the affect it had on how this issue went down....as for the Illuminati, as with the black helicopters, that is in your wheelhouse...

....really a shame you didn't actually what posted....or is your response an indication that your reading skills have followed the deep dive that your judgement has taken?...

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
BroDeal said:
Are you sure Limbaugh, Karl Rove, and the black helicopters were not in on the conspiracy as well? You might want to loosen that tinfoil hat of yours.



It is hard to retreat when your back is on the ground and you are being punched, which is why the defense did not assert SYG.



Nice fantasy. The whole purpose of ground and pound is to put your opponent in a position where he cannot work himself free.
Since 2006, post-Jeb Bush, post-Koch Brothers, and post-NRA and ALEC, the Stand Your Ground and Shoot First concept has become fully integrated into Florida's law[/quote]

Don't forget the Illuminati. The Free Masons might have had a hand in this as well.[/QUOTE]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....I defer to your superior knowledge of the black helicopter field...

....see Chewie's article on the subject of SYG....and I trust Chewie's judgement in legal matters...yours not so much....and for that I'm sorry....

....oddly enough there has been some discussion about the Judge Zimmerman's close relationship to the Free Masons and the affect it had on how this issue went down....as for the Illuminati, as with the black helicopters, that is in your wheelhouse...

....really a shame you didn't actually read what was posted....or is your response an indication that your reading skills have followed the deep dive that your judgement has taken?...

Cheers
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
BroDeal said:
Corroborating evidence. Look it up some time.
Dude, the only source for the claim that the reason Zimmerman left his car was to look up the street name for police is Zimmerman. The only source that Martin initiated the physical confrontation by attacking Zimmerman unprovoked is Zimmerman.

You get that, right?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Maybe there is something to the IRS scandal after all.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/watchdog-disturbed-irs-withheld-new-documents-showing-progressive-groups-may-have-been-targeted-too.php?ref=fpb

The investigator who wrote a scathing report about the Internal Revenue Service targeting tea party groups says he is “disturbed” the agency withheld newly-released documents showing progressive groups may also have been singled out for additional scrutiny. In prepared testimony, J. Russell George told a congressional panel Thursday the IRS did not provide the documents to his office during a yearlong audit. George said he just received the documents last week.Last month, the IRS provided documents to Congress that suggested some liberal and progressive groups may have been singled out for additional scrutiny as well — information that was not included in George’s May report. Some Democratic lawmakers said this was proof that George’s report was one-sided. George, however, said he first saw the documents last week. “They were not provided during our audit, even though similar documents that list “Tea Party” but not “Progressive” were,” George said. “I am disturbed that these documents were not provided to our auditors at the outset, and we are currently reviewing this issue.”
Sounds like its cya time for George.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
blutto said:
....really a shame you didn't actually read what was posted....or is your response an indication that your reading skills have followed the deep dive that your judgement has taken?...
Sorry but once someone starts ranting about the Koch brothers, ALEC, the NRA, the shadow government, and the grassy knoll in every other paragraph I tend to conclude that my time is too valuable to be wasted reading the raving of a loon.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
....and speaking of the heroic attempts by the GOP to move the country forward here is part of a report on the latest brain storm from a hotbed of good solid prudent conservative thinking...

"Republican hypocrisy on sex is so tiring. I’d written yesterday about Republican gubernatorial candidate in Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, and his ongoing effort to make it a felony for adults, straight and gay, married and single, to give or receive oral sex in the privacy of their own bedroom."

....and this is a man who in the past has other great ideas along the same lines....like a regular fount spurting forth ideas....splat...splat....splat...

"Cuccinelli goes down in the annals of repressed Republican history along with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who famously decried in 2003 that states were losing their ability to ban masturbation."

....Cuccinelli is apparently also a strong defender of the 2nd Amendment...seems like he has got all the bases covered...

Cheers
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Now Juror B37 - the book-deal juror in the Zimmerman trial - is changing her tune.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/17/justice/zimmerman-verdict-aftermath/index.html

The woman known as Juror B37 in the George Zimmerman trial released a statement exclusively to CNN Wednesday pushing for new laws.

"My prayers are with all those who have the influence and power to modify the laws that left me with no verdict option other than 'not guilty' in order to remain within the instructions.
And 4 other jurors have said the same thing. That's 5 out of the 6 who have now said that they only voted "not guilty" because they had no other option. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Zimmerman's innocence, eh?
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
VeloCity said:
Dude, the only source for the claim that the reason Zimmerman left his car was to look up the street name for police is Zimmerman. The only source that Martin initiated the physical confrontation by attacking Zimmerman unprovoked is Zimmerman.

You get that, right?
You do realize the police investigator put on the stand concluded that Zimmerman's story matched the evidence? You get that right? They even tricked him into thinking they had video of the incident.

You do realize that four minutes before the fight, Martin was 100 yards from the house he was staying at. You do realize that it makes no sense for Zimmerman to attack Martin when he knew the police were minutes away and in fact arrived on scene two minutes after the shot was fired? You do realize Martin like to fight...
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
BroDeal said:
Good news. Zimmerman will get his gun back. The system works.
So a guy with a history of violence and who only got off of felony charges by agreeing to counseling and who's on medication for mental instabilities gets his gun back? Based on your previous arguments it's you and Scott who should be freaking out, isn't it? Ain't this exactly the sort of person - history of violence, (near) criminal background, mental instability - you two keep arguing is the "real" cause of gun violence?

Not so much now though, eh?
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
BroDeal said:
Sorry but once someone starts ranting about the Koch brothers, ALEC, the NRA, the shadow government, and the grassy knoll in every other paragraph I tend to conclude that my time is too valuable to be wasted reading the raving of a loon.
....so the short response is you didn't read it and then proceeded to what (?) rant(?) rave (?) respond maturely(?) about stuff you had no idea about....

....sadly this has been your signature move of late...and gosh there was a time when I thought I was an elite among the loons here...but given your recent performances I'm feeling decidely normal....which is kinda weird....

...oh well...all the world is a stage and all the men and women merely actors....

Cheers
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts