Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

[arora]

Checked Dapper's link, then found this, I'm multi tasking so, may or may not be worth a flip. Think it is though...

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ac...q=what is the deadly weapon doctrine?&f=false

page 260

 

[FoolKiller]

You think I long for respect from people who can't read clear text?

Then why do you keep trying to get us to agree with you?


To me the issue, as it applies to this case, is not in how we define the use of a deadly weapon and how it applies to intent, but whether the prosecution can prove the intent was to harm or kill. The law you are quoting from wiki says that it may be used to infer intent. It does not automatically imply intent in the way you appear to claim. We do not know the events leading up to the shooting, and just because there was a gun used does not mean that Zimmerman intended to kill anyone.

The prosecution believes Zimmerman did not intend to use his gun to kill Martin before the confrontation. If they thought that they would have gone for 1st degree murder. By choosing a 2nd degree murder charge they will have to prove that the physical confrontation was started by Zimmerman and that he at least intended to harm Martin. The fact that he had a gun on his person and that after the confrontation began it was used does not mean he intended to harm or kill Martin. The prosecution either has unknown evidence or they are over-reaching.

But you want sources. Fair enough. I'm not a legal expert, I just had the same thoughts they did.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...ayvon-martin-shooting-surprises-legal-experts

"It seems like an enormous swing to be able to go from not feeling you have enough evidence to arrest him, to charging him with essentially as high as you can charge him in second-degree murder," Richard Hornsby, a criminal defense attorney in Orlando, Fla., told msnbc.com. "Second-degree murder requires him to have engaged in an intentional act with ill will, hatred or spite. It means he basically went and was looking to shoot Trayvon Martin."

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/harvard-...arrest-affidavit-irresponsible-and-unethical/

Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz appeared on MSNBC's Hardball where fill-in host Michel Smerconish asked him his opinions of the arrest warrant issued and carried out for alleged Trayvon Martin murderer, George Zimmerman. Dershowitz called the affidavit justifying Zimmerman's arrest not only thin, it's irresponsible. He went on to criticize the decision to charge Zimmerman for second degree murder by special prosecutor Angela Corey as being politically motivated.

You've seen the affidavit of probable cause. What do you make of it, Smerconish asked. It won't suffice, Dershowitz replied without hesitation. Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won't make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge, Dershowitz said. There's simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder.

Dershowitz said that the elements that would constitute that crime are non-existent in the affidavit. It's not only thin, it's irresponsible, said Dershowitz. Dershowitz went on to strongly criticize Corey's decision to move forward with the case against Zimmerman. I think what you have here is an elected public official who made a campaign speech last night for reelection when she gave her presentation and overcharged. This case will not, if the evidence is no stronger than what appears in the probable cause affidavit, this case will result in an acquittal.

Smerconish identified the total lack of any mention of the supposed fight that occurred between Martin and Zimmerman prior to Martin being shot. He said he was disappointed that he did not see any mention of that conflict that led to Martin's murder.

But it's worse than that, said Dershowitz. It's irresponsible and unethical in not including material that favors the defendant. This affidavit does not even make it to probable cause, Dershowitz concluded. Everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense. Everything.

 

[Dapper]

Checked Dapper's link, then found this, I'm multi tasking so, may or may not be worth a flip. Think it is though...

Then why do you keep trying to get us to agree with you?

The opposing view is not only wrong, but also irresponsible and unreasonable... you'ins rang my civic duty alarm. Plus it is entertaining.

To me the issue, as it applies to this case, is not in how we define the use of a deadly weapon and how it applies to intent, but whether the prosecution can prove the intent was to harm or kill.

Whenever you shoot at someone, it is inferred intent (not guilty of a crime). No matter what you say will change that... unless you can prove otherwise.

The fact that he had a gun on his person and that after the confrontation began it was used does not mean he intended to harm or kill Martin. The prosecution either has unknown evidence or they are over-reaching.

Shooting infers intent. Prove otherwise.

But you want sources. Fair enough. I'm not a legal expert, I just had the same thoughts they did.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...ayvon-martin-shooting-surprises-legal-experts

Conjecture that seems to be leading to Zimmerman's dad being an ex-judge and how his dad got him out of trouble, again, until the nationwide outrage pulled rank over Zimmerman's dad.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/harvard-...arrest-affidavit-irresponsible-and-unethical/

We'll see if he is right. 👍
But it hardly negates the fact shooting at someone infers intent.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Please tell me I wasn't as annoying as Dapper is back when I was arguing with everyone in the God thread.

Do you want the honest to "god" truth

Seriously though...

 

[Dapper]

Seriously though...

Way to elevate the conversation... seriously.

You skip over everything relevant. You made no attempt to do anything but look cool and make me look bad. 👎

 

[Northstar]

unless you can prove otherwise.

Irony....

Conjecture that seems to be leading to Zimmerman's dad being an ex-judge and how his dad got him out of trouble, again, until the nationwide outrage pulled rank over Zimmerman's dad.

...Is telling someone they need to prove otherwise, than making an outlandish claim yourself.

Saying that, any proof of his dad being the reason charges weren't filed until a couple days ago?

Sincerely, unedumacated lay person.

You made no attempt to do anything but look cool and make me look bad.

He's not the one making you look bad.💡

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Way to elevate the conversation... seriously.

You skip over everything relevant. You made no attempt to do anything but look cool and make me look bad. 👎

Here I'll add what I was going to add to my last post, but was taking my time.

Don't you get tired of posting in such an overtly worthless manner?

The irony of this one statement out of everything you else have said is just a laugh riot for me.

OK. But you gotta admit the opposers' poor production of evidence combined with continually questioning me despite my production of irrefutable evidence is way more absurd, right?

This...this alone just depicts how much off your rocker you are, you don't have irrefutable evidence, you never did. You have what you believe and you think everyone should fall in line with it. Autocratic regimes are more understandable than you come off on this forum. After seeing this thread and your post and your responses I have to think you're absolutely stringing us all along.

 

[Dapper]

Irony....



...Is telling someone they need to have prove otherwise, than making an outlandish claim yourself.

Saying that, any proof of his dad being the reason charges weren't filed until a couple days ago?

Sincerely, unedumacated lay person.

The quote FK posted had no relevance to 'shooting at someone infers intent'. I was guessing at what he was implying.

It seems like an enormous swing to be able to go from not feeling you have enough evidence to arrest him, to charging him with essentially as high as you can charge him in second-degree murder...Second-degree murder requires him to have engaged in an intentional act with ill will, hatred or spite. It means he basically went and was looking to shoot Trayvon Martin.

He is saying, possibly, there must be a lot of evidence that got ignored for the last month. And his dad is an ex-judge from that area.

This...

arora posted more evidence in my favor than any evidence posed by yous.

He's not the one making you look bad.

I don't look bad... look at the links.

 

[Northstar]

The quote FK posted had no relevance to 'shooting at someone infers intent'. I was guessing at what he was implying.
He is saying, possibly, there must be a lot of evidence that got ignored for the last month.

Do you ever read the posts you "respond" to?

I asked where the proof his dad was the reason charges were not filed earlier is?

Maybe now you can read it.

Sincerely, unedumacated lay person

 

[Dapper]

I didn't say it was provable. It was just an idea.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Dapper it's not irrefutable, there was no scientific experiment done or statistics shown to prove your argument. Arora didn't prove anything of you to be honest. Also what makes you think you are warranted tons and tons of links to back us up when you already think you're right bar none. You come into these discussions all the time, never fails and you believe off the bat your right before anyone lays any bit of evidence on the table. To the point mods have to tell you to stop with your attitude and you want to even argue them because you think your so infallible.

 

[Northstar]

I didn't say it was provable. It was just an idea.

You said...

Conjecture that seems to be leading to Zimmerman's dad being an ex-judge and how his dad got him out of trouble, again, until the nationwide outrage pulled rank over Zimmerman's dad.

Which means it hasn't been proven, but is thought to be true.

So, other than tin foil hat theories, what makes you think this?

 

[Dapper]

Which means it hasn't been proven, but is thought to be true.

I was describing the quote...

My hasty English, it would be proper to have said "This quote is..."

 

[arora]

Yes I sometimes look at links Dapper

I was searching to see the relevance of the document you posted when I found that book, which was interesting to me. As LMS pointed out, it doesn't help or hurt your position(in my mind anyway). I'll keep with the distinction I made earlier regarding law vs absolute morality.

 

[Dapper]

law vs absolute morality.

I say objective... You say subjective.

Mutable !=subjective

 

[arora]

I know well enough that laws are a necessity, what fascinates me is how they are written and interpreted. There is a reason many leave wiggle room 👍

I'm too tired to babble on and on as I might atm but I think you'll see the point.

 

[Dapper]

I know well enough that laws are a necessity, what fascinates me is how they are written and interpreted. There is a reason many leave wiggle room 👍

I'm too tired to babble on and on as I might atm but I think you'll see the point.

I couldn't agree more, even the sleepy part.
In a scenario rooted in morality, laws are the only reasonable solution in my opinion.

 

[FoolKiller]

The opposing view is not only wrong, but also irresponsible and unreasonable... you'ins rang my civic duty alarm. Plus it is entertaining.

Civic duty alarm? We aren't a jury and this isn't "12 Angry Men." It is a handful of people from around the world discussing a case that we only care about because Nancy Grace and her ilk says we should. It'll all be forgotten about in two weeks and then picked back up when they have the trial in 3-6 months.

Whenever you shoot at someone, it is inferred intent (not guilty of a crime). No matter what you say will change that... unless you can prove otherwise.

According to your own source, it may infer intent. It doesn't automatically.

Shooting infers intent. Prove otherwise.

Why should I prove otherwise? Keeping this in context with the case (if we want to draw the merits and morality of weapon usage into five more pages of debate there are more relevant threads) the prosecution is making the accusation and we are dealing with the US court system, where presumed innocent until proven guilty is the nature of the system and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They don't get to just quote the law, act like may means does, and say case closed.

So until the prosecution and a jury make a move that I disagree with I have nothing to prove. The proof of intent is still unseen. For the sake of justice I hope the prosecution is correct. I don't want another Casey Anthony where a crime goes unpunished by a career/politically motivated prosecutor. But having seen the video of her statement now, she spent too much time introducing herself and her team and praising them and the work they did before actually discussing the charges and the case.

Watch, it takes her nearly five minutes to actually state the charges.
[Youtube]1r-idmJTK3I[/YouTube]
It's a campaign speech, to a degree that is almost comical.

Conjecture that seems to be leading to Zimmerman's dad being an ex-judge and how his dad got him out of trouble, again, until the nationwide outrage pulled rank over Zimmerman's dad.

Your conjecture? Because unless we have evidence that his dad pulled strings, that is all you (and whoever gave you this notion - was it Al Sharpton? I see he already managed to get his face in front of cameras) have, is conjecture. I mean, listen to the prosecutor's rambling about how they gave this due diligence and worked on it immediately despite the abundance of dead bodies in Florida, the homicide state (apparently - please note that I am poking fun at the prosecutor here, just for spits and giggles, and not you).

Or are you attempting to deflect that I quoted a legal expert?

We'll see if he is right. 👍

Same as my first source.

But it hardly negates the fact shooting at someone infers intent.

May.

 

[Dapper]

I lol'ed at your Nancy Grace line and reaction to my 'civic alarm'. 👍

Your conjecture?

I already addressed this, but what the hey. The quote was this

It seems like an enormous swing to be able to go from not feeling you have enough evidence to arrest him, to charging him with essentially as high as you can charge him in second-degree murder...Second-degree murder requires him to have engaged in an intentional act with ill will, hatred or spite. It means he basically went and was looking to shoot Trayvon Martin.

That quote is conjecture... This quote didn't leave you thinking 'gee, why did all the evidence sit around for so long before he was arrested with charges that need a lot of evidence?'?

May.

An expressed possibility. 👍
May means not necessary but always possible.

 

[Diego440]

refuted
implication
qualifies
inflicting
invoke
deliberate
sarcastically
analogous
legislation.
incessant inquisitions
elementary subject.
significantly trumps my opposition
unsubstantiated
expectation assumed
oppositional
directed
refuted
adapted
constitutes
overtly
humanities
attributable
production of irrefutable evidence
solidify
espoused
unreasonable
inferred intent
Conjecture
elevate
provable
hasty
Mutable
scenario rooted in morality

Check out the big brain on Dapper
[/Sam L. Jackson]

He uses complicated words, he must be smart, and thus, right.

 

[Dapper]

Check out the big brain on Dapper
[/Sam L. Jackson]

He uses complicated words, he must be smart, and thus, right.

I always compliment people to my wife about how they can be smart and articulate and not need to use big words and try to sound smart.

edit- thanks for the effort. I'll book mark that page for reference.

 

[homeforsummer]

You guys are on the internet. Look something up already. Quit being lazy and oppositional and actually do something to help your stance. If you can't, you are wrong. (And that is the case)

I did look something up, and utterly refuted your ridiculous claim that an unloaded gun can kill someone in any other means than batting someone over the head with it.

Oddly, you never replied.

 

[Dapper]

Oddly, you never replied.

You didn't read what I read.
And it is not my claim an unloaded gun is a deadly weapon. It is the law (in FL).

 

[homeforsummer]

You didn't read what I read.
And it is not my claim an unloaded gun is a deadly weapon. It is the law (in FL).

And the law is irrelevant. If there is no bullet in the chamber then a bullet cannot be fired, and thus it can do no harm. If it can do no harm, it is not deadly. That's a fact of life, regardless of what the law says.

I think the issue here may also be one of confusion, to be fair. Using a gun in self defence, the aim is to fire until there is no longer a threat. By most definitions, this means killing the person who is threatening you, because you're likely to aim for the largest area, and there's a lot in there to fatally wound someone. You don't stop to take aim at a non-lethal area in a life or death situation - if you miss, then the ball is in the other guys court and you die.

This I understand, and backs up what you've been saying - I take no issue with that.

HOWEVER.

Your original assertion is that a gun fired at a person is automatically intent to kill. My argument is that this isn't always the case - such as in a non life or death situation, or under the order of a professional marksman.

In certain cases, a marksman may choose to not aim at a fatal area - shooting to disarm, or shooting to incapacitate.

Yes, the person may accidentally die of their wounds, but that doesn't change that a shot CAN be fired without it being considered deadly force. Some shots are fired specifically not to kill someone, irrespective of what the law or your mom claims.

I'm not sure whether you're arguing so vehemently because you genuinely believe you're right about everything, in which case you're beyond help (and also wrong), or whether you've dug yourself into a hole or feel backed into a corner. If the latter, we'd all enjoy this discussion a lot more if you used a bit of common sense.

*Some* of your argument is correct, as I've illustrated above. But not all of it. In a life or death situation, shooting IS deadly force. But in some other situations, that isn't always the case. Which is what myself and several others have been saying for the last dozen pages or more.

 

[Famine]

A question I answered already, by stating that you would be found guilty of first degree murder even if you shot the wrong person by accident. Why? Because there's deadly force implied.

Nope. Deadly force isn't implied when you intend to use force that causes death. It's explicit. Even if it's the wrong death.

Deadly force is implicit if you intend to shoot someone dead but only injure them.

However, if you shoot someone to injure them and do so, you have only used the innate properties of the gun - to deliver remote, penetrative and injurious force.

Guns are not deadly force unless used to kill or with intent to kill. Same as anything else.

Bees are not weapons, they're damned insects. A gun is a weapon. Regardless of whether it's lying on your your shelf, being used at a gun range, being used to kill someone... a gun is a weapon. The environment does not change that.

Except you've now shuffled past the point. The statement is that a gun is a deadly weapon. You've already agreed that it isn't, only a weapon. You've already agreed that deactivated guns are not deadly weapons either. You just need to make that last step and agree with the original statement that an empty, fully rule-1-safe gun sitting on a shelf is not a deadly weapon and you'll have agreed with the point you posted to disagree with...

If you can prove that he intended to use the bees to kill the person, then he should rightly go to jail for assault. That still doesn't transform all bees into deadly weapons (because, inherently, they're not tools, they're insects).

Actually, they are tools. Tools used in the production of beeswax, honey and royal jelly. That notwithstanding, you've completely missed the context. Allow me to refresh it:

Your logic is because every leg shot doesn't result in death it is not deadly force. But, clearly, leg shots result in deaths. Therefore, if you shoot someone in the leg, you know they could die... that is deadly force.

The important part is bolded. Here's the context:

Your logic is because every bee sting doesn't result in death it is not deadly force. But, clearly, bee stings result in deaths. Therefore, if you sting someone in the leg, you know they could die... that is deadly force.

Thus making bees a deadly weapon. By that logic. Same as guns, or cars or a circus act where you throw knives, or scotch tape.

Obviously you disagree. Obviously you'd be right to - it's a ridiculous thing to say. And so is the thing about bees.

If no intent, negligence is the best you can do against the guy.

And if there's no intent of deadly force involved when shooting a gun, manslaughter is the best you can do against the shooter.


Oddly, there is a kind of sense in UK law - a sentence not often uttered - when it comes to this. The law here differentiates between a tool designed as a weapon and a tool used as a weapon - essentially it being worse for you if you use a weapon (a sword, gun, African Throwing Knife, baseball bat [not much baseball over here], knife kept under the pillow for defence purposes) than if you pick something to use as a weapon (frying pan, random beehive in the hallway, paperweight, hockey stick).

But then it all falls down when we're not allowed to use deadly force in self-defence and where guns are the Antichrist and made of dead babies.

 

[Dapper]

Was the sniper intending to kill the guy? Of course not.

But I don't see how an expert performing his job relates to the public and their understanding that owning a gun comes with the responsibility of knowing any shot could kill someone, and if you intentionally aim and fire, for any reason, then that means you are doing so knowing you could kill the other person. Because of the right to remain silent, the victim possibly being dead and not being able to say their side of the story and several other reasons, when it comes to a penalty for that action, if any, the inference of intent to kill must be drawn- knowing that is part of being a responsible gun owner.

And Bees are not equivalent to guns.

 

[homeforsummer]

But I don't see how an expert performing his job relates to the public and their understanding that owning a gun comes with the responsibility of knowing any shot could kill someone

Because you're saying that any shot fired is with intent to kill. That's different from saying any shot fired could kill - and the fact that you posted that video with the phrase "Was the sniper intending to kill the guy? Of course not." is exactly what I've been talking about for the last two days.

A shot was fired without the intention of killing someone, though presumably knowing that death was a possibility, as it is in most shootings.

Every should could kill. Potentially. Not every shot fired has to kill, nor is every shot fired with the intention of killing.

I think we agree on this.

But as I said above, I can understand that a shot fired by a civilian in self-defense is a shot fired to stop whatever threat they're under. "Stopping a threat" doesn't specify a lethal shot, but it's probably implied. Just winging someone is unlikely to stop the threat. You shoot until you feel the assailant is no longer a threat to your own life. If that means killing them, then so be it.

 

[bob876]

I think that everyone should stop looking at this like a very important matter. Thousands of soldiers died in war, the government doesn't pay the families of the fallen or missing timely, or sometimes at all. There are schools failing to educate our children. There is a economic disaster killing people around the globe. Our politicians are out for money not for bettering our country. The media distracts us from important matters to maintain the rich, and keep the poor poor. I don't think all this attention to one murder (at most) is warranted. Wake up people, put on your big boy/girl pants and let's get to work fixing our country. Vote for new politicians, ones who haven't been corupted. Vote for laws you read, don't if you haven't because that's how they trick us into laws that don't help us. Legalize marijuan, I don't smoke but the effects on our economy would help us. Think about all the criminals we pay to shelter because they had or sold it, all the cops that live off the war on drugs. They arrest people who use it, have it, and sell it. When they could patrol neighborhoods, instead of neighborhood watch. Imagine the jobs it would create; farmers; budtenders; packaging; security; admin; buyers/qa, now think if it were taxed like alcohol. The monies from it could pay for those same cops, and build up our schools and infrastucture. I degress. I wondered off subject, but seriously the family and those close to this should figure out the murder/self defense issue not us or the media. Build a better country by being aware of the real issues, not the local issues. I am not saying to be over the top conspiracy type people, just informed in the matters that matter.

 

[homeforsummer]

Nice speech Bob, but we've got the rest of the Opinions & Current Events forums for discussing all of that, so let's discuss the gun thing in this one, yeah?

 

[Blackex99]

I think that everyone should stop looking at this like a very important matter. Thousands of soldiers died in war, the government doesn't pay the families of the fallen or missing timely, or sometimes at all. There are schools failing to educate our children. There is a economic disaster killing people around the globe. Our politicians are out for money not for bettering our country. The media distracts us from important matters to maintain the rich, and keep the poor poor. I don't think all this attention to one murder (at most) is warranted. Wake up people, put on your big boy/girl pants and let's get to work fixing our country. Vote for new politicians, ones who haven't been corupted. Vote for laws you read, don't if you haven't because that's how they trick us into laws that don't help us. Legalize marijuan, I don't smoke but the effects on our economy would help us. Think about all the criminals we pay to shelter because they had or sold it, all the cops that live off the war on drugs. They arrest people who use it, have it, and sell it. When they could patrol neighborhoods, instead of neighborhood watch. Imagine the jobs it would create; farmers; budtenders; packaging; security; admin; buyers/qa, now think if it were taxed like alcohol. The monies from it could pay for those same cops, and build up our schools and infrastucture. I degress. I wondered off subject, but seriously the family and those close to this should figure out the murder/self defense issue not us or the media. Build a better country by being aware of the real issues, not the local issues. I am not saying to be over the top conspiracy type people, just informed in the matters that matter.

Bob I think if Sanford police department done there job this story wouldn't have blew up so big. Another thing is soldiers sign up for the military so they know what expect.