Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

[Azuremen]

I love proving groups of people wrong.

You didn't prove anything.

Your "logic" is so broken it is baffling. And somehow you think you are the only sane person in the world. Mind = blown.

 

[Dapper]

You didn't prove anything.

Your "logic" is so broken it is baffling. And somehow you think you are the only sane person in the world. Mind = blown.

You apparently obviously can't read.
To save you from flipping back a page:

Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill.

 

[Azuremen]

You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word inference when addressing a legal situation.

 

[Zenith]

So if I use a firearm to defend my own life, then by Dapper's definition, my intent shifts from defending myself to trying to murder a person.

All my defensive intentions go out the window, I'm trying to murder somebody.

Because Dapper can't read Wikipedia.

 

[Dapper]

So if I use a firearm to defend my own life, then by Dapper's definition, my intent shifts from defending myself to trying to murder a person.

All my defensive intentions go out the window, I'm trying to murder somebody.

Because Dapper can't read Wikipedia.

Self defense is not malice!

Go read.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word inference when addressing a legal situation.

You don't understand.

inference n. a rule of logic applied to evidence in a trial, in which a fact is "proved" by presenting other "facts" which lead to only one reasonable conclusion--that if A and B are true, then C is. The process is called "deduction" or "deductive reasoning," and is a persuasive form of circumstantial evidence.

A)Guns are deadly-true B)he shot the gun at another person-true C)therefore, his intent was to kill.-true

 

[Azuremen]

Self defense is not malice!

What you just quoted to support yourself states otherwise.

Go read.

You don't understand.

Care to clarify then? Rather than just dismissing points with no attempt to support the dismissal?

Legally, inference is a logical assumption based on given information. However, contrary information can invalidate an inference as the logical basis for the argument will fail and thus is fallacy.

However, you are instead saying using a deadly weapon is, regardless, viewed as intent to kill, completely skipping the word inference and instead viewing it as equivalent.

Which it isn't.

 

[Zenith]

Self defense is not malice!

Go read.

And neither is it the intent to kill.

I'd say that you should read posts and understand them before you go around making an ass out of yourself, but you seem to be too busy propping yourself up to notice...

 

[Dapper]

And neither is it the intent to kill.

Yes it is.

Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill... Examples of deadly weapons and instruments include but are not limited to guns, knives, deadly toxins or chemicals or gases and even vehicles when intentionally used to harm a victim.

No one needs to admit intent, ever. If you use a deadly weapon upon another person, it is an inferred, not explicit, intent to kill. Explicit intent yields the same sentence as inferred.

Legally, inference is a logical assumption based on given information. However, contrary information can invalidate an inference as the logical basis for the argument will fail and thus is fallacy.

inference n. a rule of logic applied to evidence in a trial, in which a fact is "proved" by presenting other "facts" which lead to only one reasonable conclusion--that if A and B are true, then C is. The process is called "deduction" or "deductive reasoning," and is a persuasive form of circumstantial evidence.

A)Guns are deadly-true B)he shot the gun at another person-true C)therefore, his intent was to kill.-true

 

[Zenith]

Yes it is.

No fallacy.

Self defense is an intent to kill. You just said that.

A gun can be a deadly weapon. That does not mean that the use of a gun as a weapon is invariably for the purpose of killing.

Fallacy.

 

[Dapper]

Self defense is an intent to kill. You just said that.

A gun can be a deadly weapon. That does not mean that the use of a gun as a weapon is invariably for the purpose of killing.

Yes it does.

Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill.

Guns are deadly weapons.

You are essentially saying it is possible to run someone over without trying to kill them.

 

[Liquid]

You are essentially saying it is possible to run someone over without trying to kill them.

Ever heard of... an accident?

 

[Dapper]

Ever heard of... an accident?

Intentionally run someone over... Good effort though.

You are essentially saying it is possible to intentionally run someone over without trying to kill them.

 

[Azuremen]

You are failing to realize more than an A and B thus C situation can exist.

You have this talent for grossly over simplifying things and then presenting them as universal truths.

 

[Liquid]

Intentionally run someone over...

If you're driving and some idiot wanders right in front of your car without looking and you accidentally knock them down, how was that an intention to kill?

You are essentially saying it is possible to run someone over without trying to kill them.

Yes. Yes is it possible. It's called an accident.

 

[Azuremen]

Conversely, you could argue a car is not a deadly weapon, and therefore you could run someone over without an intent to kill to them, but rather just maim.

At least by the reasoning presented by Dapper.

 

[Dapper]

You are failing to realize more than an A and B thus C situation can exist.

You have this talent for grossly over simplifying things and then presenting them as universal truths.

Guns are deadly. Zimmerman chased Martin down and shot him. Both facts.

Unbelievable ignorance!
Shooting a gun at someone is not the same as accidentally hitting a pedestrian.
Shooting a gun at someone is the same as pointing your car at a person and giving some throttle.

And cars are deadly weapons used in that manner... which means when a car is used in that manner, one's inferred intent is to kill, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Conversely, you could argue a car is not a deadly weapon, and therefore you could run someone over without an intent to kill to them, but rather just maim.

At least by the reasoning presented by Dapper.

Considering that is not what I said, nor my source, you are just making up overtly asinine things.

 

[Zenith]

No I am not. I am essentially saying that I can use a gun with the intent of defending myself. And yes, it is possible to attack someone with a car without the intent to kill.

Guns can be deadly weapons. They are often used to incapacitate threats and end conflict. If I shoot somebody, I am trying to keep them from harming me (read: self defense).

Is it possible for a gun to be used for something else other than killing? Of course it is.

Edit: And respond to Azure's point. A car is not a deadly weapon and thus cannot be used to kill. Correct, by your logic.

 

[Dapper]

No I am not.

Yes, you are. Guns=cars=deadly force.

And yes, it is possible to attack someone with a car without the intent to kill.

You are arguing against what wiki says?

Is it possible for a gun to be used for something else other than killing? Of course it is.

Not when pointed at another person. Intent to kill is the only inferred intent possible considering one should understand what a gun can do.

And respond to Azure's point. A car is not a deadly weapon and thus cannot be used to kill. Correct, by your logic.

Too bad that is not true in the real world.

 

[Azuremen]

Guns are deadly. Zimmerman chased Martin down and shot him. Both facts.

Unbelievable ignorance!
Shooting a gun at someone is not the same as accidentally hitting a pedestrian.
Shooting a gun at someone is the same as pointing your car at a person and giving some throttle.

And cars are deadly weapons used in that manner... which means when a car is used in that manner, one's inferred intent is to kill, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

You really should watch when you call people ignorant, just saying.

Secondly, you've now generated an ambiguous element to the interpretation of what qualifies as a deadly weapon. Which undermines the points you've been attempting to make even further. On top of that, you've also added a condition in which one's intent can lift the inference that using a deadly weapon implies deadly intent.

Honestly, do you think about what you are posting?

 

[Liquid]

Yes, you are. Guns=cars=deadly force.

Wrong.

User using gun in an irresponsible manner can possibly equal death/deadly force.

A gun by itself, as in your equation, is not deadly force.

Using a car in a reckless manner can possibly end up with death.

A car by itself, as in your equation, is not deadly force.

Did you know that people die because of tea cosies? They kill one Briton every year. Holy crap let's ban them because of how dangerous they are. Clearly a menace to society.

The instrument does not constitute death. Only an abuse of that instrument. You could kill someone with the blunt side of a kettle, but that doesn't make kettles dangerous.

Going on topic, I don't know much about this case but Dapper has a penchant for overgeneralising such as the quote I have quoted in this post. It's not as simple as Guns = Bad. Think harder.

 

[dautolover]

I think the discussion of whether the use of guns constitutes a form of intent misses the basic point of this case... that a reasonable person who feels threatened does not pursue another person who he thinks constitutes a danger.

Dapper mentions this point in passing, but doesn't develop it:

A non-authority figure carrying a gun while chasing another person is not scared, and anger is not a mitigating factor.

That Zimmerman kept pursuing Martin (with a gun at hand) implies a certain degree of intent. This pursuance alone can eliminate voluntary manslaughter as a possible charge. Consider a crime of passion (the typical manslaughter case). A person who discovers his partner sleeping with someone else in his/her bed, and shoots them both is guilty of manslaughter, because the law takes into consideration the frailty of human character.

The reason why Zimmerman's case is not manslaughter is because the circumstances of the confrontation with Martin were not random or unexpected (such as when the man unexpectedly catches his wife cheating on him). Zimmerman should have known that a confrontation was possible, especially if he continued pursuing Martin (even when he was continuously told by the operator to not to do so). Moreover, Zimmerman could not have reasonably believed that he was in danger, if he was actually pursuing Martin. He also knew that if things got intense, he could always pull out his gun and use it.

The circumstances make the manslaughter charge unlikely, especially when the confrontation did not happen out of the blue... his pursuance of Martin played a major role in the confrontation. This alone implies intent, even before Zimmerman pulled the trigger.

The use of gun does not matter much. But the knowledge that you could use this gun when chasing someone makes a 2nd murder charge a plausible means of tackling this case.

So if I use a firearm to defend my own life, then by Dapper's definition, my intent shifts from defending myself to trying to murder a person.

It's probably both. But because of the Stand Your Ground law, even if he acknowledges intent to kill someone, he can always cite self-defense (if I didn't kill him, I would've suffered injury).

The prosecution then is burdened with two things: showing intent (which it can show) and dismantling the self-defense argument.

 

[Dapper]

You really should watch when you call people ignorant, just saying.

Secondly, you've now generated an ambiguous element to the interpretation of what qualifies as a deadly weapon.

On top of that, you've also added a condition in which one's intent can lift the inference that using a deadly weapon implies deadly intent.

Honestly, do you think about what you are posting?

Really? Cars and guns don't kill people, people kill people. Intent to kill is inherent when using a deadly weapon to harm another.

This pursuance alone can eliminate voluntary manslaughter as a possible charge.

👍 That is damning in my opinion.

The instrument does not constitute death. Only an abuse of that instrument. You could kill someone with the blunt side of a kettle, but that doesn't make kettles dangerous.

It does make a kettle a deadly weapon. Do you know I think the people on the other side of this screen are not totally stupid? If you need me to go over people kill people and guns don't kill people every post, please don't respond to me. 👍

For clarity, if a deadly weapon is used to cause harm to another person, intent to kill is inherent (albeit inferred).
If you don't agree, go argue Wiki, not me.

 

[Azuremen]

Really? Cars and guns don't kill people, people kill people. Intent to kill is inherent when using a deadly weapon to harm another.

Are you familiar with circular logic?

Because I'm pretty sure you're an expert at it.

People kill people, by your own statement. Therefore the intent behind the action is very important in understanding what a tool is being used for and should be classified as.

 

[Dapper]

Are you familiar with circular logic?

Because I'm pretty sure you're an expert at it.

People kill people, by your own statement. Therefore the intent behind the action is very important in understanding what a tool is being used for and should be classified as.

Anything capable of causing death is a deadly weapon. The intentional use of a deadly weapon to harm means intent to kill. How do you know a gun or car is used intentionally to harm? Is that the argument you pose?

When the gun is loaded and pointed at a person.. that is pretty easy. If a person is in the road, there is no forensic evidence, no prior motive and the person did not flea the scene, it may be hard to prove an intent to harm (although traffic laws are pretty strict). But usually there are a lot of tire marks, the person is not on the road and the driver leaves the scene... that infers intent to kill.

Pretty much it is easy to tell with any amount of thought. Zimmerman, for example, had a loaded gun and pulled the trigger. The only reasonable outcome is Martin would die.

 

[Azuremen]

You've been arguing any use of a gun qualifies as deadly force. You can have a gun loaded with various ammunition, and in the case of home defense, the intent clearly changes.

You've further made the erroneous assumption that the only reasonable outcome from a gun being fired is that someone dies if it is pointed at them. Which is hardly the case in such a sweeping statement.

But what the argument has been about for the past couple of pages is your absurd generalizations and attempts to support them on what amounts to circular logic, based on a quote from a Wiki.

 

[a6m5]

I think the discussion of whether the use of guns constitutes a form of intent misses the basic point of this case... that a reasonable person who feels threatened does not pursue another person who he thinks constitutes a danger.

That's little more assumption than I'd like. Is Zimmerman an reasonable person? Did he necessarily feel threatened when he followed Trayvon Martin, or is it possible that it was when the confrontation got physical, that he felt threatened?

I still think we need to learn more before we can discuss this case more in depth.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Guns are deadly. Zimmerman chased Martin down and shot him. Both facts.

That probably is fact, but there's no proof that Zimmerman finished his chase. There's too many scenarios that could have played out between those two events.

Zimmerman should have known that a confrontation was possible, especially if he continued pursuing Martin (even when he was continuously told by the operator to not to do so).

They told him "we don't need you to do that." They didn't tell him to stop following him.

That's little more assumption than I'd like. Is Zimmerman an reasonable person? Did he necessarily feel threatened when he followed Trayvon Martin, or is it possible that it was when the confrontation got physical, that he felt threatened?

I still think we need to learn more before we can discuss this case more in depth.

Agreed

 

[Dapper]

You've been arguing any use of a gun qualifies as deadly force.

We are clear here. That is what wiki says also. Arguing against wiki is probably a really naive thing at this point. I've heard the brightest minds in the world quote wiki.

You've further made the erroneous assumption that the only reasonable outcome from a gun being fired is that someone dies if it is pointed at them. Which is hardly the case in such a sweeping statement.

Kind of clear here. And, again, you are arguing the world's largest source of information.

But what the argument has been about for the past couple of pages is your absurd generalizations and attempts to support them on what amounts to circular logic, based on a quote from a Wiki.

It's not circular, it's just that every situation has a lot of variables to consider.
No reasonable person is going to shoot another individual intentionally and expect them to live.

Deadly force, as defined by the United States Armed Forces, is the force which a person uses, causing—or that a person knows, or should know, would create a substantial risk of causing—death or serious bodily harm.

Essentially any gun falls in this category. "Firearms" is wiki's first listed weapon under weapons used for deadly force. The deadly force can be justified, but it is still deadly force. To think otherwise is unreasonable.

You are directly refuting the definitions wiki offers for deadly force and the reasonable outcome of the use of a deadly weapon. Do you understand how audacious and naive you ( and everyone who agrees with him, you too) that is? At least have some links or something to prove wiki wrong.

 

[McLaren]

Your intent should be to protect yourself and kill them. If it is not, you are not a responsible gun owner.

So a responsible gun owner only points his gun at people to kill them? Get out of here with your nonsense. You seem to have zero clue on gun ownership yourself.

 

[Dapper]

So a responsible gun owner only points his gun at people to kill them? Get out of here with your nonsense. You seem to have zero clue on gun ownership yourself.

*pointing is not shooting*

Now look how you look.