Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

[Liquid]

Yep. Or a brick:

Dear God, don't forget the kettles and tea cosies.

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.

 

[Famine]

My ex-girlfriend's dad was an amateur beekeeper. Each one of his bees could - COULD, mark you! - kill a person. More than half of all bee/wasp sting anaphylaxis fatalities are in individuals who've never exhibited non-local responses to stings, so you may be the next victim...

Which means he was harbouring 300,000 deadly weapons in his back garden! The genocidal bastard.

 

[TankAss95]

My ex-girlfriend's dad was an amateur beekeeper. Each one of his bees could - COULD, mark you! - kill a person. More than half of all bee/wasp sting anaphylaxis fatalities are in individuals who've never exhibited non-local responses to stings, so you may be the next victim...

Which means he was harbouring 300,000 deadly weapons in his back garden! The genocidal bastard.

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

 

[dautolover]

Man this thread is hot... but for the wrong reasons. Lol.

...
You just press the "go" button in normal operation and it delivers remote, penetrative and injurious force to whatever it's pointing at (plus gravity and ricochets).

Injurious force, huh? Is this just a tad below "deadly" force?

Of course a gun on a shelf with no rounds in the firing chamber or preloaded (magazine or secondary chambers) will kill no-one unless used outside of normal operation - beating them over the head with it or throwing it at them. In many respects a rule-1-safe gun is less dangerous than a brick, a honey bee or a peanut.

That the gun is on a shelf does not eliminate its inherent deadly force... its function is simply not being utilized. But it still maintains that quality.

The only exceptions to this are old weapons in gun collections (those that don't even work). Their function to instill injurious/deadly force is gone, so it no longer becomes a "gun" in the traditional sense, but a historical artifact, a piece of art.

A gun is not deadly force. A loaded gun is not deadly force. A loaded gun with safety off is not deadly force. A loaded gun with safety off and pointing at someone is not deadly force. A loaded gun with safety off, pointing at something living and fired is not deadly force. A loaded gun with safety off, pointing at something living and fired with the intent to kill them by delivering that penetrative, injurious force to the chest or head is deadly force.

But a responsible gun owner will know rule 2 and won't allow the pointy end of a gun to point at anything they don't want destroyed - and they'll know rule 1, so it won't matter if it's loaded or not.

Intent is outside the whole aspect of deadly force. That gun is, regardless of intentions, still deadly force. That you don't act on it is one thing. Note that this discussion of lethality isn't a pro vs. gun debate. It's perfectly fine for me to have someone use deadly force to defend oneself against a thief or a rapist. You still use deadly force, but it can sometimes be a good thing.

Minor note on legality - if you have a fully-operational firearm, point it at someone and pull the trigger with the intent to kill them but you are a crap shot and kill the person next to them (like I did with the nylon target - still it removed the hostage situation by killing the hostage), are you still a murderer? You still have the use of deadly force (one that satisfies all convolutions of definition), you still have intent to kill and you still have a death by those actions - it's just accidental...[/b]

Unless you're citing case law I'm not aware of, I cannot agree with this either. Indeed, some case law has stated that in the ongoing of a crime (say a bank robbery), if the security guard shoots at you, but misses and hits and kills a customer, you yourself are charged for the death, because this death occurred during the commission of the crime. Why is this? Because the bank robbery proves your mens rea (guilty state of mind). You are then charged for first degree murder.

As such, it may be "accidental" to kill the person next to the one intended, but you would still be charged under first degree murder.

Florida law is not an authority on the universal definitions of "deadly force" and "self defense."

Yes it is, because that's where Zimmerman is being tried. That's why I'm more likely to agree with Dapper, because regardless of the very good debate going on here (good points on both sides), the ultimate definition of deadly force and self defense is Florida's.

My ex-girlfriend's dad was an amateur beekeeper. Each one of his bees could - COULD, mark you! - kill a person. More than half of all bee/wasp sting anaphylaxis fatalities are in individuals who've never exhibited non-local responses to stings, so you may be the next victim...

Which means he was harbouring 300,000 deadly weapons in his back garden! The genocidal bastard.[/b]

No, because the purpose or inherent quality of these bees (of living things) is not to kill. They do other things, such as build colonies, collect honey, etc. Guns only shoot with injurious force. That's what they're supposed to do.

 

[Famine]

Injurious force, huh? Is this just a tad below "deadly" force?

No.

An injurious force applies to anything. A deadly force applies only to the death of living things. Guns are not only used to kill living things.

That the gun is on a shelf does not eliminate its inherent deadly force... its function is simply not being utilized. But it still maintains that quality.

Where's the force?

The only exceptions to this are old weapons in gun collections (those that don't even work). Their function to instill injurious/deadly force is gone, so it no longer becomes a "gun" in the traditional sense, but a historical artifact, a piece of art.

A gun with no bullets in it also "doesn't work".

Intent is outside the whole aspect of deadly force. That gun is, regardless of intentions, still deadly force. That you don't act on it is one thing. Note that this discussion of lethality isn't a pro vs. gun debate. It's perfectly fine for me to have someone use deadly force to defend oneself against a thief or a rapist. You still use deadly force, but it can sometimes be a good thing.

If you intend to kill you use deadly force. If you do not you use only the innate injurious force. When I used the guns I've fired I had no intent to kill anyone or anything and thus deadly force was not used. The remote delivery of a penetrative, injurious force was - as I used the bullets to penetrate and injure a target at some distance away.

Unless you're citing case law I'm not aware of, I cannot agree with this either. Indeed, some case law has stated that in the ongoing of a crime (say a bank robbery), if the security guard shoots at you, but misses and hits and kills a customer, you yourself are charged for the death, because this death occurred during the commission of the crime. Why is this? Because the bank robbery proves your mens rea (guilty state of mind). You are then charged for first degree murder.

As such, it may be "accidental" to kill the person next to the one intended, but you would still be charged under first degree murder.

I was asking a question, not making a statement for you to agree or disagree with...

No, because the purpose or inherent quality of these bees (of living things) is not to kill. They do other things, such as build colonies, collect honey, etc. Guns only shoot with injurious force. That's what they're supposed to do.

And the purpose or inherent quality of guns is not to kill either. As, I'll note, you just agreed with.

I've shot five different handguns - each to remotely deliver an injurious, penetrative force (to a nylon/paper target) - and not killed anyone or anything. Was I misusing them or is it the sentiment "guns are designed to kill" that is wrong?

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Argue with the law. A gun has deadly force, it is a deadly weapon. If you shoot at someone, you used deadly force which means you had an intent to kill. Are you seriously saying you thought I said carrying a gun meant deadly force?

I said shooting a gun at another person is deadly force.
From page 5-

Using a gun against someone else is deadly force. Florida law says so.

Anyone who carries a gun, points it at someone and pulls the trigger is trying to kill them.

So when you said this you were referring to Florida law? And not just in general?

 

[Danoff]

Just read most of the thread, some classic dapper in here. Knives are potentially deadly weapons, therefore cutting someone with a knife is intent to kill. Rocks are potentially deadly weapons therefore throwing a rock at someone is intent to kill. WTH?


Ok so back to Trayvon and Zimmerman. The reason people are so upset about this is because of the possibilities:

It's possible that Zimmerman was harassing someone who was doing nothing wrong, went up to him, and shot him in cold blood and will get off scott free. That's wrong, and it's a horrible thing if it happens (regardless of the motivation).

It's equally possible that Zimmerman was confronting a suspicious character in his neighborhood, the guy attacked him, Zimmerman used the only weapon he had on him to defend himself, and he could get sentenced for murder. That's wrong, and it's a horrible thing if it happens.

I do not understand arguing over this case. It's not clear what happened, and so it's not clear which outcome is the right or wrong one. In the absence of evidence we let people go free, in this case that could mean allowing a murderer back out on the streets - happens all the time I'm sure. It's the price we pay for having a system that presumes innocence.

I will say this, if Zimmerman was just a racist who wanted to kill a black guy in his neighborhood, why call 911? If Treyvon was just an innocent kid why was he hiding his identity roaming around in a strange neighborhood looking around at stuff?

If I had to speculate at what happened (and this is just pure speculation), I would guess this: Zimmerman is a racist bully - distrustful of black people and gets off on pushing people around. He was confident that he could push this particular kid around because he had a gun and he's like that. He thought the kid was up to no good and wanted to scare him. Meanwhile Treyvon was a punk kid who actually WAS up to no good. He sees some jerk who's high on himself trying to push him around and will have none of it. The two idiots get into a fight and a gun gets used. Zimmerman should probably go to jail but not for premeditated murder.

But hey, that's just one of a thousand possible scenarios. We'll never know, and so we just have to leave it up to the authorities to gather evidence. If they can't piece something together, neither can we and Zimmerman should walk. If they can, Zimmerman should be convicted of ONLY what he was responsible for and nothing more.

 

[Dapper]

No sources yet. Unsurprised.

 

[homeforsummer]

No sources yet. Unsurprised.

No sense yet. Unsurprised.

 

[arora]

I do not understand arguing over this case. It's not clear what happened, and so it's not clear which outcome is the right or wrong one.

I think it stems from a desire for absolutes, while our conscience/morality may be governed this way, as a populous we are governed by laws. Laws that are open to interpretation by judges, lawyers, and instructed juries, sometimes following previous set precedent.

Not that you don't know this, just sayin.

Besides that, everyone has an opinion when cases like this are brought to our attention by the media, we are a bit twisted at times.

 

[Dapper]

"In addition, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant had a specific intent to kill. In a first degree murder case, the state may prove the defendant's deliberate intent to commit an unlawful killing by considering the defendant's actions, use of a deadly weapon, or other circumstances."

I won't leave a link. But this is Pennsylvania's law.

 

[Famine]

Just read most of the thread, some classic dapper in here. Knives are potentially deadly weapons, therefore cutting someone with a knife is intent to kill. Rocks are potentially deadly weapons therefore throwing a rock at someone is intent to kill. WTH?

Don't forget the bees.

You know he temporarily put an old hive in the hallway. One bee crawled out and fell into a shoe - his wife's shoe. She put the shoe on and got stung right on the toe - and let me tell you that being stung on a digit hurts like a 🤬. She couldn't walk for three days.

I reckon he should be facing 7-12 years for assault with a deadly weapon. After all he possesses these bees that could kill someone, so that's intent right there...

 

[Danoff]

"In addition, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant had a specific intent to kill. In a first degree murder case, the state may prove the defendant's deliberate intent to commit an unlawful killing by considering the defendant's actions, use of a deadly weapon, or other circumstances."

I won't leave a link. But this is Pennsylvania's law.

Here's how you read this:

In a first degree murder case, the state may prove the defendant's deliberate intent to commit an unlawful killing by considering the defendant's actions, considering use of a deadly weapon, or considering other circumstances.

It does not say that use of a deadly weapon proves deliberate intent to commit an unlawful killing.

Reading and interpreting the very carefully constructed language of law is not well suited to someone like yourself who is cavalier about throwing around language without specific regard to meaning or context. An example of this can be found in this very thread where you completely incorrectly threw around cruel and unusual punishment in the constitution (which constrains the federal government) as a constraint on individuals.

 

[Touring Mars]

Good post Dan 👍

It does not say that use of a deadly weapon proves deliberate intent to commit an unlawful killing.

Thank cripes for that. I've been looking over my shoulder all evening after I used my kitchen knife to slice some cheese earlier.

Damn cheese had it coming..

 

[Dapper]

It does not say that use of a deadly weapon proves deliberate intent to commit an unlawful killing.

"the state may prove the defendant's deliberate intent to commit an unlawful killing by considering the defendant's actions, use of a deadly weapon, or other circumstances."

So, a deadly weapon can be used to prove intent. Do we all agree there?
What it says above is that a deadly weapon is not needed to prove intent; provig intent can be done by just considering their actions or other circumstances.

The use of a gun can, not necessarily will, prove intent to kill.

Still nothing from the opposition.

 

[Danoff]

So, a deadly weapon can be used to prove intent. We all agree there.
What it says above is that a deadly weapon is not needed to prove intent; provig intent can be done by just considering their actions or other circumstances.

Yes, other circumstances can also prove intent. But it does not say a deadly weapon WILL prove intent. It is a consideration among other facts. Not sufficient in and of itself, and also not necessary.

 

[Pupik]

Thank cripes for that. I've been looking over my shoulder all evening after I used my kitchen knife to slice some cheese earlier.

Damn cheese had it coming..

In that case, cutting the cheese is quite justified, but consuming the cheese is murderous-ness. Although, in some places, it's the other way around, because it destroys the castle from within.

I had a look on Google Maps of where this neighborhood was located in Sanford, and it appears to be one of those recently-built, zero-lot-line communities where every domicile appears very much alike. Couple that with the late evening, only a little light from street lights, and it's quite possible that Trayvon was looking at tiny house numbers and windows to determine which one was his father's girlfriend's home.

Just saying, this is all just speculation, but a curious thought that seems to shed light on some of the circumstances.

 

[Dapper]

Yes, other circumstances can also prove intent. But it does not say a deadly weapon WILL prove intent. It is a consideration among other facts. Not sufficient in and of itself, and also not necessary.

It clearly says "use of a deadly weapon" to describe singular ways (or not and) to prove intent to kill. The word 'or' is not 'and', therefore, "use of a deadly weapon" stands alone independent of other parts of the sentence.

For readability, I'll edit the quote in question-
...the state may prove the defendant's deliberate intent to commit an unlawful killing by the use of a deadly weapon.

 

[buickgnx88]

In that case, cutting the cheese is quite justified, but consuming the cheese is murderous-ness.

I think the only time cutting the cheese is justified is when you are in the car with your friends and can control the window locks.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I think the only time cutting the cheese is justified is when you are in the car with your friends and can control the window locks.

Or in the gym to mark your territory.

 

[dautolover]

I will say this, if Zimmerman was just a racist who wanted to kill a black guy in his neighborhood, why call 911? If Treyvon was just an innocent kid why was he hiding his identity roaming around in a strange neighborhood looking around at stuff?

Was he in a strange neighborhood, or just visiting his folks? How is walking about the neighborhood to go to his folks' home strange behavior?

If I had to speculate at what happened (and this is just pure speculation), I would guess this: Zimmerman is a racist bully - distrustful of black people and gets off on pushing people around. He was confident that he could push this particular kid around because he had a gun and he's like that. He thought the kid was up to no good and wanted to scare him. Meanwhile Treyvon was a punk kid who actually WAS up to no good. He sees some jerk who's high on himself trying to push him around and will have none of it. The two idiots get into a fight and a gun gets used. Zimmerman should probably go to jail but not for premeditated murder.

Again, he was going back to his folks' home. He had no weapon. He had a bag of Skittles he had bought from the local 7/11.

I was asking a question, not making a statement for you to agree or disagree with...

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.

Moreover, say you shoot at a piece of paper, and say a person walks right in front of the paper, and you shoot and kill the person. That's deadly force (it has always been there). Does this mean you'll end up being charged for murder? No. But you've used deadly force, regardless.

Don't forget the bees.

You know he temporarily put an old hive in the hallway. One bee crawled out and fell into a shoe - his wife's shoe. She put the shoe on and got stung right on the toe - and let me tell you that being stung on a digit hurts like a 🤬. She couldn't walk for three days.

I reckon he should be facing 7-12 years for assault with a deadly weapon. After all he possesses these bees that could kill someone, so that's intent right there...

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.

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

"the state may prove the defendant's deliberate intent to commit an unlawful killing by considering the defendant's actions, use of a deadly weapon, or other circumstances."

I agree with Dapper... if someone uses a deadly weapon, it will undoubtedly be considered as constituting a form of intent. It doesn't state anything as to whether that intent is based on self-defense, however. A person defending oneself against an attacker may actually intend to kill the attacker if that is the only option. But that would hardly constitute first degree murder.

~~
As I said a couple posts above, the issue of guns is irrelevant. While I do agree that there should be some sort of gun control legislation so that guns are used responsibly and that there are penalties when they are not used as such, the issue of guns is irrelevant to the killing of Martin, and a person wishing to make this incident the quintessential anti-gun story is really stretching things too far.

 

[Touring Mars]

As has been pointed out already, almost anything could be used as a weapon - a brick, a car jack, an unloaded gun, a brick, a baseball bat, a baseball bat with hundreds of bees sellotaped to it (or did I dream that - better lay off the brie at bedtime), or even a pigeon... in all seriousness, a journalist friend of mine (who is sadly no longer with us) once reported on a case where a man was murdered (in the Balkans war) by Serbian soldiers by having a live pigeon stuffed down his throat.

The point is, we all know and appreciate that people use guns to kill people all the time - but the key point in this discussion is about intent and what makes an item deadly - it's very easy to make a gun a deadly weapon, even without bullets - but it doesn't mean that everyone who owns, carries or uses a gun intends to kill someone or something with it, just as I don't intend to kill someone with my collection of kitchen knifes (or my recently acquired Japanese throwing knife, which is pretty cool).

It comes down to what people actually do and/or intend to do with an item that is important in a circumstance like this. Furthermore, you can kill someone without intending to kill them, and you have a right to defend yourself against someone who you believe intends to kill or injure you.

 

[Dapper]

...but it doesn't mean that everyone who owns, carries or uses a gun intends to kill someone or something with it...

Are you seriously implying anyone suggested that? It has been directed refuted several times and literally makes no sense (I'll explain further below). So, I am sorry if that isn't your implication but it sure reads that way.

If you kill someone with something that qualifies as a deadly weapon, generally defined as "any object designed, made, or adapted for the purposes of inflicting death or serious physical injury," then, by several individual state's laws, this constitutes as deadly force, which is defined as any action that one should reasonably understand as an action that may cause bodily harm or death. Our world is filled with these objects. Deadly weapons don't kill anyone, though, and do not indicate any intent by themselves... it is when they are used by one person against another person while they should reasonably understand that it will cause bodily harm or death, only then is deadly force able to be used to invoke intent.

 

[Danoff]

It clearly says "use of a deadly weapon" to describe singular ways (or not and) to prove intent to kill.

It says it may be considered in the process of establishing the intent to kill.

The word 'or' is not 'and', therefore, "use of a deadly weapon" stands alone independent of other parts of the sentence.

It may be singularly considered in the process of establishing the intent to kill, thus the use of "or". It does not say and should not be construed to say that use of a deadly weapon proves the intent to kill.

For readability, I'll edit the quote in question-
...the state may prove the defendant's deliberate intent to commit an unlawful killing by the use of a deadly weapon.

The statement is now effectively unreadable. The state may use a deadly weapon to prove the defendant's intent to kill? The state may prove the defendant intended to kill with a deadly weapon by showing... something?

 

[arora]

This always comes up...

" ...gun control legislation so that guns are used responsibly and that there are penalties when they are not used as such"

More laws don't solve anything, we already have laws, it's like this to me. In my home state we have had a careless driving law for decades, any careless driving as in eating, playing with the radio, putting on make up, reading a magazine etc. People still do it, now we have specific laws tacked onto the existing law. Redundancy is not a deterrent, people use cell phones all the time disregarding the newish no cell phone while driving law, so now they brake two laws for the price of one but guess what? They'll keep using cell phones no mater how many new laws are passed.

Enforce the existing laws before writing new ones, we have plenty of anti gun laws on the books now that are not enforced.

[hippy soft side]My broader opinion is this; we should get to the root of the social problems we have instead of applying band aids, there are reasons these people find themselves doing terrible things, social reasons. I'll admit there will always be a pure criminal element but I believe a lot of people simply make very bad decisions that ruin their lives and the lives of others under stress or under the positions they unwilling find themselves in at the time.[/hippy soft side]

 

[Dapper]

OMG Danoff.
If it was written like this, you would be right.
...the state may prove the defendant's deliberate intent to commit an unlawful killing by considering the following: defendant's actions, use of a deadly weapon, or other circumstances.

But that is not how it is written.

 

[Liquid]

Just one more thing...

[/Columbo]

Knives are dangerous. Cutting people is wrong. Therefore, surgeons are violent criminals who use deadly force and need to be sent to prison.

LOGIC!

 

[Dapper]

surgeons are violent criminals

just for you.

 

[Liquid]

just for you.

Totally missing the point of my post means I award you these emoticons:

Dapper...

 

[FoolKiller]

just for you.

I think it was more like sarcasm just for you.