Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

walter sobchak

George Zimmerman

56 posts in this topic

Talking to an American friend, and apparently it was big news over there that one of the major tv networks in the states had broadcast a 'doctored' tape of the original '999' call to Zimmermans detriment whilst another claimed that a video taken at Zimmermans arrest showed no injuries whilst it clearly did.  There is also a fuss that the most widely used media photo of Martin was several years old and showed him as a young boy, rather than as a 17-year-old, 6' tall young man.  No matter which side you come down on, some of the media coverage about this case stinks.

Not to mention that there were claims that Martin was a perfect black child with no record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you believe in trial by jury, then surely you have to accept the jury's verdict.  I wonder what the appeal process is in Florida

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you believe in trial by jury, then surely you have to accept the jury's verdict.  I wonder what the appeal process is in Florida

None if you're found not guilty.  The US has specific protection against double jeopardy in its Constitution somewhere.  The most that can happen is, like in the OJ Simpson case, that interested parties can sue for damages in a civil court where the burden of proof is reduced to balance of probabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking to an American friend, and apparently it was big news over there that one of the major tv networks in the states had broadcast a 'doctored' tape of the original '999' call to Zimmermans detriment whilst another claimed that a video taken at Zimmermans arrest showed no injuries whilst it clearly did.  There is also a fuss that the most widely used media photo of Martin was several years old and showed him as a young boy, rather than as a 17-year-old, 6' tall young man.  No matter which side you come down on, some of the media coverage about this case stinks.

 

It wasn't much better on BBC breakfast this morning either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you believe in trial by jury, then surely you have to accept the jury's verdict.  I wonder what the appeal process is in Florida

 

The issue that seems to be a little bit too complicated for the media hysterics (both for and against Zimmerman) is whether or not the 'stand your ground' law is actually a good law and, perhaps more crucially, whether it should apply to Zimmerman who wasn't so much standing his ground as patrolling his beat with a gun. 

 

In the strict interpretation of reasonable doubt if the only other witness* is dead then 'stand your ground' is likely to put more than enough doubt in the jury's mind.

 

(* All of the other witnesses seem to have only had either a partial view or hearing of what happened).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue that seems to be a little bit too complicated for the media hysterics (both for and against Zimmerman) is whether or not the 'stand your ground' law is actually a good law and, perhaps more crucially, whether it should apply to Zimmerman who wasn't so much standing his ground as patrolling his beat with a gun. 

 

In the strict interpretation of reasonable doubt if the only other witness* is dead then 'stand your ground' is likely to put more than enough doubt in the jury's mind.

 

(* All of the other witnesses seem to have only had either a partial view or hearing of what happened).

I read that the strict interpretation of the law appears to be that if, in the very moment that a person feels his life is in danger, he uses deadly force then the "stand your ground" law comes into effect. It doesn't appear to matter what lead up to that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that the strict interpretation of the law appears to be that if, in the very moment that a person feels his life is in danger, he uses deadly force then the "stand your ground" law comes into effect. It doesn't appear to matter what lead up to that point.

That's more or less true. The law is that non-lethal force may be countered only with other non-lethal force. So if somebody punches you, you can punch them back legally but you can't shoot them.

 

If the other person escalates it to lethal force, which means sufficient force to kill or permanently injure then you may respond with lethal force as long as the other guy continues to use lethal force. It doesn't really make any difference who started the non-lethal force though there is no evidence that Zimmerman threw the first punch anyway or indeed any evidence that Zimmerman punched Martin at all..

 

Martin was slamming Zimmerman's head against a paving stone at the time. That counts as lethal force. It's not about opinion but about potential risks. At which point Zimmerman was entitled to shoot him, which he did. At which point Martin backed off and stopped his violence, Zimmerman would not have been entitled to shoot him at that point and fortunately for him, he didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue that seems to be a little bit too complicated for the media hysterics (both for and against Zimmerman) is whether or not the 'stand your ground' law is actually a good law and, perhaps more crucially, whether it should apply to Zimmerman who wasn't so much standing his ground as patrolling his beat with a gun. 

 

In the strict interpretation of reasonable doubt if the only other witness* is dead then 'stand your ground' is likely to put more than enough doubt in the jury's mind.

 

(* All of the other witnesses seem to have only had either a partial view or hearing of what happened).

"Stand your ground" is just the name of the law, it isn't intended to be an accurate description of its entirety; its other aspects give it its name. Namely that you are not obliged to retreat to avoid violence, however, since he was pinned to the ground, there was never any question of him retreating.

 

There is no doubt that Zimmerman was covered by the law and the law was written precisely to avoid situations where one guy has to decide whether he should try to save his own life and take the risk of going to prison for defending himself or wait for his attacker to stop beating him and hope that he is not permanently disabled or killed.

 

The question of whether people should carry concealed guns is to me the heart of the issue not "stand your ground".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news, black pressure groups are trying to force the federal government to try Zimmerman under hate crime legislation despite no evidence that there was any racial element to this. The fact that Trayvon referred to Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracker" and Zimmerman having no record of racism don't seem to worry them at all. Any white or (whiteish) person defending themselves from attack by a black teenager must be racist.

 

Scary how "respectable" these groups are deemed to be given their actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it being called a black on white crime? Zimmerman was not white. Unless they are saying 'you all look the same to me'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zimmerman was the aggressor, it was he that pursued matin, it was he who had the gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if a black man had shot an unarmed white boy would we be having this discussion?

 

answers on a postcard to #I'mnotaracistbut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zimmerman was the aggressor, it was he that pursued matin, it was he who had the gun.

He thought he was up to something. That's why he followed him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He thought he was up to something. That's why he followed him.

Against the advice of the police dispatcher, the problem is the crazy "stand your ground" law in Florida which people have dubbed "the make my day" law, giving licence to some people to take it upon themselves to become a clint Eastwood wannabe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against the advice of the police dispatcher, the problem is the crazy "stand your ground" law in Florida which people have dubbed "the make my day" law, giving licence to some people to take it upon themselves to become a clint Eastwood wannabe.

The despatcher wasn't at the scene and was only dishing out srandard advice, a bit like the police would do here if you rang up and said there was an intruder on your premises.

There was a Scottish guy (iirc) who was shot by a householder in the US a few years ago. He was drunk and called at a house asking for directions, the householder thought he was a robber and shot him. Its not right but it's the way it is there.

His (Martin) racist comments are also dismissed because it is apparently impossible for black people to be racist as that is caused by slavery and capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zimmerman was the aggressor, it was he that pursued matin, it was he who had the gun.

Walking after somebody isn't illegal. Martin doesn't get a free pass to bang his head against the pavement a few times, break his nose etc just because he might have followed him (which as a neighbourhood watch figure, he was actually encouraged to do).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against the advice of the police dispatcher, the problem is the crazy "stand your ground" law in Florida which people have dubbed "the make my day" law, giving licence to some people to take it upon themselves to become a clint Eastwood wannabe.

What's crazy about being able to use lethal force against someone using lethal force against you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's crazy about being able to use lethal force against someone using lethal force against you?

so if Trayvon Williams had had a gun he would have been entitled to shoot Zimmermann, since Williams was doing nothing illegal, but Zimmermann reacted in the way he did.

there's a woman in prison for 20 years who was being abused by her husband and fired a gun to scare him off. If she'd have killed him presumably she would have been found not guilty under the same law that acquitted Zimmermann

 

For crying out loud the kid had been to the shop for a can of pop and some sweets.

 

well said barack Obama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how do you know he was just out for some sweets?

You don't. You are just jumping on the bandwagon that says 'black man shot = automatic injustice'

Surely it is not the presidents place to make comments that could sway a jury?

How could he have been Obamas son? Oh wait?, I see.....he's black too :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how do you know he was just out for some sweets?

You don't. You are just jumping on the bandwagon that says 'black man shot = automatic injustice'

Surely it is not the presidents place to make comments that could sway a jury?

How could he have been Obamas son? Oh wait?, I see.....he's black too :rolleyes:

why should it be necessary to prove otherwise?

anyway He'd just been to the shop and he was in possession of them

I never mentioned his race, and he wasn't a man he was a boy

 

there is no jury for Obama to sway since the trial is over and the verdict given

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how do you know he was just out for some sweets?

You don't. You are just jumping on the bandwagon that says 'black man shot = automatic injustice'

Surely it is not the presidents place to make comments that could sway a jury?

How could he have been Obamas son? Oh wait?, I see.....he's black too :rolleyes:

We now he went out for some sweets and fizzy drink because that's what was found on him, also we know why he was in the gated community as he was going to his dads fiances house. The injustice isn't because he's black it's because he's dead and had Zimmerman stayed in his car like the police dispatcher said nobody would have heard of trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman and trayvon Martin would still be alive today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for the name mix up

I'm working on something involving somebody called at the moment williams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why should it be necessary to prove otherwise?

anyway He'd just been to the shop and he was in possession of them

I never mentioned his race, and he wasn't a man he was a boy

there is no jury for Obama to sway since the trial is over and the verdict given

Obama made the comments well before the trial, well before it. He was 17 and beating the ###### out of Zimmerman - some boy. So what if he had some sweets on him? What does that prove? The fact that his father's fiance lived there does not mean he was not out on a burglary job, in fact he may well have been eyeing up a property previously. I don't know that of course but so what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama made the comments well before the trial, well before it. He was 17 and beating the ###### out of Zimmerman - some boy. So what if he had some sweets on him? What does that prove? The fact that his father's fiance lived there does not mean he was not out on a burglary job, in fact he may well have been eyeing up a property previously. I don't know that of course but so what?

So what you're really saying is that all black people should be treated as potential criminals and if some are innocent and end up dead, tough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you're really saying is that all black people should be treated as potential criminals and if some are innocent and end up dead, tough?

How the holy f*ck do you arrive at this? I happen to believe in equality. Not equality as written by the Guardian and co but actual 'everyone is equal'

This means I don't decide that if there is an incident that I didn't witness or only know of second hand, I don't think 'well he's black, he's innocent and was fitted up'. Just like I don't think 'he is white, therefore guilty' OR Vice Versa.

I have read a lot about this in the last week and find most of the reaction to it by blacks in the US pretty racist if I am honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017