Guns should be banned or distributed to people who were trained and did some tests like all over the world.
I still can't grasp why law like above is not standard in modern society US,
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Juror says Zimmerman went "above and beyond" and has "learned a good lesson"
- Thread starter MThanded
- Start date
- Status
Guns should be banned or distributed to people who were trained and did some tests like all over the world.
I still can't grasp why law like above is not standard in modern society US,
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Hold on.............WAT!?!
Do you think if this case happened in the UK, there's any way whatsoever Zimmerman would have gone free? Say he used a knife instead of a gun, since guns are banned. Given your previous posts regarding the use of deadly force I'm the UK, I'm curious to know your opinion on this.
The same state attorney, who was politically pressurized to charge Zimmerman, was all smiles during the post trial conference, charged this woman 20 years in jail and even had the audacity to say, "We offered her mercy in the form of a 3 years plea bargain."
You can kill someone with a punch/kick to the head, or leave them permanently disabled.
Saying that, I know what you are trying to say.
edit: I remember awhile back a Border patrol agent shot a kid who was throwing rocks at him. Everyone argued that he there was no need to resolve to that kind of retaliation.
No let him continue, I think I'll start profiling pantyhose wearers, because they're probably looking to case a joint.
Sorry ladies.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
So what clothes was he wearing that would make him look like he's in a local gang?
I call bull....
http://io9.com/disturbing-chart-shows-rise-in-justified-killings-of-773490798
.... Oh wait
Holy shit at this graph.
A lot of criminals wear pants too. I think it's time to ban them.If I see you outside in pants you better protect ya neck.
Hey Guys, Zimmerman shot Trayvon right in the center of his chest through his heart at point blank range with the gun touching the sweater but "he thought he missed"
The amount of shit crap people took from Zimmerman while completely ignoring Rachel's testimony is just unbelievable. I feel like I'm reading the details of a southern lynching trial from the 1930's
The amount of shit crap people took from Zimmerman while completely ignoring Rachel's testimony is just unbelievable. I feel like I'm reading the details of a southern lynching trial from the 1930's
That would depend on a number of things ultimately but the standards regarding the use of force and the burden of proof being placed on the prosecution are the same. There is no codified duty to retreat either, so strictly speaking if we isolate this to talking only about self defense laws there isn't anything to suggest a not guilty verdict couldn't be justified in the UK.
Maninthemirror
Banned
When a man lies and keeps lying not only does he believe his lies, so do other people
Also doc martens..... o wait
Lol. Just lol. His use of force would have been seen as unreasonable and he'd be doing time for manslaughter minimum. Again, at the minimum. Your mental gymnastics to refrain from admitting you're wrong on this are impressive.
Just pantyhose. If you stick yoga pants over your face you might be having a good time but you probably can't see.
Devolution
Member
What did she say that changed anything? I watched her testimony and some of the cross exam but there really wasn't anything relevant.
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
The juror just seemed to make so many more excuses for Zimmerman's actions. She even admits that she thought Zimmerman went in as the original aggressor, but then the roles flipped and Treyvon didn't want Zimmerman to "get over on him." I had to shut it off at that point, I can read between the lines.
The prosecution would need to prove it was unreasonable just like they had to here. A jury did not buy it here and they could just as well not buy it there.
What don't you understand? The standard of reasonableness is not different between the two countries.
I didn't mean to make it sound like I was using absolutes or anything, but to me the fact that it still happens if not to all black people is still unacceptable. I also don't mean to make it seem like America is a country of racists or anything like that, it's a fantastic country that is much more tolerant and accepting than people give it credit for. I just think people shouldn't treat injustices ( even if minor ) as a fact of life that should be accepted rather than fought against, and I agree that treating dissenters with hostility will solve nothing but rather engaging with them in rational discourse will prove a far better solution. Anyway, this case is really unfortunate and I hope nothing like it will ever happen again.
She heard Trayvon saying "Get off Me" for one disputing Zimmerman's claim of who started it.
She said she heard Trayvon say "Why are you following me" Which means he gave Zimmerman time and an opportunity to explain what he was doing. Instead of the ever more aggressive "You got a problem now, Muthafucker"
You're a disingenuous poster. That's all I'll say. Based on the evidence we have, only an absolute idiot of monumental magnitude would genuinely think Zimmerman would walk free in the UK.
We are talking lululemon pre-banned yoga pants here. I have a warehouse full of deadstock.
You just keep repeating yourself and can't coherently explain why what you claim is true. I've shown you multiple times now how the standard isn't any different and your response is nothing but "nu uh!"
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
So what is he or you getting your stats from? How you know that people rather wear hoodies in crimes than T-shirts?
You are being absurd. He's telling you, as someone who lives there, how the cases play out. The legality in writing, and the interpretation of the law in how it's ruled by the jury or enforced by the police system are entirely different things.
Two states can have the same law, but the enforcement mechanism in one state can be completely different than in another state. The law is irrelevant, the laws have changed for 400 years in the south, but the racially biased enforcement mechanism has not. Black people are getting a raw deal and have been getting a raw deal for 400 years and they're still getting a raw deal today.
"Reasonable fear for great bodily injury or death without any actual injury being required" is the definition for justifiable self defense. That's a subjective point, that's allowed for shit like this to happen:
The fact that you're still railing about the letter of the law when he's told you that there, they don't act the way they do here, where someone can kill another person because they're in fear or because they have a bloody nose is just flippant on your end. Unless you can prove that the actual enforcement of the law is same as it is here, which you haven't done, your points are fucking irrelevant.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I'm honest when I say this............if Rachel was a nice blond headed white lady there's no way her testimony would be crapped on like it has been. If
This sums up your position nicely.
Spring-Loaded
Member
Or from August, 1955
It's acceptable for someone to stalk, chase and subsequently kill an unarmed teenager who was not presenting a threat to anyone in any way?
That there exists any circumstance which makes the above legal is okay with you? That the power to the above is available to anyone, including paranoid and racist people who profile others based on their opinion is positive?
If someone says U.S. law is racist, it's because it made all of the above legal and it indirectly makes permissible profiling based on appearance (of which race is a factor), stalking those one personally deems suspicious (which assumes the person doing the stalking is fit to make decisions regarding others' lives) and to actively disobey what 911 operators tell you to do. No one has to say "It's okay Trayvon Martin was killed because he was black," for it to be racist.
The willful ignorance you, and others following your same line of thinking, is what's embarrassing. You cannot believe anyone truly buys into this idea that the only racism that exists is that of the most blatant degree. I would be so ashamed of myself to ever believe that.
The standard is not at all the same. Show me where in UK law or precedence deadly force is immediately justifiable at the meagre risk of GBH or death. Which by the way, under UK law, Zimmerman's injuries factually and based on evidence are not. They'd fall under common assault or ABH. Like I said, disingenuous.
Yeah. I should have said NOT all fist fights = a battle to the death. Of course, those that think that Zimmerman was justified, would argue this fight was heading in that direction (that Marin was going to kill him).
the law is irrelevant. You don't think so? Why don't you prove to me why that chart exists. Go case by case and prove to me why the same law is meted out so differently based on race over thousands of cases?
You'd be like the clown saying that the Constitution granted equality for all so Blacks and Women all had the same rights in 1789 as White Men because there's no specific exclusion. Or that all cases tried under the SYG law are meted out exactly equally fairly.
Your position is "things are the same because the law is the same" - our, more reasoned argument is "no they're not, here's the evidence" to which you reply...but the wording of the law though
Devolution
Member
The idea that the only racism is overt racism is fucking sad, and yet it persists.
The response must be reasonable and proportional. The proportional response to deadly force is deadly force. Again you are asserting something while being completely unable to copy and paste the law that agrees with you. That's because the law doesn't say what you think it does.
I'm not being defensive or anything, just being curious.
Do you think the letter of the law is an immutable, infallible truth? And that we should all just get over it.
Or, is there something more?
Whatever your answer, I'm not trying to criticize you, just curious as to what you feel.
Zimmerman's injuries in no feat of any imagination fall under deadly force or GBH, and that's based on UK law. Cuts, bruises, black eyes, broken teeth etc fall under ABH. Like I said, there is no way in frozen hell Zimmerman would go free in the UK, or it be decided his use of force was anything but unreasonable. Fact that you think or even ponder otherwise says a huge amount about you and your ability to actually think rationally.
I call bull....
http://io9.com/disturbing-chart-shows-rise-in-justified-killings-of-773490798
.... Oh wait
*looks at graph*
*blinks*
You are a funny man. Watch how many color blind people in this thread ignore this chart.
That's the real punchline.
UK law is based on reasonable fear, not actually sustaining injuries. It says this explicitly in what I quoted for you.
I don't think that establishes who started anything. It certainly doesn't do anything to disprove that Martin was on top of Zimmerman punching him.
She also heard Zimmerman say "what are you doing here" and then a scuffle. Why would Zimmerman ask a question then attack? Why wouldn't Trayvon say "I'm walking home asshole"?
jordan0386
Member
Not even a different color of person. Her attitude was just poor. It is what it is.
By the logic in this thread many people would say "that's just what a little thieving colored boy would say if he were trying to absolve himself of guilt"
Even when I am not arguing with Kharvey16 I feel like I am. I feel like im caught in the crossfire
To be fair, I think Kharvey is being one of the most reasonable on here when it comes to actually discussing this case on legal terms (not on what you think should have happened).
Still, doesn't change the fact that what you posted (the juror speaking out), makes it seem like this jury had a bunch of idiots on it.
Nib originally made a point about the law that I responded to. Being told during that conversation that the law is irrelevant seems worthy of little as far as a response.
I think in the context of the discussion we're having, specifically regarding the law and how it should be changed, I believe the law is important.
Fair enough. Thank you.
Megalosaro
Banned
I love how the bitch is like "Zimmerman didn't exercise good judgement." His lack of good judgement led to a person's death. Isn't that manslaughter?
Well KHarvey's schtick is to remove himself emotionally from most things and inject law even when the initial poster is not discussing the law specifically.
I have seen it time and time again. Then he drags them down into a hole and attempt to pummel them over and over with legalese. Even when the poster explicitly says something unrelated to law KHarvey will keep injecting the legalese or case law into the argument to get into his playing field and then abuse them.
Law is just that law. At the end of the day it's not perfect. It's probably best not to base your views of the world through the lens of an imperfect set of documents. This goes for more than just law mind you.
That juror's comments solidifies what I believed all along; The jurors believed that Trayvon Martin was a potential criminal, and felt no sympathy whatsoever for his death. This case reminds me of a Time to Kill, where Matthew McConaughey's character flipped the all-white jurors by having them envision a white girl being brutally raped instead of a black girl who they didn't give two shits about.
If Martin had been a white kid, I have little doubt that Zimmerman would be heading to prison for a very long time.
Its shocking to me that people still pretend that Martin's post-mortem treatment and character assassination would have went down the same way if he was a white kid. It just wouldn't have.
If Martin had been a white kid, I have little doubt that Zimmerman would be heading to prison for a very long time.
Its shocking to me that people still pretend that Martin's post-mortem treatment and character assassination would have went down the same way if he was a white kid. It just wouldn't have.
Yeah I find that baffling too. Because had they actually argued that he had reasonable self defense based on the altercation (and his injuries), then I could see that being a debate. But her responses seem very wish-washy, like that wasn't even a real consideration.
- Status