Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

[5mn_Major]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

It's just my opinion but you might want to use articles rather than commentary to back up your points..

Too often posters around here pick at minor details to deflect arguments. The facts supplied in your article are the same.

Must be the judge felt that the video showed the victim attempting more than "Roteta had attempted to fend him off with a bag".

A typical car stereo weighs 4 ounces. Three of them is less than a pound. Less than a pound. Just how do you hold off a guy wielding a knife with a bag? Its limp and if you swing it once, youre wide open. The guy with a knife lunges and would kill you every time.

Garcia chased him for a block and stabbed him to death...and there is zero chance for the justice system to determine if that's murder.

Yet again and its not that complicated...is that good justice? (Me thinks I won't see a yes or no answer)

 

[Patman]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

I don't know why I am constantly arguing for smaller, less intrusive government with 'conservative' posters.

Seeing as the state defines these types of crime on a fairly regular basis I'm not sure how that has anything to do with "smaller government". SYG is just a modifier on the definition of self-defense made after the imprisonment of those who tried to self-defend.

I know its your saw, but I also know you only do it to justify bigger government by taking that point away from conservatives and republicans... whom you probably think at the base level are hypocrites.

 

[busterman62]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Too often posters around here pick at minor details to deflect arguments. The facts supplied in your article are the same.



A typical car stereo weighs 4 ounces. Three of them is less than a pound. Less than a pound. Just how do you hold off a guy wielding a knife with a bag? Its limp and if you swing it once, youre wide open. The guy with a knife lunges and would kill you every time.

Garcia chased him for a block and stabbed him to death...and there is zero chance for the justice system to determine if that's murder.

Yet again and its not that complicated...is that good justice? (Me thinks I won't see a yes or no answer)

Minor details. The incident was caught on tape. Just one of those minor details that your commentary piece left out. Have you seen the videotape of the incident? I can't find it anywhere on the web, yet you seem to KNOW that the stabber was the antagonist. How is it you can make those determinations? He chased the guy down but what happened next? Did he lunge at the victim who then swung the bag at him as you seem to suggest or could it have been that the victim attacked first? You seem to KNOW. Link me the video and prove your assessment of the situation and I'll be happy to jump on the bandwagon with you. Until then, I'll stand by my concern that too many people will be happy to utilize the "jump to conclusions mat" in order to confirm their point of view. You think this law is bad and you're willing to overlook "minor details" so it fits. It is that complicated.

The judge reviewed the evidence. Presumably the video was included as was the fact that the stabber lied to the police. The judge felt the case met the standards of the law and dismissed it. Therefore, to answer your question, yes, it is good justice. The facts (that we don't have complete access to, unless of course I'm wrong and you actually do have more access to said facts than just an op-ed piece) were examined by an impartial arbitrator of the law. That's justice in the USA.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Minor details. The incident was caught on tape. Just one of those minor details that your commentary piece left out. Have you seen the videotape of the incident? I can't find it anywhere on the web, yet you seem to KNOW that the stabber was the antagonist. How is it you can make those determinations? He chased the guy down but what happened next? Did he lunge at the victim who then swung the bag at him as you seem to suggest or could it have been that the victim attacked first? You seem to KNOW. Link me the video and prove your assessment of the situation and I'll be happy to jump on the bandwagon with you. Until then, I'll stand by my concern that too many people will be happy to utilize the "jump to conclusions mat" in order to confirm their point of view. You think this law is bad and you're willing to overlook "minor details" so it fits. It is that complicated.

The judge reviewed the evidence. Presumably the video was included as was the fact that the stabber lied to the police. The judge felt the case met the standards of the law and dismissed it. Therefore, to answer your question, yes, it is good justice. The facts (that we don't have complete access to, unless of course I'm wrong and you actually do have more access to said facts than just an op-ed piece) were examined by an impartial arbitrator of the law. That's justice in the USA.

The facts known in the case are what they are...video top line info is presented in the account of the case. Read it. In kicking off a sentence with 'presumably' you are by definition making assumptions. I didn't presume anything..I say let the justice process find out if he's guilty.

The net message is that youre confident that justice has been served. I am not sure about that...and believe it should be decided based on the time honored approach to justice in such cases, a jury trial.

Seeing as the state defines these types of crime on a fairly regular basis I'm not sure how that has anything to do with "smaller government". SYG is just a modifier on the definition of self-defense made after the imprisonment of those who tried to self-defend.

Now there's a good question.

IMO justice is not a government process and in fact a societal process that is just administered by govt. It is a time honored tradition that goes back thousands of years...and is hundreds of years old in its current state. Justice needs to be fair and consistent...and good or bad, govt is best at administering it. But IMO it is a societal process. This is a case where a legislature passed a law that changes the rules of the traditional, time tested justice process. Based on the Constitution, it is govt's right to interfere...but IMO a simple law inacted by a legislature full of politicians that permanently changes how the tradition of justice is performed and as a result, even when and how crimes are committed...is in fact both govt interference and big govt.

 

[busterman62]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

The facts known in the case are what they are...video top line info is presented in the account of the case. Read it. In kicking off a sentence with 'presumably' you are by definition making assumptions. I didn't presume anything..I say let the justice process find out if he's guilty.

The net message is that youre confident that justice has been served. I am not sure about that...and believe it should be decided based on the time honored approach to justice in such cases, a jury trial.

Since I wasn't present when the judge reviewed this case and it's not explicitly stated in the articles I've seen, I am forced to use the "presumably." Now, the reasonable and prudent person would have to presume that either the prosecutor or the defense would want this information available and submitted it to the judge for her review in order to advance their case. Again, since I wasn't there, I can't confirm it but like to think of myself as reasonable and prudent, and therefore, have little doubt that it was introduced. This seems to be an assumption you are either incapable or unwilling to make. Not definitely sure why but I have some real good assumptions

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

OK...nearing an answer.

Someone in a state with SYG chases a victim for a block and is proven to have killed them and isn't tried. You're saying that society has received good justice.

Now we're getting somewhere. Yes we disagree.

You keep adding facts not apparent as well as your own biased assumptions. Generically speaking (assuming processes are followed properly and all), a person will be charged if the evidence available indicates a crime was committed. If evidence available doesn't indicated this is so or the evidence is too weak and/or contradictory to determine if a crime was committed (as seems to be the case with Zimmerman), then they either won't be prosecuted or will be acquitted. Not sure why you are so against this basic understanding of the processes. There's a lot of laws and court cases where our far from perfect legal system can be taken to task as to whether justice has been really and fully served. That's no surprise to anyone. But, you seem to argue that someone who the evidence doesn't stack up to charge should be prosecuted and put in jail anyway, something that obviously would be unjust.

Funny thing is, I agree with you to some extent that the SYG laws in certain situations give too much leeway to people who could seek protection under them.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Funny thing is, I agree with you to some extent that the SYG laws in certain situations give too much leeway to people who could seek protection under them.

It seems we've talking in circles. With SYG, the justice process is permanently changed. A judge doesn't have the ability to put killers with solid evidence against them to be entered into the justice system. There is never any question there.

The problem is that this new SYG justice process is different from our traditional American system of justice and is flawed. Killers with evidence against them that could well have been murderers ten or a hundred years ago...are not even considered for murder. This due to a simple piece of legislation drawn up not by legal experts but by politicians.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

It seems we've talking in circles. With SYG, the justice process is permanently changed. A judge doesn't have the ability to put killers with solid evidence against them to be entered into the justice system. There is never any question there.

The problem is that this new SYG justice process is different from our traditional American system of justice and is flawed. Killers with evidence against them that could well have been murderers ten or a hundred years ago...are not even considered for murder. This due to a simple piece of legislation drawn up not by legal experts but by politicians.

It's not fundamentally different. It just tilts a bit more toward the shooter, rather than the person shot, a bit too far in some circumstances as I've noted. At times it's been tilted a bit more in the other direction. There's no perfect line where the shooter and the person shot are always going to get 100 percent fair consideration for their circumstances. In Zimmerman's case, even apart from SYG, there's enough contradictory and confusing evidence or lack thereof, that I'd guess he'd be likely to get off even without SYG. It's not clear if SYG will result in him getting off or not. Let the process work, however flawed it is. Better this system than being in Russia, Syria, etc.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Major's nostalgia for the "old days" of American had some serious flaws. In parts of the country, certain people couldn't rely on the police, DA's, judges and juries for anything approaching "justice." I seem to recall two all white juries failing to convict Byron de la Beckwith in the killing of Medgar Evers. More recently, he was tried and convicted of that crime. Seems to me, many racially motivated crimes not that long ago went unprosecuted, let alone punished. Was anybody convicted of murder in the killing of Emmett Till? The horrible bombing in Birmingham that took the lives of those little girls? There were some prosecutions and IIRC convictions in the killings of Schwerner, Cheney and Goodman in Neshoba county, Mississippi. Many (most?) lynchings resulted in no trials or convictions.

Not everything that happened in the "good old days" was good, including the administration of justice. I'm old enough to remember when "Miranda" had not been decided by the Warren court. Or "Gideon." Or "Escobedo" At the time (again, not that long ago) these were very controversial decisions which had many in law enforcement and the general public convinced that criminals were going to be given a free ride. The law changes and evolves. Much more recently, you had some police officers in America's largest city apparantly assume they could get away with sexually abusing a prisoner. They couldn't. Not that long ago, they wouldn't have had to worry.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Technology changes...ethical standards of crime should not.

I would rather the general ethical standard of who is guilty of murder and who is not be determined over the whole country and over centuries...rather than by a single vote. But that's me.

Major's nostalgia for the "old days" of American juris prudence has some flaws. I seem to recall two all white juries failing to convict Byron de la Beckwith in the killing of Medgar Evers. More recently, he was tried and convicted of that crime. Seems to me, many racially motivated crimes not that long ago went unprosecuted, let alone unpunished. Was anybody charged and/or convicted in the killing of Emmet Till? The horrible bombing in Birmingham that took the lives of those little girls? There were some prosecutions and IIRC convictions in the killings of Schwerner, Cheney and Goodman in Neshoba county, Mississippi. Many (most?) lynchings resulted in no trials or convictions.

Assuming those were all as you position, they were absolutely examples of bad justice and/or corruption. Are we saying that bad justice and corruption is now standard, accepted practice...where suspects with solid evidence tying them to killings have no possibility of being found guilty?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Ethical standards of crime? Like putting someone who there isn't enough evidence to convict of murder behind bars anyway? Everybody here wants to see justice served. It's just a lot messier trying to serve justice that you're acknowledging, either in general or the Zimmerman case.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Ethical standards of crime?

Yes.

Point I made is that standards (which is what SYG altered) shouldn't be changed constantly. We have had a general understanding throughout the country and throughout history of what a murder is. Those standards shouldn't be changed by a vote from politicians who might be out of a job in a couple of years. Or the justice system becomes a politcal football and the next time the Dems get in they vote to completely change the definition of murder.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Technology changes...ethical standards of crime should not.

I would rather the general ethical standard of who is guilty of murder and who is not be determined over the whole country and over centuries...rather than by a single vote. But that's me.



Assuming those were all as you position, they were absolutely examples of bad justice and/or corruption. Are we saying that bad justice and corruption is now standard, accepted practice...where suspects with solid evidence tying them to killings have no possibility of being found guilty?

It's not possible to argue rationally with a person who refuses to accept even the most basic concepts of how our laws have evolved. We decide guilt or innocence on a case by case basis, referencing our written and common law to help make the decision. These days we rarely consult the Magna Carta or the Mayflower Compact to make those determinations.

If I were you I wouldn't advertise my ignorance of the high profile civil rights cases (or Supreme Court decisions) I mentioned. Instead, I'd make it my business to do just a tiny bit of reading to educate myself. In your confusion, you seem to have concluded that convicting Byron de la Beckwith of the murder of Medgar Evers decades after the crime may be evidence of "bad justice" or "corruption," and you wonder if that has or will become "standard, accepted practice." To everyone in the room (except you) just the opposite is true. The days when a pig like Beckwith can gun down a black man in his front yard, confident that if he's ever brought to trial, he'll never be convicted by an all white jury, are gone forever. The notion that SYG will take us back to those days is, at a minimum, hysterical.

Your ignorance is evidently not limited to historic civil rights crimes. You also seem to be unaware that states pass criminal laws which apply within their borders. Some states have capital punishment. Some do not. And the punishments handed down against murderers also vary: Length of sentence, parole-no parole, consecutive/concurrent. There are differing standards as to the age of consent from one state to another. And many other variations. Louisiana, for instance, has a Napoleonic code. Plus, you seem to have a problem with state legislatures occasionally amending or adding to their criminal codes. Who, pray tell, should make these adjustments? You have heard about the three branches of government, haven't you? And separation of powers? And checks and balances? And elections? If not, that's something else you should read up on.

You have made your central point maybe a dozen times or more. And you've supported it with dishonestly quoted unsourced references to a tiny handful of incidents. You're free to draw any conclusions you wish from the scant evidence you've adduced. We all realize that your inspiration for this jihad is the racial makeup of the principals in the Zimmerman/Martin episode. If Martin was white or Zimmerman black, it's doubtful you would have ever opened your mouth. You are also free to continue stubbornly begging the question about a tsunami of unspecified defendants against whom there is "solid evidence tying them to killings," for whom there is "no possibility of being found guilty." But you're still a time zone away from "proving" your point. But now you're also drowning in your own ignorance and lack of rationality.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Yes.

Point I made is that standards (which is what SYG altered) shouldn't be changed constantly. We have had a general understanding throughout the country and throughout history of what a murder is. Those standards shouldn't be changed by a vote from politicians who might be out of a job in a couple of years. Or the justice system becomes a politcal football and the next time the Dems get in they vote to completely change the definition of murder.

That's ridiculous. SYG didn't somehow singlehandedly change this monolithic understanding of what murder is that has existed for centuries. It tipped things a little ways one direction, but that tipping has been going back and forth through all of history. The justice system has always been a political football and both the Dems and Reps have influenced it in all sorts of ways, some good, some not so good. You're not doing your argument (which I somewhat agree with) any favors by so greatly exagerrating this whole thing. You make it sound like the three great travesties of the last hundred years are Hitler, Stalin, and SYG.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

SYG didn't somehow singlehandedly change this monolithic understanding of what murder is that has existed for centuries. You're not doing your argument (which I somewhat agree with) any favors by so greatly exagerrating this whole thing. You make it sound like the three great travesties of the last hundred years are Hitler, Stalin, and SYG.

I don't equate it to the holocaust. Never used the words 'singlehandedly' and 'monolithic'...seems youre positioning this, not me. I've stated its a bad law and shown examples why...some don't seem to agree and as with the above passage, I've discussed it.

The goal here is to be clear as to what we're talking about. SYG...by definition changes the circumstances under which a shooting is considered murder, changes defense strategies (Zimmerman), results in no options of prosecution when otherwise a trial would occur (Garcia, Adkins), and changes how or when killlings happen (Rodriguez). I'd say that changes how murder is defined.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

I don't equate it to the holocaust. Never used the words 'singlehandedly' and 'monolithic'...seems youre positioning this, not me. I've stated its a bad law and shown examples why...some don't seem to agree and as with the above passage, I've discussed it.

The goal here is to be clear as to what we're talking about. SYG...by definition changes the circumstances under which a shooting is considered murder, changes defense strategies (Zimmerman), results in no options of prosecution when otherwise a trial would occur (Garcia, Adkins), and changes how or when killlings happen (Rodriguez). I'd say that changes how murder is defined.

You claimed that SYG was some dramatic altering of age-old understandings of what murder was and all. That's ridiculously overblowing SYG, and again, I'm with you that SYG at least needs some scaling back. You're badly overplaying your hand.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

You claimed that SYG was some dramatic altering of age-old understandings of what murder was and all. That's ridiculously overblowing SYG, and again, I'm with you that SYG at least needs some scaling back. You're badly overplaying your hand.

Yes, and greatly over-using the word "positioning."

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

You're badly overplaying your hand.

Sounds like someone is overly freaked out by language which they imagined I used. Relax.

The only thing I've done is 'played the SYG is bs' hand.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Sounds like someone is overly freaked out by language which they imagined I used. Relax.

The only thing I've done is 'played the SYG is bs' hand.

Really? Is that "all" you've done? Just today you've posed as a defense consultant for George Zimmerman and a legal expert who "knows" that certain prosecutions which would have occurred without SYG, didn't. And made a blatantly false statement that SYG "changes the circumstances under which a shooting is considered murder." The truth is SYG "can" change those circumstances, but it's not automatic. For the umpteenth time you've suggested that somehow a claim of SYG is like the "get out of jail free card" in Monopoly. No questions asked. Case closed. Move along, nothing to see here. That is a gross oversimplification.

I recently posted an article from the Houston Chronicle which gives the lie to that sweeping generalization: the case of the veteran Houston fire fighter who got into a beef with his neighbor and fatally shot him. The guy claimed SYG (or the Texas equivalent) and the jury gave him 40 years.

How I wish George Zimmerman hadn't shot Trayvon Martin. The lad could have enjoyed his "skillets," and you would have had to find something else to babble about.

 

[BigBossMan]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

I've watched enough episodes of "Law and Order" to know that previous convictions generally aren't admissable at trial.

I’m not an attorney, I’ve just watched fictional characters on tv.