USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Exactly. Only the post we were discussing was different and listed only "racism" from the right.
Exactly. Only the post we were discussing was different and listed only "racism" from the right.
Last edited:
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
You mean this one? IMO the post is pretty clear that both sides are included in this. Where does it list racism as only from the right?
You mean this one? IMO the post is pretty clear that both sides are included in this. Where does it list racism as only from the right?
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Yet, somehow, you failed to mention the two race pimps (one of whom has a network TV program) and the New Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam and other punks who have been spewing race hatred since day one of this sad case. Probably just an oversight. And no mention of media types who've consistently had their thumb on the scale, also since day one.
However, it's possible I may have misconstrued your meaning (me? never!).
Yet, somehow, you failed to mention the two race pimps (one of whom has a network TV program) and the New Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam and other punks who have been spewing race hatred since day one of this sad case. Probably just an oversight. And no mention of media types who've consistently had their thumb on the scale, also since day one.
However, it's possible I may have misconstrued your meaning (me? never!).
Last edited:
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
That doesn't surprise me. You'd expect cops to say "let us do the cop stuff." However, that advice is not the same as being legally required to do so. Much has been made about the dispatcher saying "we don't need you to do that." Sound advice IMO, but not a legal mandate. Dispatchers can't order citizens around. If there had been an officer present and he had said "stand down," that would be a different matter. Besides, there's a lot of loose language being used here, especially in that charging document. There's a reference to "profiling." That's cute, but was the prosecutor referring to "racial profiling." She also talks about "confrontation." Well, confronting someone is not illegal. Asking someone why they're there or what they're doing is not violent and certainly does not confer the right to respond violently, as has been alleged. If Martin swung on Zimmerman, then he initiated the violence, against which any citizen is allowed to defend himself.
That doesn't surprise me. You'd expect cops to say "let us do the cop stuff." However, that advice is not the same as being legally required to do so. Much has been made about the dispatcher saying "we don't need you to do that." Sound advice IMO, but not a legal mandate. Dispatchers can't order citizens around. If there had been an officer present and he had said "stand down," that would be a different matter. Besides, there's a lot of loose language being used here, especially in that charging document. There's a reference to "profiling." That's cute, but was the prosecutor referring to "racial profiling." She also talks about "confrontation." Well, confronting someone is not illegal. Asking someone why they're there or what they're doing is not violent and certainly does not confer the right to respond violently, as has been alleged. If Martin swung on Zimmerman, then he initiated the violence, against which any citizen is allowed to defend himself.
Last edited:
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
You don't. For Zimmerman to be let off, a jury is going to have to conclude that he reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. For me, a broken nose doesn't meet that standard. But then again, I wasn't on the ground (allegedly!) getting beat up.
You don't. For Zimmerman to be let off, a jury is going to have to conclude that he reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. For me, a broken nose doesn't meet that standard. But then again, I wasn't on the ground (allegedly!) getting beat up.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
He was 17, over six feet tall and 150 to 160 pounds. Probably with about 1% body fat. Assuming the narrative is correct, it wasn't just a matter of "socking him in the face." It was a blow to the face sufficient to knock him down and possibly break his nose. Followed by Martin on top, banging Zimmerman's head on the pavement. Again, assuming that's what happened, is Zimmerman supposed to coolly assess the situation and ask himself (as his head is being pounded on the ground) "does this kid mean to kill me or is this just a typical expression of teen rage that will stop momentarily? Hmm, let me ponder what's going on here. Maybe the kid doesn't mean to kill me. Then again, maybe he does. What to do?"
He was 17, over six feet tall and 150 to 160 pounds. Probably with about 1% body fat. Assuming the narrative is correct, it wasn't just a matter of "socking him in the face." It was a blow to the face sufficient to knock him down and possibly break his nose. Followed by Martin on top, banging Zimmerman's head on the pavement. Again, assuming that's what happened, is Zimmerman supposed to coolly assess the situation and ask himself (as his head is being pounded on the ground) "does this kid mean to kill me or is this just a typical expression of teen rage that will stop momentarily? Hmm, let me ponder what's going on here. Maybe the kid doesn't mean to kill me. Then again, maybe he does. What to do?"
Last edited:
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Did Zimmerman identify himself as a member of neighborhood to Martin watch before or after dispatch told him to leave the kid alone? Probably neither. If you're acting as an arm of the law, you have to identify yourself as such when trailing suspicious individuals. That's how it works. Maybe deadly force was warranted. But it was Zimmerman's responsibility to identify himself before doing so.
Did Zimmerman identify himself as a member of neighborhood to Martin watch before or after dispatch told him to leave the kid alone? Probably neither. If you're acting as an arm of the law, you have to identify yourself as such when trailing suspicious individuals. That's how it works. Maybe deadly force was warranted. But it was Zimmerman's responsibility to identify himself before doing so.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
I don't think Zimmerman was acting as "an arm of the law." He was armed, as private citizens with the proper permissions are allowed to be. But he had no arrest powers. No powers at all. And I doubt he had any requirement to identify himself as a member of the community watch group. He had the primary authority he needed: he was a resident of that complex. And, like any resident, had the right to ask someone what they're up to. Sadly, if the kid had said "I'm staying in unit 2340, with Ms. Jones and my dad", the whole thing might have been avoided. 911 dispatchers have no authority whatsoever over citizens. The guy said: "we don't need you to do that" which is a recommendation, not a binding order. Even so, perhaps you're right that he "should have identified himself" (assuming that he didn't). But what needs to be established here is whether there was one or two encounters. Did Zimmerman walk away, as he has said, and did the kid jump him? That would render almost all of what went before moot.
I don't think Zimmerman was acting as "an arm of the law." He was armed, as private citizens with the proper permissions are allowed to be. But he had no arrest powers. No powers at all. And I doubt he had any requirement to identify himself as a member of the community watch group. He had the primary authority he needed: he was a resident of that complex. And, like any resident, had the right to ask someone what they're up to. Sadly, if the kid had said "I'm staying in unit 2340, with Ms. Jones and my dad", the whole thing might have been avoided. 911 dispatchers have no authority whatsoever over citizens. The guy said: "we don't need you to do that" which is a recommendation, not a binding order. Even so, perhaps you're right that he "should have identified himself" (assuming that he didn't). But what needs to be established here is whether there was one or two encounters. Did Zimmerman walk away, as he has said, and did the kid jump him? That would render almost all of what went before moot.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Legal standard obviously varies by jurisdiction, but great bodily harm generally means injuries requiring lengthy hospital stay, permanent or long-lasting damage, internal organ injuries, etc. I'm sure there's a model jury instruction in Florida for such occasions.
In traditional criminal law, the use of a gun during a fist fight almost never qualifies as justifiable, unless the other guy's a professional boxer/martial artist/navy seal/etc. Obviously newer statutes may trump the traditional common law.
Uh, what? Maybe in Minnesota. Certainly not in most jurisdictions. (The whole "you have to tell me if you're a cop" routine is Hollywood malarky.)
Legal standard obviously varies by jurisdiction, but great bodily harm generally means injuries requiring lengthy hospital stay, permanent or long-lasting damage, internal organ injuries, etc. I'm sure there's a model jury instruction in Florida for such occasions.
In traditional criminal law, the use of a gun during a fist fight almost never qualifies as justifiable, unless the other guy's a professional boxer/martial artist/navy seal/etc. Obviously newer statutes may trump the traditional common law.
Uh, what? Maybe in Minnesota. Certainly not in most jurisdictions. (The whole "you have to tell me if you're a cop" routine is Hollywood malarky.)
Last edited:
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Classic "blame the victim" mentality. Regardless of what color the sky is in your demented universe, if you're walking around with a loaded gun as a de facto security guard, you are "policing" an area. Some boob patrolling a mall isn't a real cop, but he sure as hell has a weapon and is subject to the same rules as a police officer. Like I said...Zimmerman's actions may have been justified if he hadn't screwed up the one thing that law enforcement in this country is supposed to believe: innocent until proven guilty. He's likely gonna get nailed good.
Classic "blame the victim" mentality. Regardless of what color the sky is in your demented universe, if you're walking around with a loaded gun as a de facto security guard, you are "policing" an area. Some boob patrolling a mall isn't a real cop, but he sure as hell has a weapon and is subject to the same rules as a police officer. Like I said...Zimmerman's actions may have been justified if he hadn't screwed up the one thing that law enforcement in this country is supposed to believe: innocent until proven guilty. He's likely gonna get nailed good.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Uhh...I'm pretty sure they still yell "police, freeze" when aiming their weapon at someone.
Uhh...I'm pretty sure they still yell "police, freeze" when aiming their weapon at someone.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Fermented, perhaps but not demented. Zimmerman had a carry permit, whether or not he was a member of a community watch group. And he was subject to whatever rules are in place for armed civilians, not police. Mall cops wear uniforms, some carry guns and wear mickey mouse badges. I'm guessing they are state sanctioned or licensed in some way. Community watch groups are not. I remember when the Guardian Angels started, police around the country opposed them, and they weren't even armed.
I agree, guns can lead to tragedies, as in this case. But Zimmerman is allowed to defend himself. Innocent until proven guilty applies in court, not at night when somebody's pounding your head on the pavement. I've always gotten a sort of Barney Fife vibe off the guy. And various types have done their best to prejudice this case and so much is unknown that it's hard to know exactly what happened. The narrative here reminds me of the Duke "rape" case, where we just KNEW those boys were guilty. Until we found out they weren't. Many of us acted as if our prejudices against wealthy white jocks was evidence, or even relevant.
As I say, the media have done their part to muddy the waters: NBC's malicious, fraudulent editing of sound, claims by audio "experts," using technology not generally admitted in court, that it was probably not Zimmerman's voice calling for help, an interview with an undertaker about the lack of injuries to Martin's hands (which is offered as evidence that he didn't struggle--meaning Zimmerman just gunned him down). Personally, I would prefer medical evidence to come from the medical examiner, rather than an undertaker. Grainy surveillance tape which may or may not show injuries to Zimmerman's head. That has lead certain "physicians" to allow that "he doesn't look hurt to me."
So maybe we'll have to wait 'til the trial, if there is one. As I've said, Dershowitz thinks the charging document is so without merit and specifics that he thinks it's possible a judge will throw the whole thing out before trial. Others have pointed out that the "maybe the prosecutor has stronger evidence that she's holding back," is nonsense, because if she had the evidence she'd put in in the charging document.
If there is a trial, it may not begin for up to a year. So we can be arguing about this case well into the future. A grisly prospect.
Fermented, perhaps but not demented. Zimmerman had a carry permit, whether or not he was a member of a community watch group. And he was subject to whatever rules are in place for armed civilians, not police. Mall cops wear uniforms, some carry guns and wear mickey mouse badges. I'm guessing they are state sanctioned or licensed in some way. Community watch groups are not. I remember when the Guardian Angels started, police around the country opposed them, and they weren't even armed.
I agree, guns can lead to tragedies, as in this case. But Zimmerman is allowed to defend himself. Innocent until proven guilty applies in court, not at night when somebody's pounding your head on the pavement. I've always gotten a sort of Barney Fife vibe off the guy. And various types have done their best to prejudice this case and so much is unknown that it's hard to know exactly what happened. The narrative here reminds me of the Duke "rape" case, where we just KNEW those boys were guilty. Until we found out they weren't. Many of us acted as if our prejudices against wealthy white jocks was evidence, or even relevant.
As I say, the media have done their part to muddy the waters: NBC's malicious, fraudulent editing of sound, claims by audio "experts," using technology not generally admitted in court, that it was probably not Zimmerman's voice calling for help, an interview with an undertaker about the lack of injuries to Martin's hands (which is offered as evidence that he didn't struggle--meaning Zimmerman just gunned him down). Personally, I would prefer medical evidence to come from the medical examiner, rather than an undertaker. Grainy surveillance tape which may or may not show injuries to Zimmerman's head. That has lead certain "physicians" to allow that "he doesn't look hurt to me."
So maybe we'll have to wait 'til the trial, if there is one. As I've said, Dershowitz thinks the charging document is so without merit and specifics that he thinks it's possible a judge will throw the whole thing out before trial. Others have pointed out that the "maybe the prosecutor has stronger evidence that she's holding back," is nonsense, because if she had the evidence she'd put in in the charging document.
If there is a trial, it may not begin for up to a year. So we can be arguing about this case well into the future. A grisly prospect.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
OK...hold on. So I'm walking down the street at 2am walking my dog and someone charges at me. Even if I can't tell they're armed, I legally can blow their brains out (supposing I have a handgun permit) because I was physically threatened?
OK...hold on. So I'm walking down the street at 2am walking my dog and someone charges at me. Even if I can't tell they're armed, I legally can blow their brains out (supposing I have a handgun permit) because I was physically threatened?
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
I have no idea. Probably not. What does that have to do with this case? That is not what is alleged to have happened here. The permit allows you to carry the gun. It doesn't give you any special rights to shoot it.
I have no idea. Probably not. What does that have to do with this case? That is not what is alleged to have happened here. The permit allows you to carry the gun. It doesn't give you any special rights to shoot it.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Right. So why did Zimmerman shoot his? Because he was being physically threatened, right?
Right. So why did Zimmerman shoot his? Because he was being physically threatened, right?
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Only if you think a "threat" and having your nose broken and head slammed against the pavement are the same.
Only if you think a "threat" and having your nose broken and head slammed against the pavement are the same.