Nice Planet 2011

[Old Pio]

Right. His lawyer could obviously choose to take a different path, but it seems to me it will be a more "traditional" self- defense argument, rather than anything to do with stand your ground.

Again, assuming Zimmerman's telling the truth, it's not like he's required to wait 'til an assailant produces a weapon. And it's not automatically unreasonable for him to assume "this kid's gonna kill me," is it? It's not like teenagers don't use guns to kill (usually other teenagers) every single day in this country. If the defense can produce testimony from cops, EMT's or emergency room personnel that Zimmerman had lacerations or a broken nose or both, I think it's game over.

[Old Pio]

Now that George Zimmerman's been indicted and facing possible time in prison, perhaps "Rev." Jackson can find time in his busy schedule to return to his home in Chicago to express his "outrage" about this. Speeches, marches, TV appearances, Op-Eds would seem to be warranted here, and in countless other events. Except there's no money or prestige in noting the horrific toll of black on black crime. Apparantly nobody cares. Even so-called "civil rights leaders." As someone said recently: "It's Columbine in Chicago every day." And Jackson does nothing. Why? *


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,5958042.story

*Obviously the same criticism applies to that other national race pimp, the one posing as a "news" source on a network that has lost its soul.

[bigblue_dl]

Aren't we always allowed to defend ourselves? If, as Zimmerman says, the kid was knocking the snot out of him, wasn't he permitted to use lethal force to end the assault? I guess that's what the jury will decide.

And this is exactly why I think he'll walk. Hell, if someone was on top of my smashing my head on the pavement and I had a gun in my pants, I'd shoot the bastard too.

[Twitch Boy]

Affidavit of probable cause (PDF warning, couple NSFW words)

tl;dr: Not much we haven't already heard. Looks like they're riding on Zimmerman exiting the truck and following after being instructed not to by the dispatcher, and the screaming on the 911 tape being Trayvon.

[duper]

My point in the post last night was that if you think you know the facts of the case, you are hopelessly naive. You do not have the facts. Therefore, you can't know. It just isn't possible. Obviously, he is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but since we don't have more than a tiny portion of the evidence, it is pretty foolish to speculate. I will say that the outcome of the trial will spark idiotic outrage, which is a shame.

As far as the stand your ground law, that law is idiotic and dangerous. It is worthless in the case of self-defense, because someone who is truly defending himself against an unprovoked attack already has a valid legal defense. But regardless of the facts of the Martin/Zimmerman case, this law is idiotic and dangerous. A law that encourages people to stalk others who they believe might be criminals, which is to say a law that encourages vigilanteism, is irretrievably stupid.

[Almington]

And this is exactly why I think he'll walk. Hell, if someone was on top of my smashing my head on the pavement and I had a gun in my pants, I'd shoot the bastard too.

The reason that he will walk is that enough reasonable doubt will exist as to what exactly happened that lead to the shooting.

[Slap Shot]

The reason that he will walk is that enough reasonable doubt will exist as to what exactly happened that lead to the shooting.

That's my thought unless the DA has more info they've not yet made public.

[bigblue_dl]

That's my thought unless the DA has more info they've not yet made public.

And if the DA doesn't he/she should definitely know it, which means that they're doing this simply to appease the masses. If this is the case, its a horrible plan, IMO.

[WeWantMore]

As far as the stand your ground law, that law is idiotic and dangerous. It is worthless in the case of self-defense, because someone who is truly defending himself against an unprovoked attack already has a valid legal defense. But regardless of the facts of the Martin/Zimmerman case, this law is idiotic and dangerous. A law that encourages people to stalk others who they believe might be criminals, which is to say a law that encourages vigilanteism, is irretrievably stupid.

Does it though? I would imagine there would be loads of empirical evidence to back this up.

[Almington]

And if the DA doesn't he/she should definitely know it, which means that they're doing this simply to appease the masses. If this is the case, its a horrible plan, IMO.

While it is unfortunate that politics are involved, both Zimmerman and the Martin family deserve to have this adjudicated and settled in a court of law by a jury. Honestly, I expect a hung jury in the first trial and for Zimmerman to plea out to criminal stalking (or something similar), get time served and 5 years of probation and be prohibited from every serving in a neighborhood watch again.

[duper]

Does it though? I would imagine there would be loads of empirical evidence to back this up.

Right when this all blew up, I read an article in which one of the authors of the law was quoted as saying that he is unhappy with how the law has been used by the legal system to allow people to go after others in its name because they believe those people may have been dangerous. I call that vigilanteism. You call it whatever you want.

I have also read that one of the authors of the law believes that when Zimmerman failed to heed the 911 operator's advice not to follow Martin, that should eliminate Stand Your Ground as a defense, although I'm not sure that they are actually planning to use it as a primary defense.

It also, of course, leaves the question of whether the operators truly was "advising" Zimmerman, but it seems to me that if you call 911, you might consider the things they tell you to be advice.

[WeWantMore]

Right when this all blew up, I read an article in which one of the authors of the law was quoted as saying that he is unhappy with how the law has been used by the legal system to allow people to go after others in its name because they believe those people may have been dangerous. I call that vigilanteism. You call it whatever you want.

Great. But you said that the law has encouraged vigilanteism. I'm saying, shouldn't you then be able to point to stats, facts, data (not anecdotes) that show that vigilanteism has, you know, increased, since passage of the law? Not just in Florida, but in the other states with such laws as well?

Personally, I'm pretty ambivalent on stand your ground laws. We don't have them where I live, and I definitely don't feel like we need them. So I'm totally open to being persuaded they are bad. I just think those arguing against them have to come up with a heck of a lot better argument than this case, where I don't believe stand your ground was even a factor, or general statements about what could happen. Let's see some data on what actually did.

[duper]

Great. But you said that the law has encouraged vigilanteism. I'm saying, shouldn't you then be able to point to stats, facts, data (not anecdotes) that show that vigilanteism has, you know, increased, since passage of the law? Not just in Florida, but in the other states with such laws as well?

Personally, I'm pretty ambivalent on stand your ground laws. We don't have them where I live, and I definitely don't feel like we need them. So I'm totally open to being persuaded they are bad. I just think those arguing against them have to come up with a heck of a lot better argument than this case, where I don't believe stand your ground was even a factor, or general statements about what could happen. Let's see some data on what actually did.

Yeah, I don't care enough to look anything up. It could be that the person who gave that interview was lying about the law being used contrary to its intention. I'm open to that. I wouldn't really call that an anecdote, though. I would call it someone who is integrally involved in the issue giving a pretty well-informed opinion. Again, you evidently see it differently.

And what I think I said was that it encourages vigilanteism in the form of encouraging people to stalk other people (who would then not be charged because of the law). Now, please tell me what data I should be looking up that will show the motivations of people who were not charged with crimes. Of course, I still won't look it up, but...

It is hard for me to understand how anyone can not automatically see the vigilante problems that these laws must encourage. Maybe I'm wrong, I certainly have been before, but I doubt it this time.

[WeWantMore]

Yeah, I don't care enough to look anything up.

... And there we go.

[leswp1]

NPR had a good program on how the law had developed. They interviewed one of the guys who authored the law and who felt the law was being Ba5tardized, its intent was not what it had become, etc. It was in the last week or so. I am too lazy to look up a link but it was an interesting show.

[duper]

NPR had a good program on how the law had developed. They interviewed one of the guys who authored the law and who felt the law was being Ba5tardized, its intent was not what it had become, etc. It was in the last week or so. I am too lazy to look up a link but it was an interesting show.

Oh my God. You mean I might not have imagined that? GASP!!!! I certainly hope you can provide wewantmore with rock-solid proof.

[WeWantMore]

Oh my God. You mean I might not have imagined that? GASP!!!! I certainly hope you can provide wewantmore with rock-solid proof.

Haha, here you go again. Please.

I never said you were imagining anything. I did say that I would prefer to rely on actual facts in making determinations about the law.

You on the other hand said the problems on the law were automatically obvious and had no need for pesky facts or statistics. Clearly, there's no way I'm going to persuade you otherwise, and that's fine, I'll just stop trying to discuss it with you. Something, I'm sure, you'll take as no great loss.

[WeWantMore]

As for what the authors of the law have been saying, there's a lot of statements like this:

"He has no protection under my law," former Sen. Durell Peaden told the newspaper

Which, come to think of it, is what started this conversation. I don't think Stand Your Ground laws protect conduct like Zimmerman. Using this killing to go after them seems misguided, when it sure looks like either a case of murder or one of traditional self-defense, no SYG necessary.

Now, if a judge comes back in the next few weeks and says, actually it does protect him, then I'll agree, yeah, the law is screwed up. 'Til then, like I've been saying, I'll withhold judgment.

[duper]

You on the other hand said ... no need for pesky facts or statistics.

I certainly didn't say this. I said that I will take at face value that the writer of the law has followed those pesky facts and statistics, and therefore has some idea what he is talking about when he talks about the unintended consequences. And I apologize if those consequences that are obvious to me aren't obvious to you.

I believe that when the guy says that the law has been used to defend people it shouldn't, that is true. If you choose to believe that he is lying, that's fine. But you will NOT admit you were wrong about this under any future circumstances. Of that I am positive.

[Spartanforlife4]

Unarmed Ex-Marine Shot by Police

I don't understand why some people are allowed to be cops.