|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
 Posted - 07/25/2012 : 13:11:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
How about this scenario
1) Martin notices Zimmerman following him in a car
2) Martin actively retreats from Zimmerman
3) Zimmerman, against police suggestion, exits his vehicle and persues Martin on foot because Martin has retreated in novel ways in an attempt to get Zimmerman to stop persuing him
4) Zimmerman confronts Martin
5) Martin ignores Zimmerman's verbal command to stop and talk
6) Zimmerman grabs the shoulder of Martin to gain his attention
7) Martin, being from a bad neighborhood, interprets this as an attack upon his person and begins defending himself
8) Martin is winning
9) Bang!
|
Here, I think Zimmerman would be considered an aggressor, so I think the burden would go back to the defense to try to show Zimmerman satisfies the requirements for an aggressor to get SYG protection. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2012 : 14:13:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Then I don't get the point of the discussion of SYG, I don't understand how plausibility matters when determining if SYG applies. It matters for arguing about OffC's comments I suppose, where we started, but for SYG, it doesn't seem to matter. |
Yeah, somewhere we went off on a tangent.I still don't think this is the case. If you're the aggressor, I think you've put yourself into the unenviable position of needing to show this. Otherwise, provocation is just too easy, analogous to X pulling a gun on Y, X claiming he thought Y was going for his gun (without evidence), and so X being protected in shooting Y. (Now we default to taking X's word that Y made a move.)
It seems to me you're making no meaningful distinction between aggressor and non-aggressor in determining when to apply SYG here. |
Well, that's part of the problem with SYG, anyway. As I noted before, at least one legislator has decried the fact that SYG seems to have been abused in that people have picked fights and then shot their victim when they dared to respond with violence. That wasn't the legislative intent of SYG, but that's how (apparently) some lawyers and judges have interpreted it in practice.| And, of course requiring evidence of a move doesn't imply only a shooting victim could testify to confirm the shooter's (possibly misinterpreted) move. There could be a witness saying the shooter reached somewhere, some inconsistency can be found in the shooter's story, forensic evidence could contradict the story, and the like. Any of these things would be more useful than shooting victim testimony as far as I'm concerned. |
You're right about this, of course.| You think SYG could be disqualified for Martin for not retreating? I don't think so because this question comes into play only after it's shown Martin is an aggressor and probably ended up on the ground in a scuffle with Zimmerman, at which point I don't think Martin could retreat. I think the other part of the sufficiency would need to be shown by Martin's defense, however, and wouldn't be defaulted to on his word. |
If Zimmerman's story is true, that Martin wound up on top of him, then yes, Martin had a chance to retreat simply by getting up and disengaging. Of course, if he'd seen the gun, then maybe he thought that backing off was suicidal. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2013 : 20:23:56 [Permalink]
|
Next year they will issue hunting licenses. But you won't be able to shoot pregnant mothers, you have to protect the resource from over-harvesting.
|
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2013 : 14:26:19 [Permalink]
|
I don't believe this will be the end of it, not by a long shot. Zimbo May be charged under federal laws against violation of an individual's civil liberties. Which are criminal.
Not to mention Zimbo being open to a civil lawsuit by Trayvon's family. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2013 : 14:32:24 [Permalink]
|
Before the verdict many were saying that the fact that there were five mothers on the jury was a good thing for the prosecution, because they would be able to empathize with a family losing a young son. I wasn't buying it, and I was right. They more likely are grateful to Zimmerman for protecting their children's white asses from all those nasty negros prowling around.
I am very glad my British-born parents chose Canada. We're not perfect, but we are one Hell of a lot better.
|
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2013 : 18:37:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by The Rat
Before the verdict many were saying that the fact that there were five mothers on the jury was a good thing for the prosecution, because they would be able to empathize with a family losing a young son. I wasn't buying it, and I was right. They more likely are grateful to Zimmerman for protecting their children's white asses from all those nasty negros prowling around.
|
That is what the talking heads do for a living in the media. The only reason they're on the air is for the commercial revenue and they fill the time between commercial breaks with mostly out of the blue analyzing dribble and lesser amounts of "real news reporting". That kind of talk is nothing but filler, it's off the top of someone's head from within the newsroom or some guest "expert" opinion. I don't see that The Rat's quoted comment came from any factual evaluation. Like "knowing" what the hell the jurors could possibly be thinking from asking them or based on anything tangible outside newsroom. Just because they were wrong with that comment with the final outcome, that doesn't mean that the comment would have been proven correct had he been found guilty.
What I think about this case, now that it's over.
I've served as a juror on several cases including a well know (down here anyway) gang type murder case. The police stopped collecting bullet casings at about 90 but there were more not collected. What most people can't realize, who have never served, is how different it is from deciding guilt or innocents as a juror vs deciding through what you get through the news media. That jury was given written instructions that they had with them, they are use as a road map in deciding the verdict. That was my experience every time. Those written instructions (so there is no confusion) make it very clear what the "elements" for each charge are, which are required to be "proven beyond a doubt" by the prosecution to have a guilty verdict on any charge. Each and every "element" must be proven for every charge being considered. You must find not guilty if just one of several elements for any charge is not proven. Whether the defendant did the deed or not is irrelevant to the jurors, believe it or not. It's always what has been proven, in court, during the trial and if it could have been was it presented. It really is in the hands of both lawyers through their questions asked and what the judge will allow the jury to hear. As a juror you don't get to ask any questions at all. That is the lawyers part. The question that are asked during a trial and the one's not asked, make or break a case. From my experience the state's case was either poorly presented by not bringing out evidence fulfilling every "element" needing proving or it was not possible.
This case had only 2 direct eye witnesses that were there that night. Neither of them took the stand and with what expert testimony there was, both sides presented opposing views from qualified witnesses deemed such by this court. It is really tough to convict someone on that when dealing with a persons life. The prosecution didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to at least one or more of those 6 women and I don't think it was because the women were thinking about their children or other things beyond the evidence presented. I certainly hope so. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2013 : 20:03:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Originally posted by The Rat
Before the verdict many were saying that the fact that there were five mothers on the jury was a good thing for the prosecution, because they would be able to empathize with a family losing a young son. I wasn't buying it, and I was right. They more likely are grateful to Zimmerman for protecting their children's white asses from all those nasty negros prowling around.
|
I don't see that The Rat's quoted comment came from any factual evaluation.
|
Nope, it didn't, another reason why I called bullshit at minute one. To be fair, it isn't something that could easily be backed up with evidence, it would quite obviously be an opinion. If it's presented as such, fine, but when I heard it first it was said with an air of authority, as if it was definitely the case.
I despair for journalism these days. A once noble profession has become a grovelling whore to ratings and the dollars those rating assure. Freedom of the press should be seen by those in it as a service and an obligation, but I doubt that many in it now can even pronounce those words, let alone define them or live by them.
|
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2013 : 05:49:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
I don't believe this will be the end of it, not by a long shot. Zimbo May be charged under federal laws against violation of an individual's civil liberties. Which are criminal.
Not to mention Zimbo being open to a civil lawsuit by Trayvon's family.
|
Fed laws, not likely. They depend on hatred being in evidence. As the 2nd degree murder charge also depended on that, they don't have a case there.
Civil lawsuit. Yes. I see that coming. Lower bar of evidence required for that one.
The fact is that the press presented only the evidence they wanted to. As the coverage went on, you could see some pertinent stuff left out.
As we try people based on evidence presented in court and on based on public opinion, I think that the jurors, attourneys, and judge heard the evidence provided by the prosecution and returned a verdict.
That the talking heads went on the offensive and expressed surprise that their shepherding of public opinion did not influence the verdict is immaterial. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
lorddix
New Member
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2013 : 14:30:39 [Permalink]
|
| If there is a civil lawsuit, it may not matter about the lower bar of evidence. Zimmerman could use the Stand Your Ground Law as a defense to shield himself from civil liability, since the law protects from both criminal and civil liability. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Unarmed Trayvon Martin gunned down
