+1 on that.
As has already been explained, it doesn’t take self defence of the table, but it does remove SYG.
No, it doesn’t. As has already been explained.
What it means is a 250,000 google hits does not indicate that a phrase is popular.
You’re welcome to define it that way in our mind, and to have that as your opinion.
But that is not what the law defines as initiating a conflict for the purposes of analyzing self-defense.
So I can only imagine that your purpose in sharing your opinion on this point is to advise readers how completely different your own opinion is from the actual law that will be used in real life to analyze Zimmerman’s conduct. Is that correct, or was there another reason?
Oh, looks like you’re saying this as a legal claim, and thus can’t hide behind “It’s just your opinion,” anymore.
So please re-explain this to me, with citation to case law, how Zimmerman’s getting out of his car while lawfully possessing a firearm, with the intention of following Martin and demanding to know what he was doing, removes SYG from the table.
Look, the argument is that the phrase “I’m begging you” is out of place in the context of a teen. This is patently absurd. Look: “I’m begging you” + Nigga - 1.75 million hits.
This is basic, standard English, and it’s incomprehensibly obtuse to argue it’s out of place for a teenager - especially when the claim (actually endorsed by no-one here, as near as I can make out) that Trayvon Martin uttered these words before he was shot is very easily refuted by means that aren’t completely ridiculous.
It’s like you’re clinging to the argument that the pyramids at Giza weren’t built by Chinese people, because Chinese people’s tiny thumbs make it unlikely for them to do large-scale masonry. Forget about the thumbs for a minute, if there’s anyone labouring under the misapprehension that the Sphinx and all the rest were accomplished by coolies, you’re going to straighten it out a lot faster without wasting time insisting that the distal phalanx of the Occident is much more distant and less proximate from the proximal, and you’ll get fewer funny looks.
What is your proof that Trayvon could actually communicate in Basic Standard English? There are millions of black teenagers that can’t. Based on his Twitter feed Trayvon couldn’t. After listening to his girl friend’s testimony, she couldn’t either.
I despair what these kids are going to do. What are they going to do if they can’t read want ads or fill out a job application?
I found an interesting blog by a Criminal defense attorney in Denver.
http://www.talkleft.com/
She has some interesting analysis of the discovery evidence.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/5/17/221353/149
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/5/18/201941/944
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/5/20/6642/30597
She apparently has a very low opinion, that I share, on witness memory. She also has some comments about how bad the police memory are on reporting basic facts.
Do you always have to be so obtuse?
Unless you are going senile, you know full well that I am neither 'mercan nor a laywer.
We are also in the opinion forum.
The question is not about what he is legally entitled to do - it’s about what most likely did.,
Are you seriously trying to dispute, that the person that got out of his vehicle and trailed someone who was just walking home is the one that DID NOT initiate the situation? Seriously?
I suppose that if I happened to be out walking, and got struck be a meteor, you would also blame me for jumping under the meteor and impeding its path as well?
We all know that you have a superb legal mind. That is not in dispute. I will also fully admit and stipulate that when it comes to the law and debates, you can beat me upside down and backwards with one tonsil tied behind your back.
But don’t you think that sometimes, just occassionaly, it’s about more than what the letter of the law states? The very first thing I learnt in my first week of LAWS101 was that laws are supposed to uphold the mores of a society. So which comes first? Societal standards or the law?
Given the normal understanding of societal standards, who do you think initiated the contact? The one that got out of his truck, and followed the teenager who was on his way home, or the guy that was simply walking home from the 7-11 chatting to his girlfriend?
Naturally, if some credible evidence comes to hand (other than George’s statement) that Trayvon ambushed the conscientious neighbourhood watch guy, after he previously specifically tried to avoid him, then have at it - Trayvon did initiate the confrontation. Otherwise don’t bend like a reed to hide behind what can be “legally proven”
yeah it does - right in this very thread, if you initiate the situation, there is a higher standard placed upon you than stand your ground
See, it’s funny. That higher standard is in the law. Yet right above there you went on a rant about how it’s about your opinion, and not the “letter of the law”.
As it has been explained, numerous times, Zimmerman getting out of the car and following Martin does not make him an “aggressor” as the law states it. So your statement about “a higher standard placed upon you” is wrong.
Without the snark, you hit it on the head. What the law says about the issue is irrelevant. The “law” you put on the pedestal is not an edict passed down from Mount Sinai. It’s a flawed series of man-made rules that believe corporations are people and taken the view that blacks are chattel property. Since the “law” changes depending on the whims of the majority, I’m not analyzing the situation under the narrow microscope of law but on the broader view of morality (e.g. right vs wrong). For example, it says a lot that Zimmerman did not request an ambulance for Martin (but instead requests someone contact his wife). That behavior says to me that he didn’t give a flying shit whether Trayvon lived or died. Similarly, when Zimmerman exits his vehicle against the advice of the operator with the intention of confronting Martin with a loaded gun, tells me he was looking for a fight. You don’t have to tell me the latter is perfectly legal under the “law”; I’m just pointing out that it’s an injustice that it is legal for non-law enforcement to approach people at night with a loaded gun.
- Honesty
Not to hijack this thread or anything, but can you quote the portion of the decision in that link that you think claims that “corporations are people”?
Way back there yesterday you asked me to cite where Trayvon’s friend provided evidence that GZ acted with malice. She described GZ as sounding angry when he asked “What are you doing here?”, and that it was Trayvon’s voice subsequently saying “Get off, get off.” Taken alone, none of her statements would probably be enough to persuade a jury that GZ acted in malice, but they might add to the cumulative weight of other evidence and help ultimately persuade a jury that GZ, step by step, was acting maliciously toward the “criminal” he mistakenly believed Trayvon Martin was, that culminated in his killing Trayvon Martin.
Others have eloquently stated what needs to be said about “I’m begging you”, so I’m not going to extend the argument. With regard to TalkLeft, that is a blog run, as you noted, by a defense lawyer. When eyewitness testimony supports the defense point of view, the author of that blog doesn’t argue against it.
I share many people’s view that George Zimmerman created a situation that night so terrible that he should face some consequences for his actions. Without wishing to undermine any person’s right to self-defense, it is frustrating that Florida law may be so constructed that he won’t face any consequences, or that human error (like an inadequate police investigation or the wrong charges being brought) may mean that George Zimmerman is returned to the streets with the right to buy yet another handgun.
I appreciate, however, hearing from legal experts here about just exactly what the law is.
What has been socially difficult is the “hah-hah” triumphalism of many defenders of George Zimmerman at the idea that he will be acquitted. I hope I am not imagining things when I imagine that most people in real life, if they had discovered they had killed an unarmed teenager of any color, even if it was in the course of trying to protect their community and themselves, they would have been filled with anguish. It is my understanding that even cops who kill someone in the line of duty with a clear knowledge they shot a criminal are nonetheless filled with grief.
I get it that people were annoyed that a too-angelic picture of Trayvon Martin was put forward to manipulate public opinion, and that many believe George Zimmerman was the victim of character assasination and pre-judged to the point of having his life threatened. But Trayvon Martin will never be able to speak in his own defense – including telling us what was in his mind when he punched George Zimmerman that night – and plainly to me his death was a needless tragedy for which George Zimmerman is primarily responsible, even if Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense correctly exonerates him of legal responsibility in a court of law. It’s possible for me to accept that George Zimmerman is “not guilty” and still want to prevent what he did from ever happening again.
Well isn’t this telling. If only those uppity niggers would learn to talk right, huh? Why don’t you go ahead and throw in a watermelon or two and complete the stereotype.
By the way, I’ve heard Martin’s mother, father and brother interviewed on TV and they sound downright … white, to put it in your terms. But, hey, as long as it makes you feel good to paint Martin as some thug negro who couldn’t string three words together, that’s what’s important.
No. Whoever said that in this thread was taking advantage of the fact that this is the IMHO forum, spewing an opinion unrelated to legal standards, and, when called on it, retreating into the safety of saying things like “This is a court of public opinion,” and that the legal mumbo-jumbo doesn’t matter.
No.
The malice requirement of second degree murder cannot be met by this kind of evidence. “Sounding angry,” is not the kind of malice the statute contemplates. Mere anger accompanies all kinds of assaults and physical fights. It doesn’t support depraved indifference.
However, I will point out that the willingness to shoot someone who has just said to you, “I’m begging you,” IS the kind of malice that is contemplated by the statute.
That’s fine. As long as the reader understands you’re sharing your view of morality and not a statement about the extant criminal law and procedure governing this case.
For what it’s worth, I completely disagree with your opinion, but that’s un utterly unresolvable conflict. I am only happy that the people of Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Alabama, and Connecticut think your view is utterly wrong.
Beyond “I’m begging you” (which we probably agree will never be offered as evidence in this case") can you cite other examples of evidence that might support the charge of malice or depraved indifference? Does “'effin punks” or “these a-ho’s always get away”?
By the way, sounding angry was my words (not the girl’s words), based on my recollections. Is there some way she could have characterized what she heard in GZ’s voice, apart from content, that would be evidence of malice or depraved indifference? What of her claim that it was Martin she heard saying “Get off, get off”-- ?