George Zimmerman shot

[12AX7]

Actually it is terrorism. The gain does not have to be political. It becomes a form of terrorism the very moment when he tells her to not tell anyone or else.

(Just in case anyone is wondering, Ziggurat is the one arguing for vigilantism against terrorists, not me.)

Agree.

Full Definition of TERRORISM
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Words have estabished meanings, even if conservatives don't believe them.

 

[12AX7]

Zimmerman flashes his gun.

Apperson sees it, panics, and reaches for his.

Zimmerman rolls up his window.

Apperson turns and fires.

Seems fairly straightforward.

This makes some sense. We know Z's background and history. We know Z and Apperson have had an incident in the past.

Is it really that difficult to imagine Z brandishing his gun in an attempt to intimidate another person? Is it really that difficult to imagine Apperson responding out of genuine fear as a result?

It'll be interesting to see what becomes of this story.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Apperson has to make a plausible argument that he was in imminent fear for his life. The fact that GZ never fired his gun, even after Apperson fired at him, detracts from the plausibility of that argument. For example, if GZ had been brandishing his gun at the time Apperson fired, then the gun would have been in his hand, and it seems natural to squeeze off a few shots while trying to get out of the way. At the very least to show that the gun was loaded or to make a big noise to cause the attacker to pause. If GZ couldn't do this because the gun was out of reach at the time Apperson started firing, then it means that even if he had brandished the gun, he was no longer brandishing it at the time Apperson fired, and Apperson's case weakens substantially.

Another issue is that at the time Apperson fired he was apparently firing from his driver's side window into the passenger side of GZ's car with the GZ's passenger side window closed. At that time, if GZ was brandishing his gun, Apperson would have had to believe that GZ was ready to fire through his closed passenger side window from the driver's side. I don't know. I'm not very experienced with guns, but that just doesn't seem like a credible threat. I think it would require GZ rolling down the passenger side window to make it credible.

What are you basing all this speculation on?

 

[Ziggurat]

Words have estabished meanings, even if conservatives don't believe them.

Funny thing: you skipped over the first definition the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal), and then failed to notice that the definition you used relies upon the definition of "terror", which is hyperlinked. If you follow the link to the definition of "terror", you'll find this is the relevant one:

: violence that is committed by a person, group, or government in order to frighten people and achieve a political goal
So even the definition you did use still has political goals as a component.

I'm not the one trying to change definitions here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Burden of proof does not work that way.

Zimmerman does not have to prove anything, let alone a negative.

Oh for pity's sake. You've done nothing here but semantically misinterpret the sentence.

Apperson says GZ waved a gun. GZ says he didn't. Are you claiming Apperson has to prove GZ waved a gun?

 

[Belz...]

The fact that Zimmerman keeps getting into these bad situations does not speak well about his judgment. For example, his choice of female companionship may be... poor. But that's not the same thing as saying he goes around threatening people with guns. We cannot conclude that at all.

... We can't ?

 

[12AX7]

Funny thing: you skipped over the first definition the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal), and then failed to notice that the definition you used relies upon the definition of "terror", which is hyperlinked. If you follow the link to the definition of "terror", you'll find this is the relevant one:

: violence that is committed by a person, group, or government in order to frighten people and achieve a political goal
So even the definition you did use still has political goals as a component.

I'm not the one trying to change definitions here.

Wow. You've discovered that words have more than one meaning. Congratulations!

Remember this:

Actually it is terrorism. The gain does not have to be political. It becomes a form of terrorism the very moment when he tells her to not tell anyone or else.

You're getting there. Slowly, but you're making progress.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wow. You've discovered that words have more than one meaning. Congratulations!

Remember this:



You're getting there. Slowly, but you're making progress.

I remember. But his assertion is simply wrong. You tried to use a link to prove his assertion was correct, but it doesn't, for the reason I just explained.

And you're evidently NOT making progress.

 

[Ziggurat]

... We can't ?

Well, I suppose you can technically conclude anything you want to, but not all conclusions will be valid ones.

 

[sunmaster14]

Again, that is not correct.

Self defense is an affirmative defense under Florida law and the burden therefore rests on the gunman.

That's not correct. It may be an affirmative defense, but the prosecution needs to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was not self-defense. Only in the Ohio, does the defendant need to prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

 

[sunmaster14]

What are you basing all this speculation on?

What speculation? GZ didn't fire his gun. Apperson fired his gun at GZ when GZ's passenger side window was closed. These are established facts. All I'm saying is that given these facts, it seems harder for Apperson to show that he was in fear for his life when he fired his gun at GZ.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What speculation? GZ didn't fire his gun. Apperson fired his gun at GZ when GZ's passenger side window was closed. These are established facts. All I'm saying is that given these facts, it seems harder for Apperson to show that he was in fear for his life when he fired his gun at GZ.

Speculation: All the stuff I highlighted in your post that go well beyond the facts.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Agree.



Words have estabished meanings, even if conservatives don't believe them.

Okay... now would you mind explaining how you concluded that she was in terror of him during these ten years? I mean, terror is a very strong word. A very intense version of fear.

So where's the evidence of terror as opposed to being uncomfortable, grossed out, weirded out, put off, repulsed, etc.?

As far as I know, we aren't even sure whether there was a period during all this where they were both into it and she just had a "omg it's my cousin this is wrong and gross" moment before he did.

So how'd we establish terror?

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh for pity's sake. You've done nothing here but semantically misinterpret the sentence.

Apperson says GZ waved a gun. GZ says he didn't. Are you claiming Apperson has to prove GZ waved a gun?

Actually i was just explaining what the law is. I acknowledge that you think the law is semantics, tho.

That's not correct. It may be an affirmative defense, but the prosecution needs to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was not self-defense. Only in the Ohio, does the defendant need to prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Florida Supreme Court's decision in Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 2010), held that a defendant bears the burden of proving his entitlement to self-defense immunity by the preponderance of evidence.

 

[12AX7]

The lengths ZimmerMan's fans will go to to defend him is nothing short of amazing.

 

[sunmaster14]

Actually i was just explaining what the law is. I acknowledge that you think the law is semantics, tho.



The Florida Supreme Court's decision in Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 2010), held that a defendant bears the burden of proving his entitlement to self-defense immunity by the preponderance of evidence.

I don't have time to check, but IIRC, that concerns the Stand Your Ground law which allows dismissal of the case during a preliminary hearing. Even if you can't meet that burden during the hearing, you still can't be convicted if the jury finds reasonable doubt that you didn't act in self-defense.

 

[Rare Truth]

That's not correct. It may be an affirmative defense, but the prosecution needs to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was not self-defense. Only in the Ohio, does the defendant need to prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

If Apperson opts for a SYG immunity hearing, the burden of proof is preponderance of evidence.

"The defense presents the evidence, shows that the statutory prerequisites have been met, and requests that the court grant the motion and appropriate relief. If the Motion is granted, the defense then files a Motion to Dismiss, as there is no longer a legal basis to proceed with the prosecution."

 

[sunmaster14]

The lengths ZimmerMan's fans will go to to defend him is nothing short of amazing.

I'm not a fan. I'm just pushing back at the extreme arguments his detractors are using to attack him. The guy was shot at for crying out loud. The natural response would be to have some sympathy for him. Instead, this is strong evidence in some people's minds that he's a criminal. It is more likely strong evidence that he is being harassed and stalked because of his notoriety.

 

[sunmaster14]

If Apperson opts for a SYG immunity hearing, the burden of proof is preponderance of evidence.

"The defense presents the evidence, shows that the statutory prerequisites have been met, and requests that the court grant the motion and appropriate relief. If the Motion is granted, the defense then files a Motion to Dismiss, as there is no longer a legal basis to proceed with the prosecution."

I agree with that, but preponderance of evidence is not the standard for self-defense in general (except in Ohio). GZ didn't even ask for an SYG immunity hearing.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

The lengths ZimmerMan's fans will go to to defend him is nothing short of amazing.

Lengths like not blindly agreeing a weird sexual dynamic between young cousins which never involved intercourse, let alone rape, constitutes "terrorism" ?

Let's just go all out and say it was genocide. By weirding her out about intimacy during the crucial years puberty set in, George killed all the infinite possible versions of her who would've been well adjusted about sex. Sounds like genocide to me.