George Zimmerman shot

[PhantomWolf]

The snark was unnecessary. You were not clear at all.

FTR: When someone asks you a direct question about what you think and you don't answer the question directly but instead you answer an unasked question, you are bound to be misunderstood.

He wasn't, he was trying to strawman my argument. What I did was reply by stating my actual position rather than allowing the assumption that I was giving the premise of his question any validity.

 

[RandFan]

The problem is that you seem to be condensing this down to a he said/he said issue, when in fact there is going to be more to it that just what each party claims. Apperson, on going for a Stand your ground defence, will have to prove that on the balance of probabilities he had a reasonable fear for his life. With the shaded windows of GZ's vehicle, that is going to actually have to start with him being actually able to see what GZ was doing through those windows, and depending on the light, that might be impossible to do. The police I am sure have already check these sorts of things out, but we simply don't know what they found.

That they are charging him with firing "without provocation" indicates that at the very least they think that they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ did nothing to provoke Apperson, and I doubt they are basing that purely on the testimony of GZ. So if they are right (and no I'm not saying that they are because we haven't seen the evidence yet) then it would seem that any SYG defence which would have to rely on provocation would be a very high mountain to climb, even without the testimony of GZ. As such, I believe you're merely jumping to a conclusion because of your stance over SYG laws without actually fully understanding the bar that is required to reach, and the evidence for and against it in this case.

No. Not at all.

 

[RandFan]

He wasn't, he was trying to strawman my argument. What I did was reply by stating my actual position rather than allowing the assumption that I was giving the premise of his question any validity.

I've no idea if he was straw manning your argument or not. He asked a question and you provided an answer to a different question. You can see how that can be confusing, right?

 

[PhantomWolf]

No. Not at all.

So what evidence are you using that make you believe if GZ was dead, he'd have gotten off?

 

[PhantomWolf]

I've no idea if he was straw manning your argument or not. He asked a question and you provided an answer to a different question. You can see how that can be confusing, right?

He asked if I was saying "X", which was clearly a strawman of my argument.

I replied that I was saying "Y", restating my initial argument.

No I don't see how that is confusing.

 

[RandFan]

That they are charging him with firing "without provocation" indicates that at the very least they think that they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ did nothing to provoke Apperson

If the evidence is conclusive without GZ's testimony then in this instance I'll concede.

Let me make something perfectly clear. I do not believe that SYG removes any and all risk for murderers. Especially if the victim survives.

So, if you are correct, the determination had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with GZ's testimony, right?

 

[RandFan]

He asked if I was saying "X", which was clearly a strawman of my argument.

This is absurd. By your logic every question is a straw man.

Are you suggesting that Zimmerman is the victim in every one of those cases ?

That's a reasonable question. It's certainly not a straw man. Never will be.

 

[PhantomWolf]

If the evidence is conclusive without GZ's testimony then in this instance I'll concede.

Let me make something perfectly clear. I do not believe that SYG removes any and all risk for murderers. Especially if the victim survives.

So, if you are correct, the determination had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with GZ's testimony, right?

I might be making a rather large assumption as to the competence of Police Department, but were I doing the investigation, what GZ claimed would be rather low on the list of what was considered compelling evidence. The only time I'd consider it worth much is if it lined up reasonably with all the rest of what I found.

 

[PhantomWolf]

This is absurd. By your logic every question is a straw man.

No just ones that are phrased a specific way.

That's a reasonable question. It's certainly not a straw man. Never will be.

No it's not reasonable, it is a sibling to....

"So you're suggesting that Zimmerman is the victim in every one of those cases?"

Both questions are a disguised strawman to try and make the other person's argument look weaker than it is by pretending to call into question a premise that was never actually implied.

 

[RandFan]

No just ones that are phrased a specific way.

No it's not reasonable, it is a sibling to....

"So you're suggesting that Zimmerman is the victim in every one of those cases?"

Both questions are a disguised strawman to try and make the other person's argument look weaker than it is by pretending to call into question a premise that was never actually implied.

Unlike a loaded question, it's a question that you can sincerely answer yes or no. Had he made a declarative then you would have a point. He didn't. No straw man.

 

[RandFan]

I might be making a rather large assumption as to the competence of Police Department, but were I doing the investigation, what GZ claimed would be rather low on the list of what was considered compelling evidence. The only time I'd consider it worth much is if it lined up reasonably with all the rest of what I found.

Thus ends the discussion (as if there was one). I don't believe you and I'm surprised you would think I would.

You get the last word.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Thus ends the discussion (as if there was one). I don't believe you and I'm surprised you would think I would.

You get the last word.

I am unsure of your attempt at insinuation here. I put as much stock into eye witness testimony as I do that sugar is a good building materials for a boat. It might be made to work in the right circumstances, but there are far better things to use first.

One of the problems in this thread is that people rushed to judgement accepting Apperson's version as fact until it started to unravel, at which point the back pedalling began, though still with a "Okay Apperson might be crazy, but GZ still deserved it" bent.

What I have tried to do is point out that there are two opposing claims, and accepting either is silly, because if the one people were stomping on was actually true (or truer) then they were judging it out of spite rather than based on the evidence.

At the end of the day what will determine the final result is not Apperson's claims and not GZ's claims, but the external evidence and which of those claims more closely matches it. That is how real investigations work, not listening to two people and deciding who's story sounds better to you.

 

[RandFan]

IIRC, from amny pages back, didn't GZ make a U-turn to avoid confrontation, but Apperson followed? Is that SYG? Sounds like Apperson was the belligerent, for reasons only the voices in his head know?

If it is true and it can be established then I would stipulate to GZ being the victim at that point.

 

[Metullus]

If it is true and it can be established then I would stipulate to GZ not being the victim at that point.

If GZ made the u-turn in an effort to disengage how would that indicate to you that he is not the victim? Did you men something else?

 

[RandFan]

If GZ made the u-turn in an effort to disengage how would that indicate to you that he is not the victim? Did you men something else?

Thanks. Edited. It's Freud's fault.

 

[12AX7]

Now, had GZ died, IMO, no indictment.

Yep.

I disagree, consider if GZ's gun was located in his glove box.

Suppose it was. Wouldn't matter. All he'd have to say is "Georgie put his window down, said "I'm going to kill you", put the window up and I was in fear of my life.".

Loon #2 doesn't have to proove Loon #1's gun was anywhere, he was threatened and was in fear of his life. It's shooter's word vs shootee's word and shootee is dead. Sound familiar?

See how nice that "I was in fear of my life" card is? Accepted almost everywhere.

 

[12AX7]

IIRC, from amny pages back, didn't GZ make a U-turn to avoid confrontation, but Apperson followed? Is that SYG? Sounds like Apperson was the belligerent, for reasons only the voices in his head know?

Yeah, you definitely don't want to follow someone when they attempt to flee from you. Who knows what can happen?



I mean, suppose for a moment Zimmerman made a u-turn to flee in an attempt to avoid the confrontation, Apperson followed and they somehow got off to the side of the road, out of sight of any witnesses, and engaged in a fist fight. Zimmerman punches Apperson (the initial aggressor here) suddenly Apprerson is "in fear for his life" and then shoots Zimmerman.

He'd walk!

Right?

 

[Ziggurat]

Suppose it was. Wouldn't matter. All he'd have to say is "Georgie put his window down, said "I'm going to kill you", put the window up and I was in fear of my life.".

Loon #2 doesn't have to proove Loon #1's gun was anywhere, he was threatened and was in fear of his life. It's shooter's word vs shootee's word and shootee is dead. Sound familiar?

See how nice that "I was in fear of my life" card is? Accepted almost everywhere.

Your understanding of the law of self-defense is wrong. It is not enough to claim you are afraid for your life. The fear must be reasonable. If someone says that they are going to kill you, but do not show any signs that they are able to do so, then your fear of imminent harm is not reasonable (and fear of hypothetical distant future harm does not justify the use of deadly force now). So the location of Zimmerman's gun is very much relevant. If Zimmerman had been killed, and his gun found in his glove compartment, then it's hard to see how we could conclude that Apperson's fear was reasonable.

Contrast that with Zimmerman's shooting of Martin: Martin was on top of him, hitting him in the head, and the back of his head hitting concrete. Zimmerman's fear at that point is pretty reasonable.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yep.

Suppose it was. Wouldn't matter. All he'd have to say is "Georgie put his window down, said "I'm going to kill you", put the window up and I was in fear of my life.".

Loon #2 doesn't have to proove Loon #1's gun was anywhere, he was threatened and was in fear of his life. It's shooter's word vs shootee's word and shootee is dead. Sound familiar?

See how nice that "I was in fear of my life" card is? Accepted almost everywhere.

To add to what Ziggurat stated, SYG is an affirmative defence, which means that you actually have to prove it, you can't just claim that it was self defence, you actually have to show that on the balance of probability it actually was. This means that for SYG to be used successfully by Apperson, he has to actually show that on the balance of probability that it was reasonable to believe that GZ was an imminent threat to him. If the gun was found in the glove box, that is a pretty hard mountain to climb.

Many people think that GZ "got off" on SYG, which isn't actually true. GZ was found not guilty because the State was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had not acted in self defence. In this case the police seem pretty sure they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the attack was unprovoked, so that would indicate that it's going to be pretty hard to win a SYG hearing where Apperson has to prove on the balance of probability that it in actual fact, not only was the shooting provoked, but provoked in such a way as to provide a reasonable belief that there was an imminent threat to Apperson's life.

 

[This is The End]

IIRC, from amny pages back, didn't GZ make a U-turn to avoid confrontation, but Apperson followed? Is that SYG? Sounds like Apperson was the belligerent, for reasons only the voices in his head know?

Wow. A comparison to the case that we are not allowed to discuss outside of its thread would be very appropriate here. But I have a feeling it is not allowed.