Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Dan O.]

You have parsed nothing. You have created a false interpretation that is the opposite of what the actual law says.

What false interpretation have I created?

 

[Cylinder]

I've done more than read it, I've parsed it for you. If you take exception to the way I have parsed it then make your case and let's debate it. But don't just attack me because you don't like what I am saying.

First, there was no attack. I just pointed out your mistake. It was the part you snipped out when you quoted the post.

You're reading a subsection out of context. The however clause extends the non-lethal part without negating the unlawful force part - unless you're arguing a legislative intent that allows people to shoot back at police or kill shop owners that resist armed robberies, etc...

 

[leftysergeant]

Speaking for myself, I've never pushed an cop or got into a fight with my ex-fiance ever. That Zimmerman has does not reflect well on his anger management skills.

Doesn't reflect well on his manhood, either. He could have been packing to make up for inadequacies there.

 

[Dan O.]

First, there was no attack. I just pointed out your mistake. It was the part you snipped out when you quoted the post.

You're reading a subsection out of context. The however clause extends the non-lethal part without negating the unlawful force part - unless you're arguing a legislative intent that allows people to shoot back at police or kill shop owners that resist armed robberies, etc...

What I snipped out was condition (2) of the however clause which need not be considered if condition (1) was met because of the or conjunction. Do you disagree that condition (1) was met in AlwaysTellsTruth's hypothetical scenario?

 

[KatieG]

I like how you interpret a guy who once pushed an undercover alcohol agent when he was young and drunk and got in a fight with is exfiance has "a history of anger management problems."

There gotta be a reason the Martin's and their lawyer filed an injunction to seal Trayvon's school and criminal records right?

/waves hand wildly in the air!

I know! I know! Pick me!

Because he's a minor?

This information was given to me by my cousin who is lawyer in Jacksonville, FL. I asked him some more questions but haven't gotten the answers yet. He is not a criminal lawyer but he is capable of looking up the points of law.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Let me see if I can sum some of the "pro TM, anti-GZ position", AKA "I have psychic powers" camp.

1. GZ is a bad man and has anger management issues. We know that because years ago he pushed a policeman once when he was drunk and an ex-girlfriend once filed a restraining order against him, as he did against her. He's also a racist. We know that because when the 911 operator asked him what the race of the man was he said "I believe he's black".

2. GZ is the aggressor even IF TM attacked him. The moment GZ decided to follow TM he became the "aggressor" and there is no situation in which he is not the aggressor, even IF TM attacked him and he was getting beaten.

3. GZ is lying that it was him screaming but even if he is the one that was screaming maybe it's because he was a pussy.

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Dan O.]

3. GZ is lying that it was him screaming but even if he is the one that was screaming maybe it's because he was a pussy.

You have that all wrong. GZ is a pussy because he has to carry a gun in his pants to augment his manliness.

As to whether he lied about who was screaming, that can still be tested if he wasn't such a pussy and accepted to give a comparative voice sample.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

You have that all wrong. GZ is a pussy because he has to carry a gun in his pants to augment his manliness.

As to whether he lied about who was screaming, that can still be tested if he wasn't such a pussy and accepted to give a comparative voice sample.

lol. I forgot about the manliness issue. And quite right, he's also a pussy for not wanting to give a voice sample to someone who has already pronounced him guilty and has no official involvement in the case whatsoever.

 

[crimresearch]

/waves hand wildly in the air!

I know! I know! Pick me!

Because he's a minor?

This information was given to me by my cousin who is lawyer in Jacksonville, FL. I asked him some more questions but haven't gotten the answers yet. He is not a criminal lawyer but he is capable of looking up the points of law.

Still incorrect, appeal to authority or not. You cannot simply 'file' to seal another person's criminal records unless you have some sort of power of attorney.

And you can't expect a court to grant an injunction against itself.

Nor can a court just order non court records to be sealed because someone asks for it, absent some legislative reference such as FERPA.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I have a question for those who say that GZ is the initiator of aggression even if TM attacked him first*. Let's imagine every part of this case is identical and change only one factor. Imagine that TM is replaced with HC, short for hardcore criminal. HC has a history of violence. HC doesn't like that he is being followed and attacks GZ and is beating him. GZ screams for help for 60 seconds as he is being beating. GZ shoots him.

Is GZ actually the the one who initiated the aggression?

*Please don't point out the obvious - that such facts are not in evidence, no one claims they are. However it is what GZ claims, and several people have responded that even if GZ's claim is true that GZ is still the initiator of the violence by virtue of following TM. Hence my theoretical question.

 

[crimresearch]

I have a question for those who say that GZ is the initiator of aggression even if TM attacked him first*. Let's imagine every part of this case is identical and change only one factor. Imagine that TM is replaced with HC, short for hardcore criminal. HC has a history of violence. HC doesn't like that he is being followed and attacks GZ and is beating him. GZ screams for help for 60 seconds as he is being beating. GZ shoots him.

Is GZ actually the the one who initiated the aggression?

*Please don't point out the obvious - that such facts are not in evidence, no one claims they are. However it is what GZ claims, and several people have responded that even if GZ's claim is true that GZ is still the initiator of the violence by virtue of following TM. Hence my theoretical question.

All of the speculation about who followed who, who was the aggressor, who had a history of similar incidents and such, if proven might be allowed in to address credibility and/or state of mind.

It would not directly invalidate self defense and jump straight to a guilty verdict no matter what, as several people seem to think.

It is within the realm of possibility for somone to act somewhat badly (following, asking questions, even being a jerk, etc.) all the way up to a specific point in the chain of events, and then suddenly become the victim, fully entitled to defend themselves.

And finally, unless someone has extremely compelling evidence secreted away, the complete version of events is going to be the one Zimmerman tells, since the victim cannot, and the witnesses are inconsistent.

Even so, I imagine that he will find it a hard sell.

 

[Chris L]

All of the speculation about who followed who, who was the aggressor, who had a history of similar incidents and such, if proven might be allowed in to address credibility and/or state of mind.

It would not directly invalidate self defense and jump straight to a guilty verdict no matter what, as several people seem to think.

It is within the realm of possibility for somone to act somewhat badly (following, asking questions, even being a jerk, etc.) all the way up to a specific point in the chain of events, and then suddenly become the victim, fully entitled to defend themselves.

And finally, unless someone has extremely compelling evidence secreted away, the complete version of events is going to be the one Zimmerman tells, since the victim cannot, and the witnesses are inconsistent.

Even so, I imagine that he will find it a hard sell.

Even those of us who think Zimmerman is morally responsible for what happened realize there may not be enough for a conviction. I suspect that's why the SA took a pass on this one the first time around.

 

[RandFan]

Even those of us who think Zimmerman is morally responsible for what happened realize there may not be enough for a conviction. I suspect that's why the SA took a pass on this one the first time around.

Exactly.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

All of the speculation about who followed who, who was the aggressor, who had a history of similar incidents and such, if proven might be allowed in to address credibility and/or state of mind.

It would not directly invalidate self defense and jump straight to a guilty verdict no matter what, as several people seem to think.

It is within the realm of possibility for someone to act somewhat badly (following, asking questions, even being a jerk, etc.) all the way up to a specific point in the chain of events, and then suddenly become the victim, fully entitled to defend themselves.

Which is precisely my point. It is irrational to the extreme to argue that because GZ may have made a poor decision/s, that he therefore "started the ball rolling" and that everything that happens afterwards is his fault because well, "this would not have happened if he had not followed him". Likewise that is not how the law works.

I think if those claiming otherwise were to answer the question re: the scenario I posed honestly, it would force them to admit the silliness of their position. That is, if "hardcore criminal" attacked him, I can't imagine any rational person still insisting that even then *all* the blame laid on GZ. Yet swapping TM with a theoretical HC should not change their position if it's rational.

And finally, unless someone has extremely compelling evidence secreted away, the complete version of events is going to be the one Zimmerman tells, since the victim cannot, and the witnesses are inconsistent.

Even so, I imagine that he will find it a hard sell.

No doubt, since some will never hear anything but what they want to, nevertheless, his story could become much more believable to a lot of people as more evidence comes out. Or much less believable.

 

[crimresearch]

It is irrational to the extreme to argue that because GZ may have made a poor decision/s, that he therefore "started the ball rolling" and that everything that happens afterwards is his fault because well, "this would not have happened if he had not followed him". Likewise that is not how the law works.

Correct.

 

[nadsat]

Still incorrect, appeal to authority or not. You cannot simply 'file' to seal another person's criminal records unless you have some sort of power of attorney.

And you can't expect a court to grant an injunction against itself.

Nor can a court just order non court records to be sealed because someone asks for it, absent some legislative reference such as FERPA.

thanks

 

[johnny karate]

It is irrational to the extreme to argue that because GZ may have made a poor decision/s, that he therefore "started the ball rolling" and that everything that happens afterwards is his fault because well, "this would not have happened if he had not followed him".

I don't know if anyone is actually making that argument.

From my perspective, pointing out the fact that Zimmerman's poor decision "started the ball rolling" isn't an issue of culpability for everything that follows, but rather an indicator in determining if his claim of self-defense passes the smell test.

This wasn't a situation in which two people were walking down the street minding their own business, a fight broke out, and one of them ended up dead.

Only one person was minding their own business. Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman was the person who labeled Martin "suspicious" and decided to take a gun and pursue him as Martin ran away.

Does this mean that no matter what happened afterward Zimmerman is to blame? Of course not. But it does give a very plausible basis for a scenario in which Zimmerman was the aggressor in the ensuing altercation since we know this whole situation began with him being the aggressor.

Bottom line, based on what we know happened prior to the altercation, I don't believe Zimmerman when he says he acted in self-defense. At least not until he provides evidence to back up his story.

(And yes, I understand this means nothing in the legal arena.)

 

[KatieG]

Still incorrect, appeal to authority or not. You cannot simply 'file' to seal another person's criminal records unless you have some sort of power of attorney.

And you can't expect a court to grant an injunction against itself.

Nor can a court just order non court records to be sealed because someone asks for it, absent some legislative reference such as FERPA.

Any case for a child/young person below the age of 18 is automatically sealed. How did you not know that? I didn't pull that out of thin air.

 

[Dan O.]

lol. I forgot about the manliness issue. And quite right, he's also a pussy for not wanting to give a voice sample to someone who has already pronounced him guilty and has no official involvement in the case whatsoever.

The Easy Voice Biometrics software package doesn't know who George Zimmerman is or care whether he is guilty or not. It's just a program that does what it has been programmed to do without subjective input from the operator. The program can be tested quite easily to determine the limits of its capabilities. So why doesn't George Zimmerman want to prove that it is his voice screaming on that 911 tape?

 

[This is The End]

Do you have anything to back that up ?

I believe it was originally from this video:

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/46910559/

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...-martin-case-zimmerman-had-run-in-with-police

The incident occurred when Zimmerman allegedly interfered with an undercover officer attempting to arrest employees of a bar on charges of selling alcohol to minors, NBC News National Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff reported.

The court ordered Zimmerman to attend anger management classes.