Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[This is The End]

That reminds me, what is with your frequent analogy to 911 and calling the people that are impartial Trayvon Truthers?


911: The biggest case-log of evidence from any event in the history of mankind.

Trayvon Martin: Almost zero evidence of what happened during that crucial 90 seconds.

911: Several high profile hearings have already happened.

Trayvon Martin: Neither the stand your ground hearing or the trial have happened yet.

Therefore, in this case you should have no idea who was at fault yet.

While, in the case of 911 we know who did it.

 

[This is The End]

Someone correct me if I am wrong but I believe as of this post, give or take five minutes, it has been exactly one year from when Trayvon Martin was killed via homicide, be it by justifiable self-defense or not.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Someone correct me if I am wrong but I believe as of this post, give or take five minutes, it has been exactly one year from when Trayvon Martin was murdered, be it by justifiable self-defense or not.

Correction - If it was justifiable self-defense, then it he wasn't murdered.

Thus you should have said...

it has been exactly one year from when Trayvon Martin was killed, be it by justifiable self-defense or not.

 

[PhantomWolf]

That reminds me, what is with your frequent analogy to 911 and calling the people that are impartial Trayvon Truthers?

It's rather hard to consider people impartial when they write that GZ murdered Trayvon.

 

[This is The End]

Correction - If it was justifiable self-defense, then it he wasn't murdered.

Thus you should have said...

That was just discussed a few pages a go. I'll have to go back and read it...

 

[This is The End]

It's rather hard to consider people impartial when they write that GZ murdered Trayvon.

Again, that was just discussed a few pages ago. As of right now at least, it is still called murder.

If he loses (or does not have) the self-defense hearing he will be on trial for murder. Then he will either be found guilty of innocent of murder.

Either way, I would love for anyone to read all of my posts in this thread and all of your posts, PhantomWolf, and see who exactly is impartial.

 

[PhantomWolf]

That was just discussed a few pages a go. I'll have to go back and read it...

mur·der /ˈmərdər/ (Noun) The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Second Degree-Murder: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

Justifiable Homicide by Self-Defence doesn't fall into either of these categories.

 

[This is The End]

I have edited the offending post:

Someone correct me if I am wrong but I believe as of this post, give or take five minutes, it has been exactly one year from when Trayvon Martin was killed via homicide, be it by justifiable self-defense or not.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Again, that was just discussed a few pages ago. As of right now at least, it is still called murder.

If he loses (or does not have) the self-defense hearing he will be on trial for murder. Then he will either be found guilty of innocent of murder.

Either way, I would love for anyone to read all of my posts in this thread and all of your posts, PhantomWolf, and see who exactly is impartial.

Go for it, I have never stated that GZ is innocent, nor that he is guilty, nor that I don't think he should be tried, in fact I have stated that I think he should be. The only thing I have stated is that with the current publically available evidence there is not enough to find GZ guilty of 2nd degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

I have no issue if he is found guilty, as long as the evidence is there that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and not based on emotion and that he deserves it.

 

[This is The End]

<snip>

Just to be clear here, Z is charged with Second Degree Murder not Second Degree Homicide, or a Second Degree Killing.

And unless Z wins, or does not have, a self defense hearing Z will be on trial for Second Degree Murder not for Second Degree Homicide, or a Second Degree Killing.

If he wins a self defense hearing or is acquitted at trial, then it will be called justifiable homicide.

 

[This is The End]

Go for it, I have never stated that GZ is innocent, nor that he is guilty, nor that I don't think he should be tried, in fact I have stated that I think he should be. The only thing I have stated is that with the current publically available evidence there is not enough to find GZ guilty of 2nd degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

I have no issue if he is found guilty, as long as the evidence is there that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and not based on emotion and that he deserves it.

Good to hear.


I would note that just in the last 24 hours you went from:

and unless the Prosecution is hiding something

To:

with the current publically available evidence there is not enough

Two completely different things.

The former very nearly implies that we know everything, while the latter clearly implies that we do not know everything.

The former is very nearly a defense biased statement, the latter is clearly impartial.

 

[sgtbaker]

Just to be clear here, Z is charged with Second Degree Murder not Second Degree Homicide, or a Second Degree Killing.

And unless Z wins, or does not have, a self defense hearing Z will be on trial for Second Degree Murder not for Second Degree Homicide, or a Second Degree Killing.

If he wins a self defense hearing or is acquitted at trial, then it will be called justifiable homicide.

That is what the state is claiming but since we haven't had the trial yet, and in your own words:

Therefore, in this case you should have no idea who was at fault yet.

MOM is calling it justifiable homicide, via self defense. In the US you are not considered a murderer until the jury rules you are not guilty. It is the other way around.

 

[This is The End]

mur·der /ˈmərdər/ (Noun) The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

I would point out that Webster's does not require premeditation.

It says premeditation or "any killing done while committing some other felony".

mur[der 7m%r$d!r8
n.

1 the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another; also, any killing done while committing some other felony, as rape or robbery

 

[PhantomWolf]

Just to be clear here, Z is charged with Second Degree Murder not Second Degree Homicide, or a Second Degree Killing.

Yes he is charged with murder, but until he is found guilty it is a homicide. If or when he is found guilty, then it will be a murder.

If he wins a self defense hearing or is acquitted at trial, then it will be called justifiable homicide.

Correct, it can be determine if it was a Justifiable Homicide or not when the Jury comes back, until then it is just a Homicide.

Now this isn't the case in all um.. cases. Sometimes it is easy to carry a killing a murder just that from the start because there is no question on the how, just the who. In this case though we know the who, but not the how.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I would point out that Webster's does not require premeditation.

It says premeditation or "any killing done while committing some other felony".

Yes, this is called felony murder which is a different charge again. GZ is being charged with 2nd Degree which means that the Prosecution believes that they can prove that GZ showed "dangerous conduct and an obvious lack of concern for human life" not that he was commiting some other felony at the time.

 

[This is The End]

MOM is calling it justifiable homicide, via self defense.

I'm pretty sure we just went through that...

In the US you are not considered a murderer

I was not using the word "murder" in the context of what Z is (or isn't). It was clearly being used in the context of what happened to M. I am not saying that that means the word is more justifiably used in one case or the other, just that it seems odd to me that you made the wrong distinction of the two.

Which reminds me what the post was.

The post was trying to mark the exact one year anniversary of the death of Trayvon Martin.

Are we done nitpicking that post yet?

 

[This is The End]

Yes, this is called felony murder which is a different charge again. GZ is being charged with 2nd Degree which means that the Prosecution believes that they can prove that GZ showed "dangerous conduct and an obvious lack of concern for human life" not that he was commiting some other felony at the time.

Is this 300 pages ago or something? I'm having flashbacks.

The post you are nitpicking did not require the legal definition of the word. At all. It was clearly just using the common definition.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Good to hear.


I would note that just in the last 24 hours you went from:



To:




Two completely different things.

The former very nearly implies that we know everything, while the latter clearly implies that we do not know everything.

The former is very nearly a defense biased statement, the latter is clearly impartial.

Hogwash. The former indicates that we can determine a position that would be valid from the information we have, unless the Prosecutor is holding stuff back that would change it. The second means that from the information avialable we can form a position that would hold, unless there is information we don't know because the Prosecutor is holding stuff back. Those are both exactly the same thing.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Is this 300 pages ago or something? I'm having flashbacks.

The post you are nitpicking did not require the legal definition of the word. At all. It was clearly just using the common definition.

You nitpicked mine, I nitpicked yours. And the arguements haven't evolved from where they were 300 pages ago, so....

 

[sgtbaker]

I'm pretty sure we just went through that...





I was not using the word "murder" in the context of what Z is (or isn't). It was clearly being used in the context of what happened to M. I am not saying that that means the word is more justifiably used in one case or the other, just that it seems odd to me that you made the wrong distinction of the two.

Which reminds me what the post was.

The post was trying to mark the exact one year anniversary of the death of Trayvon Martin.

Are we done nitpicking that post yet?

You used the wrong word and PhantomWolf corrected you. Rather then just say, "Oh, I meant killed," you continued to argue your use of a word and supported it by saying that is what the state is accusing him of, ironically just a few posts after you stated "Therefore, in this case you should have no idea who was at fault yet."