Zimmerman charged with 2nd degree murder

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Mannahnin wrote:
CptJake wrote:After your nose is broken and while your head is being bounced on the side walk a few times and you may question your ability to win the physical confrontation with nothing but your hands...

If that accurately describes one's position, sans helmet, I don't think you're going to be able to pull a gun. I've never had my head bounced off a sidewalk a few times, but I've hit the pavement and am pretty confident that if my head hit repeatedly, I wouldn't be pulling a gun or shooting anyone.

I have. At the time the employment of choking them out worked, but if I had been you betcha.

**Hazardous Harry**

Frazzled wrote:

If, for example, someone was to directly say to your face something decidedly unpleasant about your mother, you taking a swing at him could very well be justified (in certain circumstances).

I don't know what planet you're on, but in the US, and likely Australia, thats exactly wrong.

http://www.aussielegal.com.au/informationoutline~nocache~1~SubTopicDetailsID~811.htm

Check.

They certainly wouldn't be entitled to draw a gun and shoot you in response, unless you were acting in a manner that indicated you weren't going to stop until they were dead.

Again you're wrong. If they say something about your mother and you procede to start to beat them to death, they can stop the attack. that means stopping you. pragmatically however, the court/jury will look at the circumstances here and it will become much harder to substantiate the heavy burden of proving self defense.

So if you punch another person in the face, that person is legally entitled to stop any further punches (even if they would not threaten to cause death or grievous bodily harm) by shooting you dead? That strikes me as more than a little bit of an overreaction.

**d-usa**

Going from no violence to face punching is also an over reaction.

**Hazardous Harry**

d-usa wrote:Going from no violence to face punching is also an over reaction.

I'd assume you've been provoked.

Though this surprises me. You mean to say in the states that I can walk right up to your face, racially abuse you or loved one, and I don't have to fear any sort of repercussion?

**Frazzled**

Hazardous Harry wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

If, for example, someone was to directly say to your face something decidedly unpleasant about your mother, you taking a swing at him could very well be justified (in certain circumstances).

I don't know what planet you're on, but in the US, and likely Australia, thats exactly wrong.

http://www.aussielegal.com.au/informationoutline~nocache~1~SubTopicDetailsID~811.htm

Check.

Not getting your point. Other than listing a common site for crime descriptions (interesting how the language is similar to historical crimes here) not seeing what your point is.

So if you punch another person in the face, that person is legally entitled to stop any further punches (even if they would not threaten to cause death or grievous bodily harm) by shooting you dead? That strikes me as more than a little bit of an overreaction.

You're not getting this are you.
Yes. If that person has a reasonable belief that they are going to die, suffer substantial harm, or another person is going to suffer substantial harm they can smear your brains on the wall. The facts of the case decide but as the immortabl bard said: its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. You may think about that the next time you get into a pushy shovie.

**CptJake**

Hazardous Harry wrote:
d-usa wrote:Going from no violence to face punching is also an over reaction.

I'd assume you've been provoked.

Though this surprises me. You mean to say in the states that I can walk right up to your face, racially abuse you or loved one, and I don't have to fear any sort of repercussion?

Nope, you face all kinds of reprecussions, from civil law suits to criminal charges (assault, communicating a threat, disturbing the peace, others). If you decide to rachet up your assault to a battery charge, you can and should expect the victim to fight back in some way.

**Frazzled**

Hazardous Harry wrote:
d-usa wrote:Going from no violence to face punching is also an over reaction.

I'd assume you've been provoked.

Though this surprises me. You mean to say in the states that I can walk right up to your face, racially abuse you or loved one, and I don't have to fear any sort of repercussion?

You're going with this provoked thing. You can't hang your hat on that very well.

Again it won't matter if you're dead.

**Hazardous Harry**

Frazzled wrote:
Not getting your point. Other than listing a common site for crime descriptions (interesting how the language is similar to historical crimes here) not seeing what your point is.

PROVOCATION

Provocation

The defence of provocation is only available to a person charged with assault and assault occasioning bodily harm. For a person who is charged with an assault to succeed in the defence of provocation, he or she must establish the following :

That the person was provoked into committing the assault
That the provocation deprived the person of their power of self-control:
That the person acted before their passion had time to cool:
The force used was not disproportionate to the provocation:
The force used was not intended, or was not likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm:
Provocation of a third party

A person may be able to rely on the defence of provocation, when another person is actually the person that the act of provocation is directed to. Examples include the parent, husband, wife, relative or carer defending against an assault to another.

Yes. If that person has a reasonable belief that they are going to die, suffer substantial harm, or another person is going to suffer substantial harm they can smear your brains on the wall. The facts of the case decide but as the immortabl bard said: its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. You may think about that the next time you get into a pushy shovie.

So what's the difference between Grievous Bodily Harm and Substantial Harm?

And really? You mean to say that, in the US, if someone gravely insults me and a loved one, and I invite them to settle the matter like men, then I'm still breaking the law?

**biccat**

d-usa wrote:One thing that comes to mind, having wrestled quite a few bad guys with the cops, is that it is kinda hard to pull out a gun in the middle of a fistfight. If Martin is sitting on top of Z, bashing his head into the concrete, it would be pretty hard to get your hand into your waistband to pull a gun out of your holster (that Martin would be sitting on top off).

Apparently Zimmerman's revolver didn't cycle properly, indicating some obstruction that prevented the gun from firing.

AustonT wrote:
biccat wrote:But if the facts are as they appear to be, do you think Zimmerman's acts constitute aggression? Do you think he acted lawfully?

If you were on a jury, and Zimmerman's case were substantiated, would you vote to convict?

1. I do.
2. Maybe. The more that comes out the more I think: Yes.
3. At this point with the information on hand: No. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high hurdle, as it should be.

Thanks. I am curious if, for most people, this is a factual dispute (if Zimmerman proves X, he should go free) or a legal one (even if Zimmerman proves X, he should be found guilty). It appears in your case it's a factual issue.

Hazardous Harry wrote:He could have pushed Martin when confronted, instigating the fight, and then his use of lethal force later on would be completely unjustified regardless of any calls made to the police beforehand.

A professor of mine was famous for saying "if you change the facts, you can get any result you want." Mere speculation does not lead to good conclusions.

**Frazzled**

Hazardous Harry wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Not getting your point. Other than listing a common site for crime descriptions (interesting how the language is similar to historical crimes here) not seeing what your point is.

PROVOCATION

Provocation

The defence of provocation is only available to a person charged with assault and assault occasioning bodily harm. For a person who is charged with an assault to succeed in the defence of provocation, he or she must establish the following :

That the person was provoked into committing the assault
That the provocation deprived the person of their power of self-control:
That the person acted before their passion had time to cool:
The force used was not disproportionate to the provocation:
The force used was not intended, or was not likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm:
Provocation of a third party

A person may be able to rely on the defence of provocation, when another person is actually the person that the act of provocation is directed to. Examples include the parent, husband, wife, relative or carer defending against an assault to another.

Wow. I stand corrected.
Your law is barbarically Wild West. I love it. Its like Texas with better beer.
Now in Texas we have the "pissed off wife" doctrine, which basically states wives are permitted to exterminate, well pretty much any husband/BF if they employ the "he need killin' your honor" defense. It stems from ancient Mexican legal doctrine which translates loosely as "I'll cut your nuts off with this cleaver!" Mexican law is wise in understanding that the firey fairer sex cannot be controlled by mere laws.

Yes. If that person has a reasonable belief that they are going to die, suffer substantial harm, or another person is going to suffer substantial harm they can smear your brains on the wall. The facts of the case decide but as the immortabl bard said: its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. You may think about that the next time you get into a pushy shovie.

So what's the difference between Grievous Bodily Harm and Substantial Harm?

And really? You mean to say that, in the US, if someone gravely insults me and a loved one, and I invite them to settle the matter like men, then I'm still breaking the law?

In most states in the US yes. I don't know about Louisiana as thats a foreign country. Its probably legal for them to eat you there.
Now in my defense and in agreement with your almost Southern style legal code, in the real world, 'picking a fight" is going to make it extremely hard to claim self defense. However, to the letter of the law its not a real justification.

**Andrew1975**

dogma wrote:I won't lie, what you describe seems completely idiotic.

Well you think anyone not acting completely out of self interest is idiotic. So the second he joined the neighborhood watch you already label him an idiot.

**dogma**

Andrew1975 wrote:
Well you think anyone not acting completely out of self interest is idiotic. So the second he joined the neighborhood watch you already label him an idiot.

You cannot not act out of self-interest, pretending that you do is simply pretending; its a trick, a shadow on the wall.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:
Well you think anyone not acting completely out of self interest is idiotic. So the second he joined the neighborhood watch you already label him an idiot.

You cannot not act out of self-interest, pretending that you do is simply pretending; its a trick, a shadow on the wall.

Horse gak. Thats the argument of the pathological narcissist.

**Grakmar**

Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:
Well you think anyone not acting completely out of self interest is idiotic. So the second he joined the neighborhood watch you already label him an idiot.

You cannot not act out of self-interest, pretending that you do is simply pretending; its a trick, a shadow on the wall.

Horse gak. Thats the argument of the pathological narcissist.

No, it's totally true. The reason we do anything is out of complete self interest.

Fortunately, most of us get a positive feeling from helping others, so our self interest is actually helping others to feel good.

**Frazzled**

Grakmar wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:
Well you think anyone not acting completely out of self interest is idiotic. So the second he joined the neighborhood watch you already label him an idiot.

You cannot not act out of self-interest, pretending that you do is simply pretending; its a trick, a shadow on the wall.

Horse gak. Thats the argument of the pathological narcissist.

No, it's totally true. The reason we do anything is out of complete self interest.

Fortunately, most of us get a positive feeling from helping others, so our self interest is actually helping others to feel good.

No its totally false. We do things all the time that are not in our self interest. Maybe you don't. Others do.

**Grakmar**

Frazzled wrote:
Grakmar wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:
Well you think anyone not acting completely out of self interest is idiotic. So the second he joined the neighborhood watch you already label him an idiot.

You cannot not act out of self-interest, pretending that you do is simply pretending; its a trick, a shadow on the wall.

Horse gak. Thats the argument of the pathological narcissist.

No, it's totally true. The reason we do anything is out of complete self interest.

Fortunately, most of us get a positive feeling from helping others, so our self interest is actually helping others to feel good.

No its totally false. We do things all the time that are not in our self interest. Maybe you don't. Others do.

Name 1 thing you've ever done that has been 100% selfless.

**Frazzled**

Grakmar wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Grakmar wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:
Well you think anyone not acting completely out of self interest is idiotic. So the second he joined the neighborhood watch you already label him an idiot.

You cannot not act out of self-interest, pretending that you do is simply pretending; its a trick, a shadow on the wall.

Horse gak. Thats the argument of the pathological narcissist.

No, it's totally true. The reason we do anything is out of complete self interest.

Fortunately, most of us get a positive feeling from helping others, so our self interest is actually helping others to feel good.

No its totally false. We do things all the time that are not in our self interest. Maybe you don't. Others do.

Name 1 thing you've ever done that has been 100% selfless.

Saturday I paid for a guy two psaces up to get in to a gun range because he couldn't afford both himself and his adult child. I had no vested interest. he didn't know about it. Wasn't pleased or displeased. I just did it.

I held a door for someone today. I had no positive feeling or negative feeling. it didn't benefit me in any way.

I know its a vanighing concept, but sometimes people do things just because its the right thing to do.

**Grakmar**

Frazzled wrote:Saturday I paid for a guy two psaces up to get in to a gun range because he couldn't afford both himself and his adult child. I had no vested interest. he didn't know about it. Wasn't pleased or displeased. I just did it.

I held a door for someone today. I had no positive feeling or negative feeling. it didn't benefit me in any way.

I know its a vanighing concept, but sometimes people do things just because its the right thing to do.

Doing "the right thing" is just saying that you participate in a civil society and want to support it. You do this because you believe living in a civil society is beneficial for you.

There's nothing wrong with acting in self-interest. Being selfish keeps the world working.

**Andrew1975**

dogma wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:
Well you think anyone not acting completely out of self interest is idiotic. So the second he joined the neighborhood watch you already label him an idiot.

You cannot not act out of self-interest, pretending that you do is simply pretending; its a trick, a shadow on the wall.

Yes, yes there is no selfless act. Yawn. We have all read a book or two in the past. You always make people spell it out. You label him an idiot the instant his self interest includes the well being of others.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Horse gak. Thats the argument of the pathological narcissist.

Its a question of emphasis, sure, but ultimately you care for your daughter because you care for your daughter.

You may care for her because you think you should, but its still about you, not her.

**Frazzled**

Grakmar wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Saturday I paid for a guy two psaces up to get in to a gun range because he couldn't afford both himself and his adult child. I had no vested interest. he didn't know about it. Wasn't pleased or displeased. I just did it.

I held a door for someone today. I had no positive feeling or negative feeling. it didn't benefit me in any way.

I know its a vanighing concept, but sometimes people do things just because its the right thing to do.

Doing "the right thing" is just saying that you participate in a civil society and want to support it. You do this because you believe living in a civil society is beneficial for you.

There's nothing wrong with acting in self-interest. Being selfish keeps the world working.

My view on a "cvili society" could be considered unnatural...

As to everything else, we'll just have to agree to disagree, and by that I mean you couldn't be more wrong.

**dogma**

Andrew1975 wrote:You always make people spell it out.

Yes, I do, because apparently we're good at selectively forgetting things.

Andrew1975 wrote:
You label him an idiot the instant his self interest includes the well being of others.

That immediately contravenes what I said above.

I would label you an idiot for the statement you've just made.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Horse gak. Thats the argument of the pathological narcissist.

Its a question of emphasis, sure, but ultimately you care for your daughter because you care for your daughter.

You may care for her because you think you should, but its still about you, not her.

Er when did I mention my daughter??? Thats your sidestep not mine.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Er when did I mention my daughter??? Thats your sidestep not mine.

Its an illustration, not a sidestep.

**CptJake**

Pretty sure guys like SFC Paul Smith and SGT Rafael Peralta, and guys like Rick Rescorla can be said to have acted selflessly, or at least very much to the detriment of self to benefit others.

**dogma**

CptJake wrote:Pretty sure guys like SFC Paul Smith and SGT Rafael Peralta, and guys like Rick Rescorla can be said to have acted selflessly, or at least very much to the detriment of self to benefit others.

Which was entirely in their self interest, and that's even before we start asking what the self actually is.

**Andrew1975**

CptJake wrote:Pretty sure guys like SFC Paul Smith and SGT Rafael Peralta, and guys like Rick Rescorla can be said to have acted selflessly, or at least very much to the detriment of self to benefit others.

Well seeing as their self interest valued others lives above their own Dogma would label the idiots.

**reds8n**

We're well off topic and going nowhere fast it seems.

I'm sure the trial and hoopla will be riveting.