Judge revokes Zimmerman's bond

[BRUTALITOPS]

So what have we learned today?

Following someone - not illegal
Beating someone up for following you - illegal
Shooting someone for beating you up, because you followed them: legal, and morally justifiable

 

[CanceledB]

I am using "Assault" in place of having to type out "Assault and battery"/"aggravated assault"/"assault and battery" etc. It's just an easier shorthand.

Well that's because you're ignorant of the fact that assault comes before battery, and can stand alone; it doesn't have to be followed by battery. You need to look it up so you can understand why I keep grinding you on this detail.

Believe it or not, that's how our entire judicial system is structured. Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty. So far, I haven't seen much evidence that points to him being guilty of anything.

I'm aware of that. Until the trial begins and a jury renders its verdict, he is for all intents and purposes 'innocent' and is living as such. All that is being done here by all who weigh in is assessing what is known and asserting an opinion based on that. That is all you're doing as well.

Not only are you not immune to bias-based speculations, such bias is unavoidable.

My opinion is actually based on something, not just pulled out of thin air because it's what I want to believe. Also, my opinion is more relevant, because if it's a tie, then he must be found not guilty. Which is my overarching contention, that zimmerman is not guilty of what he is being accused of. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and by proxy, yourself, to prove his guilt.

See above.

 

[The Dude]

Zimmerman felt threatened in his car. I hope they fry that bastard NRA nut!

 

[CanceledB]

I know it has influenced juries before.

It should.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Well that's because you're ignorant of the fact that assault comes before battery, and can stand alone; it doesn't have to be followed by battery. You need to look it up so you can understand why I keep grinding you on this detail.

I am well aware of this, I discussed it in the previous thread you brought it up in. It's shorthand, as I have already explained, many times.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

I do believe it's taco time.

Fuck the haters \o/

 

[CanceledB]

I am well aware of this, I discussed it in the previous thread you brought it up in. It's shorthand, as I have already explained, many times.

Yes - you told me what YOU think it means, and the way YOU are using it. Your use of it ignores the legal definition that doesn't require physical contact and how it could likely be that Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon Martin, not the other way around.

Educate yourself, KingofCats.

 

[Phantasmal]

well as I stated, it might have just been an oversight. I dont' believe zimmerman would try to purposely hide something knowing the media would be all up his ass. In any case, i think it's pretty much a non-issue, as assuming he's dead guilty on lying about bond, it seems pretty reasonable one would want to get the best price for their freedom. Using that to impugne someones character is silly.

You know what I think, I think Zimmerman thinks he is smarter than the system. I believe that Zimmerman thought he would give his version of the story, the police would believe him and he would never be brought to trial because of the stand your ground law. I think he thinks he is smarter than the law.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Yes - you told me what YOU think it means, and the way YOU are using it. Your use of it ignores the legal definition that doesn't require physical contact and how it could likely be that Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon Martin, not the other way around.

Educate yourself, KingofCats.

language is a fluid construct, and it is used in a variety of contexts all the time. It's so silly that you continue to harp on this, and suggest I educate myself, when I have already informed you that I am well aware of what the legal definition of assault is. It shows the insecurity in your overall position that this is somehow your crowning argument.

There are also non-legal definations of assault, which further bolster my claim that I am still using the word in a useful context:

as·sault
verb 5. to make an assault upon; attack; assail.

source: dictionary.com

I have also often used the term "aggravated assault", which IS a legal term, and pretty much describes the situation with trayvon:

A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he or she attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another or causes such injury purposely, knowingly, or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life

We can go on and on.​

 

[Phantasmal]

I do believe it's taco time.

Fuck the haters \o/

I think you believe Zimmerman is innocent because of your love for tacos. Thanks for the conversation!

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

I think you believe Zimmerman is innocent because of your love for tacos. Thanks for the conversation!

this is what I have been saying THE ENTIRE TIME! geez!

 

[CanceledB]

language is a fluid construct, and it is used in a variety of contexts all the time. It's so silly that you continue to harp on this, and suggest I educate myself, when I have already informed you that I am well aware of what the legal definition of assault is. It shows the insecurity in your overall position that this is somehow your crowning argument.

We wouldn't need to go on and on if you merely took the time to learn something that you erroneously assert you already know. There's nothing silly at all about my grinding you about this, because it's quite pertinent regarding 'self-defense'.

Your refusal to educate yourself on the legal definition of the word and its implication reveal that you mind is completely closed to the idea that you may be wrong about Zimmerman.

There are also non-legal definations of assault, which further bolster my claim that I am still using the word in a useful context:

as·sault
verb 5. to make an assault upon; attack; assail.

source: dictionary.com​

That's nice. I think it's safe to say that during a murder trial, they'll be using the legal definition, ya think?

I have also often used the term "aggravated assault", which IS a legal term, and pretty much describes the situation with trayvon:

A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he or she attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another or causes such injury purposely, knowingly, or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life

Super.

And here's the legal definition for assault without physical contact:

In criminal and tort law, an act, usually consisting of a threat or attempt to inflict bodily injury upon another person, coupled with the apparent present ability to succeed in carrying out the threat or the attempt if not prevented, that causes the person to have a reasonable fear or apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause battery or the fear or apprehension is required so long as the victim is placed in reasonable apprehension or fear. No actual physical injury is needed to establish an assault, but if there is any physical contact, the act constitutes both an assault and a battery.

[my emphasis]

http://law.yourdictionary.com/assault

That certainly puts a different spin on things, doesn't it?

Martin knew he was being followed; according to his girlfriend, he was uneasy about it.

Only one of them can claim self-defense. (obviously Martin can't 'claim' anything because he's now dead but the prosecutors will, when they present their case).​

 

[Althea]

Man...is that a stretch.....how do you know he didn't lie to the dispatcher instead....???
He wasn't under oath then.......

Thats laughable.....

Why would he lie to the dispatcher? Now contrast that with why he chose to lie under oath.

Laughable, indeed.

 

[NOVA]

Why would he lie to the dispatcher? Now contrast that with why he chose to lie under oath.

Laughable, indeed.

Why would he lie under oath.....he ain't no Bill Clinton.....


Its obvious, his perception of Martin at a distance changed after he saw him up closed, real close.

 

[NOVA]

Martin knew he was being followed; according to his girlfriend, he was uneasy about it.

Only one of them can claim self-defense. (obviously Martin can't 'claim' anything because he's now dead but the prosecutors will, when they present their case).

According to his girlfriend ?...and she has no reason to fudge her perception of events, huh ?

If Martin was so uneasy, I have to wonder why he didn't just go to his destination....3 or 4 houses away from where he was.....

Why do the lot of you have so much of a problem waiting for evidence to be presented so we know what might have happened....?

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

We wouldn't need to go on and on if you merely took the time to learn something that you erroneously assert you already know. There's nothing silly at all about my grinding you about this, because it's quite pertinent regarding 'self-defense'.

Your refusal to educate yourself on the legal definition of the word and its implication reveal that you mind is completely closed to the idea that you may be wrong about Zimmerman.

at this point you are being deliberately obtuse. Even if I were wrong on my definitions (which I am not, because I have already been abundantly clear I am not always speaking of legal definitions, but shorthand) you would still know exactly the context of what it is I am saying.

 

[CanceledB]

at this point you are being deliberately obtuse. Even if I were wrong on my definitions (which I am not, because I have already been abundantly clear I am not always speaking of legal definitions, but shorthand) you would still know exactly the context of what it is I am saying.

I'm not being obtuse; you're accusing me of deliberate obtuseness so you don't have to address the notion that Martin has the right to claim self defense because Zimmerman assaulted* him, not the other way around - and I will continue bringing it up until you do address it, or you run away from the discussion, whichever comes first.

I grasp the context of what you're saying. You're refusing to discuss the legal term for 'assault' as it pertains to Martin, because you're unwilling to part with your speculation that Zimmerman was the victim of aggravated assault.

*assault in the LEGAL sense, without physical contact. All that is required to constitute assault is the THREAT of attack, or the perceived threat.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

*assault in the LEGAL sense, without physical contact. All that is required to constitute assault is the THREAT of attack, or the perceived threat.

there is no evidence zimmerman committed assault on trayvon. There is evidence trayvon committed aggravated assault (legal term) or colloquial assault (dictionary). (See how annoying this is?)

Trayvon being in fear, is not enough to meet the criteria of assault. Otherwise, you could have anyone anywhere claim to be afraid of somebody, and then that person would have assaulted the other.

Which brings us full circle, there is no evidence zimmerman committed a crime with trayvon before trayvon lashed out with physical violence.

 

[CanceledB]

there is no evidence zimmerman committed assault on trayvon.

Yes there is. The prosecution seems to think so, and the testimony of Martin's girlfriend regarding the phone conversation she was having with him while Zimmerman was following him is significant.

There is evidence trayvon committed aggravated assault (legal term) or colloquial assault (dictionary). (See how annoying this is?)

It's not annoying, but it is unnecessary, were you to simply stick with the legal definitions of the terms.

Trayvon being in fear, is not enough to meet the criteria of assault.

Incorrect. Trayvon being in fear, based on a perceived threat, is all that is necessary to meet the criteria for assault.

Otherwise, you could have anyone anywhere claim to be afraid of somebody, and then that person would have assaulted the other.

Yes, that's correct - and if you were compelled to press charges for assault, you then must prove that you've been assaulted.

Which brings us full circle, there is no evidence zimmerman committed a crime with trayvon before trayvon lashed out with physical violence.

Yes there is evidence. The phone call with the girlfriend and her description of Martin's state of mind regarding being followed. And the prosecution has other evidence we aren't aware of. Also, at this point, there has been no reason to question the girlfriend's credibility. Unfortunately, Zimmerman's credibility is now dubious. Those factors hinging solely on Zimmerman's account will carry less persuasive weight as a result.

It's clear that none of anything I've written or explained has any impact on your immovable stance, however, it's all still noteworthy because Zimmerman's acquittal will hinge on proving that he acted in self-defense, and that assertion goes up in smoke if the prosecution can convince a jury that it is Martin who acted in self-defense, based on being assaulted first (legal definition - the 'threat-without-physical-contact' kind) by Zimmerman.

Only one of them acted in self-defense.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Yes there is. The prosecution seems to think so, and the testimony of Martin's girlfriend regarding the phone conversation she was having with him while Zimmerman was following him is significant.

Really? why didn't they charge him with assault as well?

What does trayvon martins girlfriend say? Intent is what constitutes assault, not the possible unreasonable fear of another party.

Incorrect. Trayvon being in fear, based on a perceived threat, is all that is necessary to meet the criteria for assault.

Nope, you are incorrect:

"

The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.Intent is an essential element of assault."

Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault

We have no evidence an assault occurred. ​

Yes, that's correct - and you then must prove that you've been assaulted.

Wrong, see above.

Yes there is evidence.

ook . . im with you so far

And the prosecution has other evidence we aren't aware of.

so... we have no evidence. How about we stick to what we know right now, rather than what you think the prosecution MAY have?

Also, at this point, there has been no reason to question the girlfriend's credibility.

Zimmermans family probably thinks he's innocent. FYI.

It's clear that none of anything I've written or explained has any impact on your immovable stance,

oh dear, you've figured me out quicker than others have

if the prosecution can convince a jury that it is Martin who acted in self-defense, based on being assaulted (legal definition - the 'threat-without-physical-contact' kind) by Zimmerman.

Where are you getting this from? The prosecution hasn't charged zimmerman with assaulting trayvon. They are trying him for second degree murder. Secondly, even if one initiates physical contact, your response still must be measured. If you respond with too much force, the ball is put back in the other persons court.

Only one of them acted in self-defense.

it sure wasn't trayvon.