Second degree murder

poet said:
WTF? A boy is dead. The fact that he was a "black boy", and you, obviously, could care less, says more about your racism than it does mine. Social pressure? How about societal outrage, at a senseless, unnecessary murder? I should be able to walk down a street, at night, anywhere, without someone thinking I'm up to no good, and deserved to be killed.
Click to expand...
what you need to do is shut the fuck up. your idiocy is starting to cross the bounds of all rational and intelligent thought. The fact that I didn't mention race at all, yet you can focus on nothing but race, says you're a flat out racist piece of trailer trash that should stick to poetry because you obviously can't talk about anything else with any modicum of intelligence.

poet said:
Just the facts ma'am. You wanted to suggest that the popular outcry for justice for the Martin family was tantamount to "a lynching". Ridiculous, on its' face and conceptually.
Revenge? Which I liken to reparations for slavery. I don't want your pathetic reparations, and I'm not seeking revenge. First of all, there isn't enough gold in Fort Knox, to satisfy the debt...so, I forgive you the debt, which would be akin to "blood money" anyway, adding gross insult to gross injury to the memory of my ancestors. Keep it. You need it more than I. Revenge? What good is revenge if you don't learn a lesson? Bask in the collective guilt, until your last day. Rue the day, you were born white. That would be revenge.
Click to expand...
again, racist, show the board here where I've made racist comments. on top of that, why don't you try showing the board where you HAVE NOT made a racist comment. I'm betting that you can't, ever.
 
Derp Derp said:
What appaled me about this case was that it was apparent that Zimmerman was spoiling for a confrontation and when one occurred a young man lost his life. At the very least Zimmerman should be held accountable for his actions via due process of law. Let justice be done. If they system exonerates him, fine. I can live with that, as long as justice and the rule of law have been applied. What appalled me was that they were willing to let Zimmerman walk scott free, after taking a prescious human life, with out what most people believe warranted due process of law. Now that Mr. Zimmerman has been charged and arraigned and will have to account for his behavior I am satisfied and I can live with the decision a jury makes about his fate.

I think this is what most people are concerned about. It's not about whether Zimmerman is quilty or not of 2nd/3rd degree murder it's that he was just let go free cause someone didn't feel they had a case after he took a young mans life. That is what appalled me. Mr. Zimmerman will now face justice. I am satisfied. Not matter what the jury decides.
Click to expand...
what bullshit. all social outrages should be put in front of a jury to determine justice? fuck the law? now look who wants to throw our society back to the dark ages, you idiots who still continue to use the term 'stalking' as if anyone following anyone is stalking. pure unadulterated bullshit.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I would say that the justice system in this country has failed, miserably. It would mean that with enough social pressure, anyone can be tried for murder and have their life ruined (which has happened for years anyway), whether enough evidence existed to prove it or not. It would also mean that the inevitable push towards the big brother society that nobody 'supposedly' wants, is going to happen, regardless. In order to prevent anyone from using 'self defense' claims as a cover to murder, we'll have thousands upon thousands more surveillance cameras for the government to 'keep us safe'. you watch, it will happen.

so it's not about fairness and equality, it's about racial revenge for you. and you say you're not racist. LOL
Click to expand...


Let's be clear now...Zimmerman did in fact MURDER another human being.

Legal technicalities and deliberate obfuscation of the facts by the defense will be what gets him acquitted.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you are wrong. i've discussed this with a few lawyers and they've all said that if you walk away from a verbal confrontation, that confrontation is over. the other person can not then decide his life is in danger.
Click to expand...

Not buying it.

If you instigate a confrontation and then decide you're too scared or you're not as angry as you thought or whatever, then you don't just get to wave your hands and call time out and walk away as though nothing ever happened.

If the other person, the person confronted, felt threatened, he has s right to defend himself.
 
Derp Derp said:
I really don't have an axe to grind (Sorry Grind) on whether Zimmerman is convicted or not. I don't know all the facts and I'm not going to be sitting on the jury. What appaled me about this case was that it was apparent that Zimmerman was spoiling for a confrontation and when one occurred a young man lost his life. At the very least Zimmerman should be held accountable for his actions via due process of law. Let justice be done. If they system exonerates him, fine. I can live with that, as long as justice and the rule of law have been applied. What appalled me was that they were willing to let Zimmerman walk scott free, after taking a prescious human life, with out what most people believe warranted due process of law. Now that Mr. Zimmerman has been charged and arraigned and will have to account for his behavior I am satisfied and I can live with the decision a jury makes about his fate.

I think this is what most people are concerned about. It's not about whether Zimmerman is quilty or not of 2nd/3rd degree murder it's that he was just let go free cause someone didn't feel they had a case after he took a young mans life. That is what appalled me. Mr. Zimmerman will now face justice. I am satisfied. Not matter what the jury decides.
Click to expand...

Precisely. The outcry was over the lack of an investigation. The guy just walked away never having to face accountability for his actions. When the dead guy is drug tested and the shooter isn't - guess what? That's a pretty big clue that something is wrong. If Martin had been on drugs, or had a drink, can you imagine? We know he wasn't. How do we know? His dead body was tested. The shooter, alive and well, didn't get so much as a breathalyzer. He could have been smashed, or stoned, and we'll never know it. So no matter how this turns out, the fact that this wasn't investigated properly right at the point it occurred, will always remain a problem. I believe individuals are being investigated though, and maybe they will be thrown out with the trash so they can't screw up another investigation. I guess that will depend on what is found.

Now that Zimmerman is facing charges, even though there will never be any excuse for the fact that the cops let him walk that night so we will never know so many things that we should have known, at this point, that is the best we can have. If he is found not guilty and he is in fact guilty, well, he won't be the first guy who ever got away with murder. Or the last. That's how our system works. It's not perfect, but it does, at its best, demand accountability. So I'm okay with that. I'm not spending the next 6 months, a year, whatever, talking about this in the manner of "well, what if..." Let the system work.

And never forget - Trayvon Martin never got a trial. He got a bullet.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Not buying it.

If you instigate a confrontation and then decide you're too scared or you're not as angry as you thought or whatever, then you don't just get to wave your hands and call time out and walk away as though nothing ever happened.

If the other person, the person confronted, felt threatened, he has s right to defend himself.
Click to expand...
I don't care if you buy it. If you and I get in to a shouting match that I started, and I walk away, you do not get to shoot me in the back. THAT is murder. If I walk away 'without laying a finger on you', you do not get a legitimate claim of self defense. If, after I walk away, and you then initiate another confrontation, I can then claim self defense.
 
Cynic said:
no it's not ironic. when things are murky, our country and our judicial system defaults to finding one not guilty. The impetus is on those that claim zimmerman murdered trayvon to provide definitive evidence.
Click to expand...

No further evidence is required...Zimmerman did indeed MURDER Trayvon Martin.

You Zimmerman fans and his defense team have done nothing but cite one legal technicality after another, to excuse his murder of another and in order to muddy the picture and make a conviction that much harder to get.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I don't care if you buy it. If you and I get in to a shouting match that I started, and I walk away, you do not get to shoot me in the back. THAT is murder. If I walk away 'without laying a finger on you', you do not get a legitimate claim of self defense. If, after I walk away, and you then initiate another confrontation, I can then claim self defense.
Click to expand...

Wrong again...

http://www.self-defender.net/law2.htm


776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.[/QUOTE]
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Wrong again...

http://www.self-defender.net/law2.htm


776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
Click to expand...

zappa, you're not reading this correctly. you're not taking in to account that the original initiator is now trying to break off from the confrontation. the part that you're bolding means that I can't walk up in front of you and spit in your face while I relate to you how your wife bent over and let my dog do her from behind, or something equally as repulsive in order to elicit a violent response from you so I can 'defend' myself. that is all that means. the second I back down or try to walk away, the bolded portion no longer applies.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
zappa, you're not reading this correctly. you're not taking in to account that the original initiator is now trying to break off from the confrontation. the part that you're bolding means that I can't walk up in front of you and spit in your face while I relate to you how your wife bent over and let my dog do her from behind, or something equally as repulsive in order to elicit a violent response from you so I can 'defend' myself. that is all that means. the second I back down or try to walk away, the bolded portion no longer applies.
Click to expand...


Sorry...you're wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top