Justice for Trayvon??

[pete]

That's what I was thinking. This thread seems to have taken two tacks; one is the legal aspect, and the other is the racial aspect.

some people see race everywhere, for their own reasons.

i remember watching the oj simpson trial on tv in the office of a carpet company i was working for at the time.
when the verdict was read, the lone black guy's instant reaction was to cheer, which surprised us all. later when i asked him about it, he admitted that oj was more than likely guilty, but he still inherently felt good about the fact that oj "beat the system".

takes a long time for shit like that to work its way out of the cultural consciousness, i suppose

 

[Busybody]

To suggest that Zimmerman being put on trial for killing someone he admits killing is somehow a grave miscarriage of justice and PC-run-amok, is very, very odd.

It suggests there's something else involved for those doing the suggesting.

The police did an investigation and found he acted in self defense and then THEY were pressured to change their mind

YOU NOW THAT

So why is it ODD?

IT ISNT

ITS RACISM....NOTHING ELSE

 

[pete]

Remind me what Martin is on trial for.

instead i'll remind you that in a self-defense argument, the motives of the alleged assailant are part of the story.

 

[CHNOPS]

A day ago I made fun of the idiots that wanted to play the race card, as the evidence flipped their position. But holding up a mirror to people that stupid seems to have failed... Much like any logical conversation with you.

Why does the race card bother you? If he's not guilty, he's not guilty.

What is it about people seeing the case through a racial lens that makes you so uncomfortable?

Don't answer me, I don't care. But you'd do well to consider those questions on your own, before claiming some generous, overarching philosophical motive that was overtly false to everyone watching you, except yourself.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

instead i'll remind you that in a self-defense argument, the motives of the alleged assailant are part of the story.

What was Martin's motive?

 

[Busybody]

What was Martin's motive?

THUGGERY

Innate THUGGERY

 

[CHNOPS]

instead i'll remind you that in a self-defense argument, the motives of the alleged assailant are part of the story.

Motives, or actions?

If you want to stick with motives, since you're asserting it, you'll need to provide something other than your belief or desire that it be so.

You're claiming it. Show it to be true.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

The police did an investigation and found he acted in self defense and then THEY were pressured to change their mind

YOU NOW THAT

So why is it ODD?

IT ISNT

ITS RACISM....NOTHING ELSE

instead i'll remind you that in a self-defense argument, the motives of the alleged assailant are part of the story.

It is a waste of time. Some people you just cant reach...

 

[Peregrinator]

That's the strange part of this case. The way we find out if a killer's story is the correct one in this country--if someone is disputing it--is to have them tell it in front of a bunch of theoretically impartial people and see if it holds up. Being asked to do that is not an act of persecution, it's the very baseline application of our system.

To suggest that Zimmerman being put on trial for killing someone he admits killing is somehow a grave miscarriage of justice and PC-run-amok, is very, very odd.

It suggests there's something else involved for those doing the suggesting.

WRT your second 'graph, I'm not so sure. I guess I think of times when there's a justifiable reason to kill someone; if I caught someone assaulting Lady P and killed him, I'd be perfectly okay with saying, "Yeah, I killed him. He was attempting to harm my wife." Any subsequent court case would seem to me to be what you're calling "PC-run-amok." It would also seem to be a "grave miscarriage of justice." In that hypothetical, any prosecution does indeed seem odd. That said, there's so much political noise in this case that nothing seems odd any more.

In the end, I think I have no idea whether race or anything else played a part. It seems as though a neighborhood watch volunteer overstepped his bounds to a very small extent and then something fucking awful happened, with the result being a dead 17 year old kid. I'm not sure there's any satisfactory resolution here. Zimmerman in jail doesn't seem like it's going to make anything better. I'm not him, but I know that by this point I'd be seriously considering whether I had enough training and preparation for doing the neighborhood watch thing, and I'd almost certainly stop carrying a gun.

 

[Peregrinator]

Legally there is very little to suggest that Zimmerman is not telling the truth. In fact, it seems the abundance of evidence suggest he is.

Unfortunately that is not enough for some. Racism drives this case equally from both sides.

I agree with the first. It seems like it is what he says it is.

As to the second, I don't know. These things are nearly impossible to gauge. We're talking about knowing what someone was thinking, which is, obviously, impossible.

 

[pete]

Motives, or actions?

If you want to stick with motives, since you're asserting it, you'll need to provide something other than your belief or desire that it be so.

You're claiming it. Show it to be true.

good point, both motives AND actions are called into question in self-defense arguments.

but i'm not clear on what you're asking me. obviously neither i nor anyone here knows all the details about martin's actions, nor do we have enough info to speculate on his motives.

are you asking to supply proof that, in typical self-defense legal arguments, it's common for possible motives to be introduced?

 

[Peregrinator]

some people see race everywhere, for their own reasons.

i remember watching the oj simpson trial on tv in the office of a carpet company i was working for at the time.
when the verdict was read, the lone black guy's instant reaction was to cheer, which surprised us all. later when i asked him about it, he admitted that oj was more than likely guilty, but he still inherently felt good about the fact that oj "beat the system".

takes a long time for shit like that to work its way out of the cultural consciousness, i suppose

That's true, but I think it's a whole lot less prevalent than it's often presented to be. Both "sides" play the race card way more often than it's actually germane, I think.

 

[CHNOPS]

good point, both motives AND actions are called into question in self-defense arguments.

but i'm not clear on what you're asking me. obviously neither i nor anyone here knows all the details about martin's actions, nor do we have enough info to speculate on his motives.

are you asking to supply proof that, in typical self-defense legal arguments, it's common for possible motives to be introduced?

Show me that motives are part of the story in self-defense cases--that the character of the murdered party is legally permissible.

We can agree on actions. You are claiming something else. Show me something "real" that says you're right.

You may well be, but since it's your claim, you're going to have to establish it with something other than the mere saying of it.

 

[pete]

That's true, but I think it's a whole lot less prevalent than it's often presented to be. Both "sides" play the race card way more often than it's actually germane, I think.

what do you think of kanye west?

it seems to me that he intentionally fans the flame of racial prejudices for no other reason than to pad his bank account.

not to mention his blatant misogyny

 

[VaticanAssassin]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404

 

[Busybody]

It is a waste of time. Some people you just cant reach...

that's why they IGGY me

easier to do that, then admit they are LYING!

 

[CHNOPS]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404

Is this a Federal case?

 

[pete]

Show me that motives are part of the story in self-defense cases--that the character of the murdered party is legally permissible.

We can agree on actions. You are claiming something else. Show me something "real" that says you're right.

You may well be, but since it's your claim, you're going to have to establish it with something other than the mere saying of it.

here, i found this:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm
(in this definition, "motive" and "intent" are synonymous)

with regards to their past actions, i repeat what i said earlier that the histories of both men are irrelevant.

i've watched a few televised courtroom self-defense trials where character history of the alleged attacker was brought up, so i know it happens. but not being a lawyer you'll have to forgive me if i can't provide you with a technical description of how that comes to be, or specific case examples.

 

[Wrong Element]

WRT your second 'graph, I'm not so sure. I guess I think of times when there's a justifiable reason to kill someone; if I caught someone assaulting Lady P and killed him, I'd be perfectly okay with saying, "Yeah, I killed him. He was attempting to harm my wife." Any subsequent court case would seem to me to be what you're calling "PC-run-amok." It would also seem to be a "grave miscarriage of justice." In that hypothetical, any prosecution does indeed seem odd.

Well, sure. If Zimmerman had shot Martin in his house, I don't think we'd have much of a case here.

But my guess there aren't too many instances where

1.an armed person with a police record
2.shoots an unarmed person who has no police record
3. on a public street

where the shooter either doesn't go on trial or is forced to plead guilty to something.

For all the talk about who is overly race-conscious here, it's obvious race is the only reason Zimmerman has any support at all. I've seen more comments in this thread praising a criminal defendant than in the entire prior history of the GB put together.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Is this a Federal case?

If you want to think the general federal laws are not similar to the states that will have their own laws, than it will be up to you to show me they are not.

 

[CHNOPS]

here, i found this:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm
(in this definition, "motive" and "intent" are synonymous)

with regards to their past actions, i repeat what i said earlier that the histories of both men are irrelevant.

i've watched a few televised courtroom self-defense trials where character history of the alleged attacker was brought up, so i know it happens. but not being a lawyer you'll have to forgive me if i can't provide you with a technical description of how that comes to be, or specific case examples.

That link says nothing about the use of "motives" or "background." It talks about when you can use deadly force to defend yourself, and the limits of any force you do use.

It's great that you've watched stuff on TV, but that doesn't really back up your assertion. Were they in Florida? Were the circumstances similar? Was the attempt to introduce it allowed? Was it relevant?

You're ducking. I wish you wouldn't. We can agree that "actions" are relevant. You've gone to the mat for "motives," though, and it's polluting the point. Why not stick to what's actual, instead of what you wish were in order for some earlier statement you made to hold up?

 

[CHNOPS]

If you want to think the general federal laws are not similar to the states that will have their own laws, than it will be up to you to show me they are not.

Wouldn't it be great if life worked that way?

Alas, it doesn't. You're welcome to find relevant evidence and try again. Hoping I will do it for you, though, is the least constructive way to go about it.

 

[CHNOPS]

Well, sure. If Zimmerman had shot Martin in his house, I don't think we'd have much of a case here.

But my guess there aren't too many instances where

1.an armed person with a police record
2.shoots an unarmed person who has no police record
3. on a public street

where the shooter either doesn't go on trial or is forced to plead guilty to something.

For all the talk about who is overly race-conscious here, it's obvious race is the only reason Zimmerman has any support at all. I've seen more comments in this thread praising a criminal defendant than in the entire prior history of the GB put together.

I have a crush on this post.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

You may well be, but since it's your claim, you're going to have to establish it with something other than the mere saying of it.

Wouldn't it be great if life worked that way?

Alas, it doesn't. You're welcome to find relevant evidence and try again. Hoping I will do it for you, though, is the least constructive way to go about it.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

The police did an investigation and found he acted in self defense and then THEY were pressured to change their mind

YOU NOW THAT

So why is it ODD?

IT ISNT

ITS RACISM....NOTHING ELSE

Well, sure. If Zimmerman had shot Martin in his house, I don't think we'd have much of a case here.

But my guess there aren't too many instances where

1.an armed person with a police record
2.shoots an unarmed person who has no police record
3. on a public street

where the shooter either doesn't go on trial or is forced to plead guilty to something.

For all the talk about who is overly race-conscious here, it's obvious race is the only reason Zimmerman has any support at all. I've seen more comments in this thread praising a criminal defendant than in the entire prior history of the GB put together.

I think BB does a pretty good job pointing out the error of your post.