Justice for Trayvon??

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

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.

Youre fulla shit. Intent and motive are different as dicks and tits. For example: Toil is the motive for fatigue, futility is the motive for depression, threat is the motive for fear. Intent is a decision. Think of motive as CAUSE.

Criminal history is relevant for sentencing. And every court on the planet accepts historical facts to support or refute criminal charges. To wit: Judge Nelson allowed the prosecutor to play five police calls Zimmerman made to report suspicious blacks. And the prosecutor told the jury about Zimmermans assault charge (dropped).

What you cannot do is offer prior convictions and arrests for cause & effect proof.

 

[pete]

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?

you're a faster reader than i am, it took me 8 or 9 minutes to read that entire thing. unless you skimmed it...

you're trying to pick a fight on specifics and semantics, when i was making a general point, that motives are brought up in self-defense cases.
are they brought up every time? who the f knows? is every self-defense case the same? obviously not. what is and what isn't admissable isn't set in stone, lawyers make arguments for it on a case-by-case basis.

 

[CHNOPS]

You are welcome to use as many emoticons as you'd like, but I'm afraid it doesn't get you any closer to being correct. It's YOUR claim that the character of the dead man is relevant to the case. Posting federal legal guidelines does not support that claim, as it's not being held in federal court. Asking me to make the connection for you is understandable, since you don't seem to be able to bear it out on your own, but I'm afraid it's also not going to happen.

Again, you're welcome to find better evidence. Until you do, I guess we can look forward to a continued series of emoticons in its place.

 

[koalabear]

Have they found Zimmerman not guilty yet?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

You are welcome to use as many emoticons as you'd like, but I'm afraid it doesn't get you any closer to being correct. It's YOUR claim that the character of the dead man is relevant to the case. Posting federal legal guidelines does not support that claim, as it's not being held in federal court. Asking me to make the connection for you is understandable, since you don't seem to be able to bear it out on your own, but I'm afraid it's also not going to happen.

Again, you're welcome to find better evidence. Until you do, I guess we can look forward to a continued series of emoticons in its place.

Can you see the first thing wrong with this post?

When you go stupid you go all the way huh?

 

[CHNOPS]

you're a faster reader than i am, it took me 8 or 9 minutes to read that entire thing. unless you skimmed it...

you're trying to pick a fight on specifics and semantics, when i was making a general point, that motives are brought up in self-defense cases.
are they brought up every time? who the f knows? is every self-defense case the same? obviously not. what is and what isn't admissable isn't set in stone, lawyers make arguments for it on a case-by-case basis.

In fact, I am not making an argument on semantics. Motives and actions are entirely different. You are claiming motives are relevant. I have asked you to show that this is correct. The difficulty you're having doing so, should tell you something.

For what it's worth, I am, in fact, a fast reader. But it became very clear, very quickly, that that reference had nothing to do with the claim you made. In fact, if you read down to the bottom, it could potentially hurt Zimmerman's case.

Why not just cop to the overstatement? It would be much more constructive than trying to thread the needle on something that has no thread, and no needle.

 

[chillywilly2]

Have they found Zimmerman not guilty yet?

months ago...now the lawyers are getting theirs before they let the jury tell us

 

[pete]

Youre fulla shit. Intent and motive are different as dicks and tits. For example: Toil is the motive for fatigue, futility is the motive for depression, threat is the motive for fear. Intent is a decision. Think of motive as CAUSE.

Criminal history is relevant for sentencing. And every court on the planet accepts historical facts to support or refute criminal charges. To wit: Judge Nelson allowed the prosecutor to play five police calls Zimmerman made to report suspicious blacks. And the prosecutor told the jury about Zimmermans assault charge (dropped).

What you cannot do is offer prior convictions and arrests for cause & effect proof.

you might be on to something, my wife often says i'm fulla shit.

and i'm a layman, when i say motive i mean intent, to me they're synonymous.

and when i say their histories are irrelevant, i mean they're irrelevant *to me*.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Have they found Zimmerman not guilty yet?

Obama and Holder are warming up for the civil rights charges that follow.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Can you see the first thing wrong with this post?

When you go stupid you go all the way huh?

Can't answer him, can you?

So you get all pissy and are now trying to get him to play defense to avoid having to answer his question.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Obama and Holder are warming up for the civil rights charges that follow.

Tell us more about these black helicopters.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

you might be on to something, my wife often says i'm fulla shit.

and i'm a layman, when i say motive i mean intent, to me they're synonymous.

and when i say their histories are irrelevant, i mean they're irrelevant *to me*.

I usta believe that till I took a motivation course. Its all about what exactly lets the dawg out, intent is about how you get him back inside the house.

 

[CHNOPS]

Can you see the first thing wrong with this post?

When you go stupid you go all the way huh?

I see you've gone with name-calling this time. You can do so all day if you'd like. But wouldn't it be better, if you're right, to show me that you are? Wouldn't that accomplish what all the emoticons and names in the world can't do?

 

[Peregrinator]

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.

This post is food for thought, for sure. I don't know if I fall into the category of "Zimmerman supporters," but it seems to me that he's guilty of a gross error in judgment, not necessarily a crime. I'd feel the same way, I think, if they were both Chinese.

 

[CHNOPS]

Can't answer him, can you?

So you get all pissy and are now trying to get him to play defense to avoid having to answer his question.

In 7 years on lit, and 47 years of real life, I have never once been dumb enough to play "prove the negative." It's sweet that he thinks I'll be his first. But if he wants my attention as bad he seems to, the way to get it is to lead with information.

There may well be some out there. But as yet, none of those playing the "character of the victim" card has bothered to present it. I find that telling.

 

[koalabear]

This post is food for thought, for sure. I don't know if I fall into the category of "Zimmerman supporters," but it seems to me that he's guilty of a gross error in judgment, not necessarily a crime. I'd feel the same way, I think, if they were both Chinese.

If it were in Chicago no one would notice.

 

[pete]

In fact, I am not making an argument on semantics. Motives and actions are entirely different. You are claiming motives are relevant. I have asked you to show that this is correct. The difficulty you're having doing so, should tell you something.

For what it's worth, I am, in fact, a fast reader. But it became very clear, very quickly, that that reference had nothing to do with the claim you made. In fact, if you read down to the bottom, it could potentially hurt Zimmerman's case.

Why not just cop to the overstatement? It would be much more constructive than trying to thread the needle on something that has no thread, and no needle.

actually i never claimed that motives were relevant, i said they're brought into question, meaning that they're argued as a factor. in truth, i feel that motives (as related to their histories) shouldn't matter at all. but i'm well aware that it happens.

and i spent less than 30 seconds in research, because i'm at my job so that sorta takes precedence. i can argue from the standpoint of logic and experience much easier.

i don't know what will or won't hurt zimmerman's case, and i won't have any opinion or feelings on whatever the outcome may be.

my statement was general, and most general statements do have an element of being sweeping. (there i go again).
does that satisfy you?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

I see you've gone with name-calling this time. You can do so all day if you'd like. But wouldn't it be better, if you're right, to show me that you are? Wouldn't that accomplish what all the emoticons and names in the world can't do?

Shall I slow down and explain it for you one more time?

You asserted I made a claim. I clearly did not.

If you think federal and state law or not based on the same principals as relevant to Pete's claims.....well, it is not my Job to try to educate you. There simply is not enough time in the day I am afraid.

 

[CHNOPS]

Shall I slow down and explain it for you one more time?

You asserted I made a claim. I clearly did not.

If you think federal and state law or not based on the same principals as relevant to Pete's claims.....well, it is not my Job to try to educate you. There simply is not enough time in the day I am afraid.

Do you think that Martin's character is relevant to the case?

 

[CHNOPS]

actually i never claimed that motives were relevant, i said they're brought into question, meaning that they're argued as a factor. in truth, i feel that motives (as related to their histories) shouldn't matter at all. but i'm well aware that it happens.

and i spent less than 30 seconds in research, because i'm at my job so that sorta takes precedence. i can argue from the standpoint of logic and experience much easier.

i don't know what will or won't hurt zimmerman's case, and i won't have any opinion or feelings on whatever the outcome may be.

my statement was general, and most general statements do have an element of being sweeping. (there i go again).
does that satisfy you?

This is a mess.

 

[pete]

This is a mess.

it seriously is, you're costing me countless minutes of boob-gawking!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

In 7 years on lit, and 47 years of real life, I have never once been dumb enough to play "prove the negative." It's sweet that he thinks I'll be his first. But if he wants my attention as bad he seems to, the way to get it is to lead with information.

There may well be some out there. But as yet, none of those playing the "character of the victim" card has bothered to present it. I find that telling.

If Trayvon had one redeeming quality the prosecution woulda presented it. No scout leaders, no clergy, no teacher or principal testimonials at all.

 

[Busybody]

the (lack of) character of the dead "person" is

of

significance

as is that of ZIM

a THUG vs A CIVIC MINDED COMMUNITY ORGANIZER

who side would YOU be on?

 

[pete]

If Trayvon had one redeeming quality the prosecution woulda presented it. No scout leaders, no clergy, no teacher or principal testimonials at all.

so if his entire boy scout troop testified that he was a great boy scout, that would have made a difference?

 

[Busybody]

so if his entire boy scout troop testified that he was a great boy scout, that would have made a difference?

yes

BUT THEY DIDNT

No one said ANYTHING nice

right?