Trayvon Martin, One year later

[Johan]

Let us cut thru the bullshit here. Exactly what did Zimmerman do that entitled Martin to give him a free beating?

Who said he was entitled to a free beating? No one has implied that. If Zimmerman was attacked, he had a right to defend himself. He did not have the right to kill over a bloody nose and the law says so.

Doesn't matter. We aren't talking about Martin popping him in the mouth and moving on. He administered a BEATING.

And you can prove that how exactly? One single punch can render a bloody nose. So can tripping and falling on the sidewalk. So can whacking yourself in the nose with the butt of your own gun. So can lots of other things.

I am not implying that any of those things happened nor would I imply same because I have no proof of any of them. But I also have no proof that any of them didn't happen. So where is your proof that Martin administered a BEATING? Witness statements contradict one another and other evidence is inconclusive. So where is the proof that makes you so sure this is exactly what happened?

That's just stupid. It's amazing, the speculative hypothetical what if situations you concoct in order to square the circle. Really, he tripped? Or he beat himself up? So he decided to shoot someone?

Yeah that makes sense. Do you really think this would stand up in court? We don't get to make just any story we like.

You know the police an tell if injuries like that are self inflicted. Do you have any reason, other than your own flight of fancy, to believe that? It's amusing that every rebuttal only seems to hypothetically address one aspect of the situation, while ignoring all the rest.

There is a lot faith going on here. You'd make an excellent Christian. The parallels to so many theistic arguments I have seen here are uncanny. It's funny

How's that book on reading comprehension coming along? I NEVER said I believed any of those things. In fact I said I have no proof of any of them INCLUDING him being beaten by Martin. I then asked what proof you have that Martin beat him as opposed to hitting him once or twice and then jumping on top of him. You completely ignored that question yet again so I will assume your proof is none.

Then you point your finger at me and say I believe only hypotheticals with no proof (which I don't) and then compare me to a Christian for doing it. And yet, you yourself believe a hypothetical with no solid proof other than the claims of man who would likely face a murder charge if he didn't make such claims. The witness statements are inconsistent and contradicting. And yet you're sure Zimmerman received a BEATING. Not a beating but a BEATING. So of the two of us, which one is believing hypotheticals without solid proof and which one is saying I'd like proof before I believe anything?

This guy looks like he was beaten:



This guy does not look like someone who was ever in any danger of being beaten to death to me.



So let me be clear on this. I believe the evidence presented so far that Zimmerman was being beaten such that he could reasonably feel his life was in danger is simply insufficient. I believe the evidence presented so far that Zimmerman was attacked without provocation is insufficient. There is as much evidence which points to Zimmerman having reasonable fear for his own life as there is for Zimmerman over reacting and making an extremely poor choice. Lacking more compelling evidence either way, I suspect he will not be convicted of anything. But if you're asking me to believe he was being beaten such that he felt he life was in danger, well sorry I just don't see that based on any evidence presented so far. I'd say at best its possible but not likely. But like said, since no one seems to be able to prove that he just overreacted, I suspect he will walk.

[Johan]

[blink:e9puzt2j]1[/blink:e9puzt2j]

Is there any point to continuing this thread?

Well for me, I think this case clearly illustrates some of the reasons why stand your ground laws need to be very clearly written and relatively narrow in focus. Anytime you create legislation which makes it legal for one person to take the life of another, you have the potential for creating legal loopholes which allow a person to get away with either manslaughter or possibly even murder as the case may be.

Here we have a case where we do not know and likely can not know who threw the first punch nor to what extent if any that first punch was provoked by the other party. But knowing those things makes a definite difference in which particular section of Florida's stand your ground law would apply. And that matters because the different sections of the law carry different criteria for what exactly justifies the use of lethal force. Under certain sections, the evidence presented so far does not seem to meet the requirements beyond a reasonable doubt.

However if Florida's stand your ground law did not exist, or if it was limited in scope to say home invasion scenarios, there is no doubt that Zimmerman would be facing a very different legal case than he currently is. And I think that is worthy of discussion because we're looking at a situation where it is at least plausible that Zimmerman could be guilty of something. Involuntary manslaughter perhaps, and may walk away scott free when he wouldn't have done so otherwise.

So do we really want laws on the books that make it perfectly legal for one of our loved ones to be killed for getting themselves into an altercation with another even though they showed no clear intent to do life threatening harm? That seems like a bad idea to me. It seems like a law that could allow as many crimes to go unpunished as it intends to prevent.

[Colanth]

Let us cut thru the bullshit here. Exactly what did Zimmerman do that entitled Martin to give him a free beating?

Who said he was entitled to a free beating? No one has implied that. If Zimmerman was attacked, he had a right to defend himself. He did not have the right to kill over a bloody nose and the law says so.

Doesn't matter. We aren't talking about Martin popping him in the mouth and moving on. He administered a BEATING.

And you can prove that how exactly? One single punch can render a bloody nose. So can tripping and falling on the sidewalk. So can whacking yourself in the nose with the butt of your own gun. So can lots of other things.

I am not implying that any of those things happened nor would I imply same because I have no proof of any of them. But I also have no proof that any of them didn't happen. So where is your proof that Martin administered a BEATING? Witness statements contradict one another and other evidence is inconclusive. So where is the proof that makes you so sure this is exactly what happened?

That's just stupid. It's amazing, the speculative hypothetical what if situations you concoct in order to square the circle. Really, he tripped? Or he beat himself up? So he decided to shoot someone?

It's not the prosecution's job to disprove those "speculations".  If Zimmerman presents an affirmative defense, Zimmerman has to prove his assertions.  And with even one witness claiming that it didn't happen the way he said it did, and with no physical evidence that it did (a bloody nose is evidence of a bloody nose, not how it got bloody), there's reasonable doubt to his story.

His best defense is to claim that he was scared that Martin was going to kill him (even if he has to admit to being a racist) and accept the slap on the wrist it'll get him.  An affirmative defense with no physical evidence to back it up is suicide.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Is there any point to continuing this thread?

Well for me, I think this case clearly illustrates some of the reasons why stand your ground laws need to be very clearly written and relatively narrow in focus. Anytime you create legislation which makes it legal for one person to take the life of another, you have the potential for creating legal loopholes which allow a person to get away with either manslaughter or possibly even murder as the case may be.

Here we have a case where we do not know and likely can not know who threw the first punch nor to what extent if any that first punch was provoked by the other party. But knowing those things makes a definite difference in which particular section of Florida's stand your ground law would apply. And that matters because the different sections of the law carry different criteria for what exactly justifies the use of lethal force. Under certain sections, the evidence presented so far does not seem to meet the requirements beyond a reasonable doubt.

However if Florida's stand your ground law did not exist, or if it was limited in scope to say home invasion scenarios, there is no doubt that Zimmerman would be facing a very different legal case than he currently is. And I think that is worthy of discussion because we're looking at a situation where it is at least plausible that Zimmerman could be guilty of something. Involuntary manslaughter perhaps, and may walk away scott free when he wouldn't have done so otherwise.

So do we really want laws on the books that make it perfectly legal for one of our loved ones to be killed for getting themselves into an altercation with another even though they showed no clear intent to do life threatening harm? That seems like a bad idea to me. It seems like a law that could allow as many crimes to go unpunished as it intends to prevent.

I suppose the bitterness with which the conversation is being conducted leads me to think that the point is wasted on the interlocutors involved.  A scorched-earth strategy tends to burn bridges, too.