ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 17300
April 12, 2012 12:18 AM
Buddj4 wrote:The majority of the majority. I wonder what percentage of Asian Americans don't know enough yet?
Interact
Posts: 14034
April 12, 2012 1:54 AM
SaundersBucky wrote:Buddj4 wrote:The majority of the majority. I wonder what percentage of Asian Americans don't know enough yet? Are there a lot of Asian Americans in Florida? [honest question]
Posts: 5201
April 12, 2012 8:37 AM
BigAppleBucky wrote:I'm with the 56% of white Americans who say they simply don't know enough at this stage to say they think he's guilty or not.I will say this. If it is proven that the cops fudged reports to protect Zimmerman, I hope they get prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Posts: 3509
April 12, 2012 9:00 AM
Posts: 1487
April 12, 2012 9:50 AM
Posts: 3646
April 12, 2012 10:02 AM
ryebadger wrote: I'm in this category too. That doesn't alter the real racism in this case: that the government claimed it knew enough after a few hours to say he was innocent (and Trayvon Martin was guilty) and close the file, even in the face of what we knew at the time and what came out later. No matter what happens from here on out, that has now proven to be a pretty serious injustice.
Posts: 1589
April 12, 2012 10:35 AM
just starting to waste your damn timeThe Recovery is most likely a fabrication....
bhambadger wrote:SaundersBucky wrote:yanked wrote:He'll walk. Another prediction by Yanked that won't be backed up with anything, and when called on it later, he'll tell us that we were just being riled up. Let's put a dollar amount on it (holiday fund, of course).I think yanked is correct on this one. Not because Zimmerman is innocent. It's obvious that he provoked the confrontation and is guilty of the crime. But given how the Sanford PD completely fucked up the investigation, I'm not sure there will be enough evidence to get a conviction. Hell, the PD let him keep the murder weapon after he was released.
SaundersBucky wrote:yanked wrote:He'll walk. Another prediction by Yanked that won't be backed up with anything, and when called on it later, he'll tell us that we were just being riled up. Let's put a dollar amount on it (holiday fund, of course).
yanked wrote:He'll walk.
Posts: 9043
April 12, 2012 10:49 AM
I don't know the answer, I'm just asking that's all.
Posts: 7477
April 12, 2012 10:54 AM
Moral fibre? Why, you little pasty-face...I invented moral fibre!
Posts: 23762
April 12, 2012 10:58 AM
RedWagon wrote: There should be a reasonableness component to it too. Was it reasonable for Zimmerman to feel in danger at that time? To me, the answer is "no" based on what I've read. Defending yourself when you're in the zone of danger is one thing; defending yourself after putting yourself in danger is quite another. Adding deadly force to the equation is yet another.
April 12, 2012 11:29 AM
Ol Badger wrote: RedWagon wrote: There should be a reasonableness component to it too. Was it reasonable for Zimmerman to feel in danger at that time? To me, the answer is "no" based on what I've read. Defending yourself when you're in the zone of danger is one thing; defending yourself after putting yourself in danger is quite another. Adding deadly force to the equation is yet another. Alas, that's not what Florida law requires. The stupidity of the Stand Your Ground statute could not be on better display. Fran has it nailed.
April 12, 2012 11:35 AM
Blab of Bacon wrote: There is nothing wrong with the statute.
Posts: 15941
April 12, 2012 11:39 AM
Ol Badger wrote:Blab of Bacon wrote: There is nothing wrong with the statute. So, you're a criminal defense attorney, then? Certainly, the nation's prosecutors and police mostly don't agree with this statement.
April 12, 2012 11:40 AM
Blab of Bacon wrote:Ol Badger wrote: RedWagon wrote: There should be a reasonableness component to it too. Was it reasonable for Zimmerman to feel in danger at that time? To me, the answer is "no" based on what I've read. Defending yourself when you're in the zone of danger is one thing; defending yourself after putting yourself in danger is quite another. Adding deadly force to the equation is yet another. Alas, that's not what Florida law requires. The stupidity of the Stand Your Ground statute could not be on better display. Fran has it nailed. Maybe we should be attacking the affirmative defenses of "self defense" and of "defense of others". What idiots came up with the idea of allowing somebody to defend themself or their family? That would allow a person to kill another person and then claim that he acted in self defense. What immoral, greedy, hateful person would create such an evil, racist loophole?The above is sarcasm. I probably should clarify that because some people actually seem to think that a self-defense privilege should not exist if somebody could possible (shockingly!) claim that his actions were privileged when the fact show that they weren't.There is nothing wrong with the statute. If Zimmerman acted consistently with the statute then Trayvon deserved what he got. If Zimmerman acted inconsistently with the statute then Zimmerman deserves to rot in prison. Blaming the statute would be the same as blaming the concept of self-defense if Zimmerman instead had beaten Trayvon to death with his fists and claimed that he used reasonable force to defend himself from Trayvon. Blaming conservatives for anything here is a joke. A jury will tell us whether to blame Zimmerman or Trayvon. Liberals deserve scorn for sensationalizing and politicizing this.
Ol Badger wrote: Certainly, the nation's prosecutors and police mostly don't agree with this statement.
Posts: 2378
April 12, 2012 11:42 AM
Myles Long wrote:I believe he continues to be 1-0 in each matter I have referred him.
Posts: 8915
April 12, 2012 11:46 AM
Blab of Bacon wrote:Ol Badger wrote: RedWagon wrote: There should be a reasonableness component to it too. Was it reasonable for Zimmerman to feel in danger at that time? To me, the answer is "no" based on what I've read. Defending yourself when you're in the zone of danger is one thing; defending yourself after putting yourself in danger is quite another. Adding deadly force to the equation is yet another. Alas, that's not what Florida law requires. The stupidity of the Stand Your Ground statute could not be on better display. Fran has it nailed. Maybe we should be attacking the affirmative defenses of "self defense" and of "defense of others". What idiots came up with the idea of allowing somebody to defend themself or their family? That would allow a person to kill another person and then claim that he acted in self defense. What immoral, greedy, hateful person would create such an evil, racist loophole?The above is sarcasm. I probably should clarify that because some people actually seem to think that a self-defense privilege should not exist if somebody could possible (shockingly!) claim that his actions were privileged when the fact show that they weren't.There is nothing wrong with the statute. If Zimmerman acted consistently with the statute then Trayvon deserved what he got. If Zimmerman acted inconsistently with the statute then Zimmerman deserves to rot in prison. Blaming the statute would be the same as blaming the concept of self-defense if Zimmerman instead had beaten Trayvon to death with his fists and claimed that he used reasonable force to defend himself from Trayvon.Blaming conservatives for anything here is a joke. A jury will tell us whether to blame Zimmerman or Trayvon. Liberals deserve scorn for sensationalizing and politicizing this.
April 12, 2012 11:56 AM
RedWagon wrote:Blab of Bacon wrote:Ol Badger wrote: RedWagon wrote: There should be a reasonableness component to it too. Was it reasonable for Zimmerman to feel in danger at that time? To me, the answer is "no" based on what I've read. Defending yourself when you're in the zone of danger is one thing; defending yourself after putting yourself in danger is quite another. Adding deadly force to the equation is yet another. Alas, that's not what Florida law requires. The stupidity of the Stand Your Ground statute could not be on better display. Fran has it nailed. Maybe we should be attacking the affirmative defenses of "self defense" and of "defense of others". What idiots came up with the idea of allowing somebody to defend themself or their family? That would allow a person to kill another person and then claim that he acted in self defense. What immoral, greedy, hateful person would create such an evil, racist loophole?The above is sarcasm. I probably should clarify that because some people actually seem to think that a self-defense privilege should not exist if somebody could possible (shockingly!) claim that his actions were privileged when the fact show that they weren't.There is nothing wrong with the statute. If Zimmerman acted consistently with the statute then Trayvon deserved what he got. If Zimmerman acted inconsistently with the statute then Zimmerman deserves to rot in prison. Blaming the statute would be the same as blaming the concept of self-defense if Zimmerman instead had beaten Trayvon to death with his fists and claimed that he used reasonable force to defend himself from Trayvon. Blaming conservatives for anything here is a joke. A jury will tell us whether to blame Zimmerman or Trayvon. Liberals deserve scorn for sensationalizing and politicizing this.100% nonsense. I agree with your take on self-defense, however, that is subjected to an objective view of what happens. Defending yourself or another is absolutely acceptable. If I'm understanding this flawed law correctly, I could fly to Florida (with a gun, but let's assume I can do it), find Lebron, D-Wade and Bosh on South Beach, smack Lebron with a 2x4 (I'll just buy that in Florida) and when the 3 of them prepare to give me the unholy beat down I deserve I can pull out my gun and shoot all 3 of them. Why? Because I believed I was in danger at the moment I started shooting. The problem with the Zimmerman case is that his actions may very well be protected by statute because for a few moments Zimmerman may have actually had good reason to believe he was in danger, and the statute completely ignores that Zimmerman's actions leading up to that point were unreasonable. Big deal right? It is when someone dies because someone failed to use proper judgment. Disregard my hypothetical. I'm starting to think no one would miss those 3 anyway.
Myles Long wrote: Ol Badger wrote: Blab of Bacon wrote: There is nothing wrong with the statute. So, you're a criminal defense attorney, then? Certainly, the nation's prosecutors and police mostly don't agree with this statement.Actually, Blab is on my criminal defense referral list for Wisconsin matters. Don't confuse his idiocy, at times, on this board with his actually abilities within the Wisconsin criminal defense bar. Blab is tied for second on my WI criminal referral list just behind Hart. I believe he continues to be 1-0 in each matter I have referred him.
Ol Badger wrote: Blab of Bacon wrote: There is nothing wrong with the statute. So, you're a criminal defense attorney, then? Certainly, the nation's prosecutors and police mostly don't agree with this statement.
April 12, 2012 11:57 AM
DickieRay wrote: Myles Long wrote: I believe he continues to be 1-0 in each matter I have referred him.Can't argue with that record but I still don't know what I'd be getting.
Myles Long wrote: I believe he continues to be 1-0 in each matter I have referred him.
Share This
