Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 19, 2012 9:18:13 GMT -5
No. It isn't the same thing, Swamp. It's bending something he said into something he didn't say and that's no more right than what he did. He did not say, "Yes. I shot Martin and it was all part of God's plan." That's unfair and inaccurate.
I think this guy should go to prison for the rest of his life. If he had shot that kid to stop him from raping a child or mugging an old lady - fine. I'd have no issue with it. But that's not the case. Still, I'm not going to twist things to make my case look better. He should pay for the rest of his life for what he did. Truth is important and if we want it to work on our behalf, we have to be willing to tell it, too.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 19, 2012 9:18:42 GMT -5
I will, briefly, I'm sure. I'm prepared for that. But I will be let go and not prosecuted.
|
|
yummy2tummy
Initiate Member
Joined: May 22, 2012 11:37:20 GMT -5
Posts: 51
|
Post by yummy2tummy on Jul 19, 2012 9:19:03 GMT -5
Zimmerman did NOT say the shooting of Martin was God's plan. He said - or inferred - that the fact he was there to do an interview instead of dead, himself, was part of God's plan. Thats why I posted the link.. The title of this thread is misleading and taken out of context. Shouldn't this be a "no no" on here?
|
|
Taxman10
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 15:12:43 GMT -5
Posts: 3,455
|
Post by Taxman10 on Jul 19, 2012 9:19:10 GMT -5
Zimmerman did NOT say the shooting of Martin was God's plan. He said - or inferred - that the fact he was there to do an interview instead of dead, himself, was part of God's plan. GRRR!! Quit using facts!!!! Zimmerman = BAD!! Trayvon = GOOD!! (haven't you seen all the pictures of the smiling 12 y/o boy??)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 1:01:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2012 9:19:11 GMT -5
Him going to prison for his crime would also be part of God's plan.
|
|
yummy2tummy
Initiate Member
Joined: May 22, 2012 11:37:20 GMT -5
Posts: 51
|
Post by yummy2tummy on Jul 19, 2012 9:19:28 GMT -5
I will, briefly, I'm sure. I'm prepared for that. But I will be let go and not prosecuted. My thoughts as well.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jul 19, 2012 9:19:51 GMT -5
No it doesn't.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Jul 19, 2012 9:21:08 GMT -5
Zimmerman did NOT say the shooting of Martin was God's plan. He said - or inferred - that the fact he was there to do an interview instead of dead, himself, was part of God's plan. Thats why I posted the link.. The title of this thread is misleading and taken out of context. Shouldn't this be a "no no" on here? Seriously, I'm not really seeing a difference.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Jul 19, 2012 9:21:40 GMT -5
I will, briefly, I'm sure. I'm prepared for that. But I will be let go and not prosecuted. I think you're wrong about that............
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 19, 2012 9:21:56 GMT -5
The whole doctrine of self-defense is that there must be a "reasonable" response, not escalation. I.e. if someone punches you, you punch them back. If someone has a gun to your head, you shoot them. If someone punches you, you don't respond by shooting them in the chest. That is not self-defense. And that's assuming Zimmerman had ANY justification for following Martin other than the fact that he was a black kid in a gated community. Sure its self defense.. Zimmerman was on he ground.. getting the daylights beat out of him. He didn't know This boy from Adam or if he was going to kill Zimmerman, actually he said "you are going to die".. that statement in itself makes it self defense. But that was after he already escalated the situation by following the kid. Is it legal to shoot someone in self defense if you escalated the situation to the point where self defense is needed?
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jul 19, 2012 9:22:42 GMT -5
Nope.
Swamp knows way more criminal law than I do (or ever will, probably) but the self-defense doctrine is a lot more complicated than "he said he was gonna kill me so I killed him."
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 19, 2012 9:22:55 GMT -5
The whole doctrine of self-defense is that there must be a "reasonable" response, not escalation. I.e. if someone punches you, you punch them back. If someone has a gun to your head, you shoot them. If someone punches you, you don't respond by shooting them in the chest. That is not self-defense. And that's assuming Zimmerman had ANY justification for following Martin other than the fact that he was a black kid in a gated community. Sure its self defense.. Zimmerman was on he ground.. getting the daylights beat out of him. He didn't know This boy from Adam or if he was going to kill Zimmerman, actually he said "you are going to die".. that statement in itself makes it self defense. There is no evidence Martin said "you're going to die". There is only Zimmerman's claim Martin said "you're going to die".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 1:01:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2012 9:23:47 GMT -5
So, if i choose to go into a bar and pick a fight with a patron who was minding his own business and he punched me, then i have a right to shoot him dead because i was 'afraid'? Zimmerman was the Initial Aggressor. Whatever happened AFTER he choose to get out of the car and engage Trayvon is irrelevant.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jul 19, 2012 9:23:54 GMT -5
Which is hearsay, and probably inadmissible.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Jul 19, 2012 9:23:57 GMT -5
I never said Trayvon was a good guy.
I said Zimmerman should have kept his distance from Trayvon and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
You're telling me that if some dude is following you around in teh dark and get close enough for you to hit him, you wouldn't hit him? Maybe because I'm female, I'm seeing this situation differently, because anytime a dude is following me around the neighborhood in teh dark, nothing good is going to come out of the situation.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 19, 2012 9:24:08 GMT -5
I dont think I'm at all. There's countless cases of self defense. Huge article in paper here just the other day. Part of CCP process is hours of a lawyer talking about what to expect when you do have to shoot someone. You do get off and you don't get sued, where I live anyway, but it's a hassle. I'm prepared.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 19, 2012 9:26:04 GMT -5
Thats why I posted the link.. The title of this thread is misleading and taken out of context. Shouldn't this be a "no no" on here? Seriously, I'm not really seeing a difference. You are an attorney and, from the sounds of it, a good one. Let's say you were a witness in this case. You state, on the stand, that Zimmerman said it was part of God's plan to shoot Martin, as your title implies. Would that be - at the very least - misleading; or at the very worst - perjury? Would the jury be instructed to disregard your statement? I'm not a lawyer so this is a serious question. I do know I'd be more than a bit uncomfortable stating that under oath.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Jul 19, 2012 9:26:31 GMT -5
No.
However, Florida has that "Stand your ground" law which warps the whole self defense angle, and I know nothing about it.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jul 19, 2012 9:27:13 GMT -5
Criminal cases are extraordinarily fact-dependent. I don't think you can (or should) give blanket "If you shoot someone in X situation, you'll get off" advice, because it all depends on the facts of the case.
But in general, unless your life is in imminent (read = immediate) danger, killing someone is murder/manslaughter.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Jul 19, 2012 9:27:31 GMT -5
Seriously, I'm not really seeing a difference. You are an attorney and, from the sounds of it, a good one. Let's say you were a witness in this case. You state, on the stand, that Zimmerman said it was part of God's plan to shoot Martin, as your title implies. Would that be - at the very least - misleading; or at the very worst - perjury? Would the jury be instructed to disregard your statement? I'm not a lawyer so this is a serious question. I do know I'd be more than a bit uncomfortable stating that under oath. My testimoney wouldn't be allowed because I'm not an expert as to God's plan.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Jul 19, 2012 9:29:43 GMT -5
Criminal cases are extraordinarily fact-dependent. I don't think you can (or should) give blanket "If you shoot someone in X situation, you'll get off" advice, because it all depends on the facts of the case. But in general, unless your life is in imminent (read = immediate) danger, shooting someone is murder. If someone gave you that advice, they committed malpractice. Self defense is completely fact dependent. And, it's something that generally a jury determines, not the prosecutor. The prosecutor gets a case, presents it to grand jury. if there is reason to believe a crime was committed, they issue an indictment, and then there is a trial where the jury makes the self defense determination. Sometimes a grand jury will decline to indict, or a prosecutor will refuse to prosecute, but those are pretty rare instances.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 19, 2012 9:30:44 GMT -5
As does Michigan, thank GOD.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 19, 2012 9:31:48 GMT -5
You are an attorney and, from the sounds of it, a good one. Let's say you were a witness in this case. You state, on the stand, that Zimmerman said it was part of God's plan to shoot Martin, as your title implies. Would that be - at the very least - misleading; or at the very worst - perjury? Would the jury be instructed to disregard your statement? I'm not a lawyer so this is a serious question. I do know I'd be more than a bit uncomfortable stating that under oath. My testimoney wouldn't be allowed because I'm not an expert as to God's plan. LOL!! Ok.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Jul 19, 2012 9:32:11 GMT -5
Which is hearsay, and probably inadmissible. It will probably be admitted to prove the effect on Zimmerman's state of mind, but not for the truth of it. Splitting hairs, I know. I'd probably argue its a statement against penal interest and admissible. Maybe that would work?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 19, 2012 9:34:55 GMT -5
If someone has already hit me or is on my property and threatening me, I'm going to defend myself. The ONLY reason we are no longer being threatened by crazy EX, is because I made sure she knew I had a gun and would have no problem using it on her. Was, in fact, looking forward to it! I think she decided she had met her match in crazy! Now we have peace.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jul 19, 2012 9:36:36 GMT -5
Bottom line to me is that it was not Zimmerman's place to follow anyone around in the dark. That is not what a neighborhood watch does. Zimmerman reminds me of those nut jobs who have some kind of hero complex and set bombs off just so they can run into a burning building and be deemed a hero. He followed a teenager around with a gun in his hand probably hoping this kid was up to no good so he could be the "savior of the neighborhood." Personally this whole case makes me sick to my stomach and has from the beginning. A kid is dead and this is his apology? If I was this kids parents I wouldn't accept his half ass apology either.
ETA: Maybe it will be God's plan for him to spend time in prison
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 19, 2012 9:39:39 GMT -5
I've read the transcript. Wanted to do that before I commented.
What Zimmerman said was: "I feel it was all God's plan and for me to second guess it or judge it --". There's no way we can surmise what he meant by that statement, since he said it was "all" God's plan. We can't assume he's talking about any specific when the word "all" is used. We can't know whether he meant it was God's plan he is still alive, God's plan Trayvon is dead, or any other specific part of God's plan.
That said, IMO it would probably be better to use the title of the article itself, rather than create one, swamp. That way, there can be no misunderstandings, or battling over semantics when we don't know what the guy meant, really.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 19, 2012 9:40:31 GMT -5
If someone has already hit me or is on my property and threatening me, I'm going to defend myself. The ONLY reason we are no longer being threatened by crazy EX, is because I made sure she knew I had a gun and would have no problem using it on her. Was, in fact, looking forward to it! I think she decided she had met her match in crazy! Now we have peace. Yes, but that is a completely different situation. I would think self defense means you were in no way the initial aggressor. Had you started following your ex around & harrassing him & then shot him in "self defense" when he came after you, I don't think you would get off quite so easy.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jul 19, 2012 9:40:49 GMT -5
My B in Evidence II is showing It will be interesting to see how the trial goes. I always wonder about the jury selection process in cases like these... everyone has a pretty strong opinion one way or another, I'd think it'd be very difficult to find 14 people willing to empty their minds and make a decision on the evidence.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Jul 19, 2012 9:41:50 GMT -5
I've read the transcript. Wanted to do that before I commented. What Zimmerman said was: "I feel it was all God's plan and for me to second guess it or judge it --". There's no way we can surmise what he meant by that statement, since he said it was "all" God's plan. We can't assume he's talking about any specific when the word "all" is used. We can't know whether he meant it was God's plan he is still alive, God's plan Trayvon is dead, or any other specific part of God's plan. That said, IMO it would probably be better to use the title of the article itself, rather than create one, swamp. That way, there can be no misunderstandings, or battling over semantics when we don't know what the guy meant, really. Fixed.
|
|