Self defense or murder?

[Virgil Showlion]

EVT: Suppose you could trade Smith's conviction for George Zimmerman's. That is, you could magically swap the verdicts so that Zimmerman was found guilty and Smith was found not guilty. Would you do it?

[EVT1]

Apr 30, 2014 23:48:49 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

EVT: Suppose you could trade Smith's conviction for George Zimmerman's. That is, you could magically swap the verdicts so that Zimmerman was found guilty and Smith was found not guilty. Would you do it?

Nope- Zimmerman had a hell of a lot better case.  Of course I would love to send a message to would be vigilantes- but I think that message got sent with the Dunn trial.

Look at them- Dunn and this nut had crazy eyes- I'd side with Zimmerman just on the photos

[EVT1]

Let me explain- Zimmerman made a really bad choice that ended in a situation where self defense was possibly necessary- that he should be punished for IMO- this guy is way beyond Zimmerman.  There is no excusable reason for what he did- not even remotely.

Even Zimmerman at his worst did not set out to kill.  This man did. 

[truthbound]

It is so obvious none of you actually listened to the recordings. Typical internets.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 1, 2014 2:03:05 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Let me explain- Zimmerman made a really bad choice that ended in a situation where self defense was possibly necessary- that he should be punished for IMO- this guy is way beyond Zimmerman.  There is no excusable reason for what he did- not even remotely.

Even Zimmerman at his worst did not set out to kill.  This man did. 

Oh I agree.

I just wanted to see you say something positive about George Zimmerman.

[mmhmm]

May 1, 2014 3:36:43 GMT -5 truthbound said:

It is so obvious none of you actually listened to the recordings. Typical internets.

Wrong.  I listened to the recordings.  I'm willing to bet there are more than a few others here who listened to the recordings.  I'm also willing to swear you have no clue who did, and who did not listen to the recordings.

[swamp]

Apr 30, 2014 19:55:57 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Apr 30, 2014 19:16:49 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

That's right. HE'S alive because he protected himself. He gets another chance and will probably get a slap on the wrist when the facts about the criminals history will be taken into account. I don't want to shoot anyone either but I will if I have to and take m y chances wi the legal system. I can hire very expensive and very good lawyers. I don't need some court appointed legal schmo selling me down the river. 

Saving this quote for posterity.  Will bring it up again after his conviction is upheld.

He's alive because his life was never in danger in the first place.

As someone who does both private criminal defense and is a "court appointed schmo," and who has served as a public defender, your comment is ignorant and rude.

[Tennesseer]

May 1, 2014 8:47:52 GMT -5 swamp said:

Apr 30, 2014 19:55:57 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Saving this quote for posterity.  Will bring it up again after his conviction is upheld.

He's alive because his life was never in danger in the first place.

As someone who does both private criminal defense and is a "court appointed schmo," and who has served as a public defender, your comment is ignorant and rude.

Who ìs rude?

[swamp]

May 1, 2014 8:50:19 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

May 1, 2014 8:47:52 GMT -5 swamp said:

As someone who does both private criminal defense and is a "court appointed schmo," and who has served as a public defender, your comment is ignorant and rude.

Who ìs rude?

Zib's comment about "court appointed schmos."

[Tennesseer]

May 1, 2014 8:51:23 GMT -5 swamp said:

May 1, 2014 8:50:19 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Who ìs rude?

Zib's comment about "court appointed schmos."

Just wanted to be sure as you used my quote.  And I so agree with you.  

[Virgil Showlion]

May 1, 2014 8:47:52 GMT -5 swamp said:

Apr 30, 2014 19:55:57 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Saving this quote for posterity.  Will bring it up again after his conviction is upheld.

He's alive because his life was never in danger in the first place.

As someone who does both private criminal defense and is a "court appointed schmo," and who has served as a public defender, your comment is ignorant and rude.

I have no opinion on the matter either way, but I am curious: If you were charged with a crime, would you use a public defender? Assume representation pro se isn't an option.

[swamp]

May 1, 2014 9:24:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 1, 2014 8:47:52 GMT -5 swamp said:

As someone who does both private criminal defense and is a "court appointed schmo," and who has served as a public defender, your comment is ignorant and rude.

I have no opinion on the matter either way, but I am curious: If you were charged with a crime, would you use a public defender? Assume representation pro se isn't an option.

Depends on who is it.

Some of the public defenders/Court appointed defense attorneys are phenomenal.  Some suck. Just like every other lawyer.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Some of the public defenders/Court appointed defense attorneys are phenomenal. Some suck. Just like every other lawyer.

But then, you have an inside track in that you know who is good and who is not. You also have the resources to buy the best that there is, if needed.

[swamp]

May 1, 2014 9:47:58 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Some of the public defenders/Court appointed defense attorneys are phenomenal. Some suck. Just like every other lawyer.

But then, you have an inside track in that you know who is good and who is not. You also have the resources to buy the best that there is, if needed.

Yes, and there are people who pay good money for an attorney who has a great PR machine, while they would be much better off with a Public Defender.

[zibazinski]

If I kill someone who enters my home and some self righteous idiot bows to pressure from bleeding hearts and tries to persecute/prosecute me, you bet I'm hiring the best to tear them to shreds. 

[Virgil Showlion]

May 1, 2014 9:26:27 GMT -5 swamp said:

May 1, 2014 9:24:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I have no opinion on the matter either way, but I am curious: If you were charged with a crime, would you use a public defender? Assume representation pro se isn't an option.

Depends on who is it.

Some of the public defenders/Court appointed defense attorneys are phenomenal.  Some suck. Just like every other lawyer.

Would it be fair to say that "on average" a defendant would get the same quality legal representation from a public defender as from a lawyer in private practice? Or is the mean difference between them dwarfed by the variability from lawyer to lawyer?

Or let me put it more concretely:

Suppose you received a stack of 60 homicide cases, divided them up completely at random into two sets of 30, had one set of cases tried with NY public defenders as counsel and the other set tried with criminal lawyers from random NYC law firms. Do you believe that, with a high degree of certainty (say, 90%), you'd be able to tell which set of cases was tried by which group solely by observing the case outcomes?

Thanks for bearing with me.

[swamp]

May 1, 2014 10:13:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 1, 2014 9:26:27 GMT -5 swamp said:

Depends on who is it.

Some of the public defenders/Court appointed defense attorneys are phenomenal.  Some suck. Just like every other lawyer.

Would it be fair to say that "on average" a defendant would get the same quality legal representation from a public defender as from a lawyer in private practice? Or is the mean difference between them dwarfed by the variability from lawyer to lawyer?

Or let me put it more concretely:

Suppose you received a stack of 60 homicide cases, divided them up completely at random into two sets of 30, had one set of cases tried with NY public defenders as counsel and the other set tried with criminal lawyers from random NYC law firms. Do you believe that, with a high degree of certainty (say, 90%), you'd be able to tell which set of cases was tried by which group solely by observing the case outcomes?

Thanks for bearing with me.

Too many variables, but generally, public defenders have better trial skills than the private attorneys, solely because of their case load and the motivations of their clients that they spend more time in court.  If you aren't paying for your defense, you are more likely to go to trial.

There are also private attorneys who will take cases they are not experienced enough to handle in hopes of making a name for himself, or they want the money, while public defenders usually have some guidelines about the cases they can handle based on experience.

I have seen a couple of local attorneys take murder/rape/kidnapping cases for the money where they had absolutely no business taking the case.

Based on the outcomes, unless one of the defendant's has one of the big name lawyers, I don't think you can tell the difference. 

[djAdvocate]

Apr 30, 2014 19:16:49 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

That's right. HE'S alive because he protected himself. He gets another chance and will probably get a slap on the wrist when the facts about the criminals history will be taken into account. I don't want to shoot anyone either but I will if I have to and take m y chances wi the legal system. I can hire very expensive and very good lawyers.

make sure you eat plenty of twinkies, i guess. 

I don't need some court appointed legal schmo selling me down the river. 

on what basis would the appeal stand?

[djAdvocate]

Apr 30, 2014 21:46:33 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I have some legal expertise- the judge followed the law of evidence.

The easiest way to explain it is that whether or not these victims were burglars in the past has no probative value- there is nothing that it can help prove or disprove when it comes to the elements of the crime charged. 

Or as I would like to explain it to people- just because you might have killed a dirtbag doesn't absolve you of being a dirtbag.  One thing is for sure- they may have been burglars- but they weren't murderers.  He is a murderer.

once again, the kids were not on trial here.  if you want to try the kids in absentia, be my guest. 

[djAdvocate]

May 1, 2014 2:03:05 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Let me explain- Zimmerman made a really bad choice that ended in a situation where self defense was possibly necessary- that he should be punished for IMO- this guy is way beyond Zimmerman.  There is no excusable reason for what he did- not even remotely.

Even Zimmerman at his worst did not set out to kill.  This man did. 

i actually hadn't thought through the differences between these two situations, but this is not a bad summary.

[djAdvocate]

May 1, 2014 8:47:52 GMT -5 swamp said:

Apr 30, 2014 19:55:57 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Saving this quote for posterity.  Will bring it up again after his conviction is upheld.

He's alive because his life was never in danger in the first place.

As someone who does both private criminal defense and is a "court appointed schmo," and who has served as a public defender, your comment is ignorant and rude.

IS- i would be interested in hearing your opinion on how the appeal would go.  i have served as a juror, but that is about the width and length of my legal experience.

[djAdvocate]

May 1, 2014 9:49:37 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

If I kill someone who enters my home and some self righteous idiot bows to pressure from bleeding hearts and tries to persecute/prosecute me, you bet I'm hiring the best to tear them to shreds. 

if your circumstances are the same as this guy's, i wouldn't count on it.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 1, 2014 10:22:36 GMT -5 swamp said:

May 1, 2014 10:13:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Would it be fair to say that "on average" a defendant would get the same quality legal representation from a public defender as from a lawyer in private practice? Or is the mean difference between them dwarfed by the variability from lawyer to lawyer?

Or let me put it more concretely:

Suppose you received a stack of 60 homicide cases, divided them up completely at random into two sets of 30, had one set of cases tried with NY public defenders as counsel and the other set tried with criminal lawyers from random NYC law firms. Do you believe that, with a high degree of certainty (say, 90%), you'd be able to tell which set of cases was tried by which group solely by observing the case outcomes?

Thanks for bearing with me.

Too many variables, but generally, public defenders have better trial skills than the private attorneys, solely because of their case load and the motivations of their clients that they spend more time in court.  If you aren't paying for your defense, you are more likely to go to trial.

There are also private attorneys who will take cases they are not experienced enough to handle in hopes of making a name for himself, or they want the money, while public defenders usually have some guidelines about the cases they can handle based on experience.

I have seen a couple of local attorneys take murder/rape/kidnapping cases for the money where they had absolutely no business taking the case.

Based on the outcomes, unless one of the defendant's has one of the big name lawyers, I don't think you can tell the difference. 

Most interesting.

Thanks again for your insights.

[swamp]

May 1, 2014 11:47:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 1, 2014 8:47:52 GMT -5 swamp said:

As someone who does both private criminal defense and is a "court appointed schmo," and who has served as a public defender, your comment is ignorant and rude.

IS- i would be interested in hearing your opinion on how the appeal would go.  i have served as a juror, but that is about the width and length of my legal experience.

IT's a finding of fact, which the appellate court will not disturbed unless the conclusion is completely whacked.

[truthbound]

May 1, 2014 8:45:12 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

May 1, 2014 3:36:43 GMT -5 truthbound said:

It is so obvious none of you actually listened to the recordings. Typical internets.

Wrong.  I listened to the recordings.  I'm willing to bet there are more than a few others here who listened to the recordings.  I'm also willing to swear you have no clue who did, and who did not listen to the recordings.

No it's pretty easy.

[mmhmm]

May 2, 2014 2:05:23 GMT -5 truthbound said:

May 1, 2014 8:45:12 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Wrong.  I listened to the recordings.  I'm willing to bet there are more than a few others here who listened to the recordings.  I'm also willing to swear you have no clue who did, and who did not listen to the recordings.

No it's pretty easy.

I guess it is, if you don't mind being wrong.  I suppose you get used to it.

[billisonboard]

May 1, 2014 3:36:43 GMT -5 truthbound said:

It is so obvious none of you actually listened to the recordings. Typical internets.

I have not listened to the recordings of either the shootings nor the police interviews. I gained from secondary sources what I felt was adequate information to be able to form an opinion and discuss the situation. I was also waiting for the jury to reach a verdict. Their verdict confirmed for me what my less informed opinion had suggested. Swimming in a pool of minutiae was't necessary for me in this case.

[djAdvocate]

May 1, 2014 13:12:46 GMT -5 swamp said:

May 1, 2014 11:47:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

IS- i would be interested in hearing your opinion on how the appeal would go.  i have served as a juror, but that is about the width and length of my legal experience.

IT's a finding of fact, which the appellate court will not disturbed unless the conclusion is completely whacked.

is it your opinion that this decision is completely whacked?

[djAdvocate]

May 2, 2014 2:05:23 GMT -5 truthbound said:

May 1, 2014 8:45:12 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Wrong.  I listened to the recordings.  I'm willing to bet there are more than a few others here who listened to the recordings.  I'm also willing to swear you have no clue who did, and who did not listen to the recordings.

No it's pretty easy.

not following your logic there.  you got it wrong with mmhmm.  who ELSE did you think didn't listen to the tapes?

[Deleted]

Apr 25, 2014 16:13:10 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Apr 25, 2014 15:19:10 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Euthanize ? UH OH !   That's killing.  So it's OK on your terms ?

Yes, always okay on my terms. I also understand that my terms are not always that which society determines as okay and accept that at times killings will take place without consequence outside of what I consider appropriate.

Good chance this man killed to keep from becoming a repeat victim. He probably felt justified in his actions ( his terms?) as the home invaders entered.