Soxbadger

And no I didnt question it, I simply said that there is evidence that can defeat self defense even if there are no witnesses. I dont have access to the crime report, so I cant really tell what the evidence is. But to argue that because there are no witnesses you cant defeat self defense, is just not true.

y2hh, I was using the simplest evidence. The fact is, there is no evidence. The police didnt really do an investigation, they didnt impound the car (the first thing they do basically with any arrest) so its unlikely that they went out of their way to do much else. Who knows, more facts will come out. But to suggest he has to get away with it because he is the only witness, isnt true at all. And quite frankly my guess is that even if the evidence suggests he should be exonerated, he will be convicted. Once public perception sets in, its going to be hard to defend. If Zimmerman's lawyer is smart, after he gets arraigned, he offers some sort of plea deal with a ton of community service.

Except for people are committed of murder without any witnesses based on evidence all the time. If the evidence shows that Zimmerman shot Martin in the back, its going to be hard to argue self defense. (Not saying thats what the evidence will show, from what I can tell there hasnt been a ballistics recreation yet.)

Zimmerman's wounds are evidence. Depending on what side you are, they can be used to tell quite different stories. Without crime scene evidence, its just hard to guess at. Was Martin shot while on top of Zimmerman? This would be the first question a ballistics expert is going to need to answer.

None of this is self defense nor stand your ground. You were saying that as neighborhood watch he had every right to approach anyone who he deemed suspicious. That just doesnt seem to be true. He had any right any other private citizen had, but no extra rights, from what I can tell.

Im not sure neighborhood watch is going to help him, here is an example of a neighborhood watch packet in Florida: http://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/onr/reso...trev610.pdf.pdf Youll notice it specifically states that they are not to take action themselves. They are only to report the observation.

That was not a flagrant foul.

And the cases where no charges are pressed generally get considerably more press, most of them dont involve a confession though. If you believe that, its okay, but I personally dont care if it was 2 martians (although that would get considerably more press coverage and I doubt you can argue its because of some Obama narrative), I think that the Florida law is stupid and that in general, c&c, is unnecessary. I have a vested interest because I dont want those type of laws in Illinois. Has nothing to do with race in my opinion.

Okay, being shot and being killed are 2 different things. Furthermore if you read the Chicago tribune, it is littered with stories about children being killed, etc. Today alone there are more than 3 stories involving violence (not including Martin.) What is the difference? Why do some get more coverage than others? Well, I thought it was obvious, but I guess I will explain. It is because in Chicago, Zimmerman would have been charged with a crime and it would be going to trial/plea wherever. I would be interested to know how many people in Chicago carrying a weapon who kill an unarmed man are not charged with a crime? My guess 0. So that is why it is a sensational story, because most people cant imagine that this can happen. Not that Zimmerman is guilty, not that he wont be found innocent, just that he wasnt even charged with a crime. Thats why it is on the front page, because its bizarre. No one cares about the mundane, I guarantee people have been killed in Miami, etc since then, but it doenst have the strange facts as this case. Furthermore, Zimmerman is latino, so youd think that Obama wouldnt want to come down on him. So, no, its not for exploitative purposes, unless you are arguing that it is trying to exploit gun control laws, and then yes I agree that part of the purpose of these articles is to attack gun rights in general, but all articles about gun violence are that way.

Voting for Obama or the Republican candidate has nothing to do with race. But this is clearly just an attempt to derail a thread and make it about nonsense. Where do you stand on c&c and syg? You know, the topic at hand.

haha as I said in the other thread, I like the over in both games.

Well if you want to have some fun, I think both games could go over (146 for Kentucky game and 144 for UNC game). I like Baylor to cover the 8, but Kentucky to win.

UNC is the better team at full health, without Marshall who knows. I wouldnt touch the game, unless I was getting UNC and at least 5.

For someone who wants the "facts to establish themselves", you sure make a lot of assumptions based on 0 evidence. This has nothing to do with Obama being reelected, come September/October, I seriously doubt you will see any platforms about how you should elect Obama because of Treyvon Martin.

Maybe in Florida, not in the real world. If you follow someone with a gun and instigate a confrontation, generally you dont get to claim self defense. You cant create the fearful situation to take advantage of it. (at least in my opinion). The simple question is, if you had a reasonable fear of your life being ended, would you be following that person? The answer (imo) is no, you would not follow them. The general "self-defense" fact pattern usually involves the person who is being followed, trying to get away, being cornered etc, and then having no choice but to use deadly force. I have yet to see any fact to suggest that after Zimmerman called the police, that he couldnt have chosen to remain safely in his car and not escalate the situation.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 24, 2012 -> 10:02 AM) LOL, exactly. Anyone else read the article claiming that Martin was on top of Zimmerman punching him when he was shot? It includes a witness statement confirming it. I dearly hope it's true. This would mean nothing. If Zimmerman pulled a gun on Martin, Martin would have had every right to use force to protect himself. Self Defense goes both ways, you dont just have the right to defend yourself when you have a gun, you have the right to defend yourself whenever your life is threatened or put in danger. Furthermore, since Zimmerman had a gun, Martin would have had to disarm him, meaning that getting on top of him and beating the weapon out of his hand, could have been self defense. This fact alone wont save Zimmerman.

QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:44 PM) Yep, and with Wisconsin's ceiling basically being that of a Sweet 16 team, your goals should be higher when paying your coach as much as is being rumored. Im not sure if that is really a ceiling, prior to 1998 Wisconsin hadnt made the tournament for 40+ years. Since 1998, 13 years, Wisconsin has done the following: 1 Final Four 1 Elite Eight 4 Sweet 16s 5 Second Rounds Wisconsin has been given a 2 seed 1 time and a 3 seed 1 time, every other year they have been a 4 or lower. So that is 6 times Wisconsin has made at least the Sweet 16, in 13 years. Maybe thats not good enough, but there are only a handful of programs that have been to the tournament 13 straight years, let alone done better than Wisconsin.

Ignorance of the law isnt an excuse, which is why we should strive to remove unnecessary laws.

I agree with this 100%. Duty to retreat does not make sense. First of all it suggests that people are aware of the law and are going to think rationally when being put in a life or death situation. Let alone the complication of trying to instruct a jury on the law.

Where have I said undo all laws? Ive consistently said that this type of law and further codification of question of fact, is stupid. That there is already something like 200-500 years of case law on this point and anyone who deals with it on a pretty consistent basis knows the rules, they dont need some legislature to try and define it better.

Strangesox, Duty to retreat is messy and just further complicates something that should be pretty easy. If you have a reasonable fear of imminent grave bodily harm or death, you have the right to defend yourself. Why make it more complicated with duty to retreat? If you do not have a reasonable fear, you cant use deadly force. If you do have a reasonable fear, you can use deadly force. Retreating has nothing to do with the scenario because retreating is nothing more than a persons state of mind, and once again goes back to the same question, was it reasonable to defend yourself. If the trier of fact finds it was not reasonable, IE you were coming at me with a paperclip and I shot you, you dont need the duty to retreat to be codified, because simply put, it was unreasonable to kill you in the first place.

No my argument is that in my opinion case law is superior to statutory law. Why? Case law is derived from judges making rulings based on precedent. Statutory law is based on politicians passing laws. This makes no sense with your first point. The case of Treyvon Martin cant go to a judge or jury because the codification of the law made the police believe that they could not arrest Zimmerman. No idea what you are trying to get at here.

Because there is absolutely no reason to codify it. Self defense is self defense is self defense. The law has consistently recognized that if you have a fear for your life, you may use lethal/deadly force if it is reasonable. Why do we need to codify anything more than that? Ultimately reasonableness is a question of fact, which should be left to the jury. You guys keep bringing up fact situations, the answer should always be: "Depending on the facts it may or may not be justified." For example, the axe thrower situation. In most situations you would believe that a reasonable person would not shoot a person who was 1,000 yards away who was threatening them with an axe. But what if there was evidence that the previous day the axe wielder hit the mans house from 2,000 yards. Wouldnt that now change what reasonable is? That is the problem with the law, that it somehow takes a question of fact from the jury and puts it in the police's hand. The police should be able to arrest the person the same way theyd arrest anyone else. Depending on the state, the burden may then shift to the Defendant to prove that it was actually justified. But in no way does it make sense for the police to have to make this decision.

Jenks, Bond isnt perfect, but at least it would have been something. As for what it means, I dont know. I dont think many criminals who want to murder go out of there way to read up on self-defense laws. I think generally someone who wants to murder tries not to get caught, which basically kills the self-defense argument. That being said, could this law result in more murderers walking, yes. Do I think that means there will be more murders, not really. I dont think Zimmerman murdered him because he thought he could get away with it, I think he murdered him because he was not trained to deal with altercations and definitely had no experience with armed confrontations. If I was going to make some sweeping statement, it would be that maybe we shouldnt allow people with a prior history of violence to carry guns on the street.

Jenks, The concern about not arresting immediately would be flight. Lets say I murder someone, get picked up quick. I tell the police it was self defense, they let me go, I flee the country. I just dont see why the DA shouldnt be the one to make the call about a question of law. And if anyone cares, here is the police report: http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/20...policreport.pdf It just doesnt make sense to not charge him, people have been charged with murder with much better defense stories.