Trayvon Martin

[StrangeSox]

I think its pretty he didnt follow this case. Just got the bullet points from whatever news agency he followed 16 months ago.

Remember when you scolded someone for being ignorant and told them that Zimmerman didn't take any grappling or boxing classes? That was hilarious.

[StrangeSox]

No, I wouldn't, as I know the definition of stalking. Seems nobody wants to read an actual statute.

I think you're getting wrapped in the technical, legal definition of stalking and not as a colloquial description of what Zimmerman was doing.

[StrangeSox]

Well that has nothing to do with Florida law, that's how it works anywhere. The law requires that the govt proves its case. People always come up with some defense, usually by pointing to another guy. The govt has to show that it was THIS defendant, thereby proving it wasn't someone else.

the government proved that Zimmerman killed Trayvon. Nobody questioned that. It relied on a self-defense claim, which is apparently a pretty easy affirmative defense hurdle to clear in Florida.

[StrangeSox]

volokh provides a description of how self-defense law works

 

http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/14/burden-an...n-self-defense/

 

Who should bear the burden of proving or disproving self-defense in criminal cases, and by what quantum (preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt), is an interesting question. But on this point, Florida law is precisely the same as in nearly all other states: In 49 of the 50 states, once the defense introducing any evidence of possible self-defense, the prosecution must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

This wasn’t always the rule. The English common law rule at the time of the Framing was that the defense must prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence, and Ohio still follows that rule; the Supreme Court has held (Martin v. Ohio (1987)) that placing this burden on the accused is constitutional. But to my knowledge, only Ohio still takes the view — all the other states do not.

 

Of course this doesn’t dispose of what the rule ought to be. One way of thinking about that policy question is that the nearly unanimous rule takes the view, “Better that 10 guilty killers go free than one person who killed in proper self-defense go to prison for a long time (or be executed).” The Ohio rule, which is also the historical Framing-era rule is, “It’s slightly worse for one guilty killer to go free than for one person who killed in proper self-defense to go to prison for a long time (or be executed).” And of course one can consider variations of these rules as one shifts the burden of proof, or sets a quantum of proof at some other place, such as clear and convincing evidence.

 

But if you’re focusing on what is the view in “most other states” on the burden and quantum of proof in self-defense cases, then you should note that Florida is entirely in line with that view.

[LittleHurt05]

Yea! How do you get $1b in unfunded pension liabilities or let one of your cities churn out 500+ homicides a year? I mean even the last two FL governors have wound up being convicted in federal court! f***in' Flori--oh wait...

 

 

https://twitter.com/_FloridaMan

[Y2HH]

I think you're having a different argument than everyone else. We're talking about what the law should be, not what it is. We're saying that if what Zimmerman was doing isn't legally classified as threatening behavior, then it should be.

 

You mean you're taking about what YOU think the law should be, not what it is. That and 3$ will get you a cup of coffee at *$.

 

The last 50 posts here, give or take a few are exactly why I've attempted to avoid this conversation. Conjuncture, opinion, speculation galore, but no logic based on the actual laws that actually exist, of which this case was actually tried on.

 

As I said, including to those of you on this tread that outright told people to f*** off, this is outright ignorance at this point, and most of you suck. We're better than Reddit and the like, so stop being exactly like Reddit.

[StrangeSox]

You mean you're taking about what YOU think the law should be, not what it is. That and 3$ will get you a cup of coffee at *$.

 

The last 50 posts here, give or take a few are exactly why I've attempted to avoid this conversation. Conjuncture, opinion, speculation galore, but no logic based on the actual laws that actually exist, of which this case was actually tried on.

 

As I said, including to those of you on this tread that outright told people to f*** off, this is outright ignorance at this point, and most of you suck. We're better than Reddit and the like, so stop being exactly like Reddit.

 

What's wrong with a normative discussion about the ways things ought to be?

[Y2HH]

What's wrong with a normative discussion about the ways things ought to be?

 

Again, the way things YOU or I think things aught to be aren't the actual way they aught to be.

 

Having a conversation about it is one thing, but I've been reading a lot of outright insults here, and it's sad. This thread has devolved at this point, and there are only a few of you left at this point I'd even have this conversation with. For the record, you are one of them.

[Jake]

I thought we talk about how we'd like our country to be governed in this forum. I think this case has exposed some inadequacies in our lawmaking and it seems many others agree. I already stated my peace that it didn't seem like you could convict based on the laws at play and the evidence presented, but that doesn't mean that the laws are good or the procedures to execute those laws are good. The question at hand is whether, based on all the evidence, you think George Zimmerman should go unpunished. Not based on the law, but based on your own moral/political compass. If you were making the laws, would your laws make him innocent? Will you encourage your politicians to make laws that make this result more or less likely?

[StrangeSox]

Again, the way things YOU or I think things aught to be aren't the actual way they aught to be.

 

I don't know what point you think you're making here.

[iamshack]

I think you're getting wrapped in the technical, legal definition of stalking and not as a colloquial description of what Zimmerman was doing.

In Milk's defense, I argued earlier that one could "make a case" for stalking against Zimmerman, and thus, we were debating the statute.

 

And I agree with Y2h...some of the insults need to stop, and SS, you're better than the back and forth you've been going on about with Zen...

 

Lets all take a step back and breathe a deep breath. No reason to insult anyone here.

 

Jake, I do agree with you that the focus of many is what the law needs to address. I think one of the biggest lessons to be learned here is that the law needs to discourage someone from taking things as far as Zimmerman did prior to the altercation even occurring.

[Y2HH]

I don't know what point you think you're making here.

 

Then think about it a little and maybe you'll come to an epic conclusion.

[Y2HH]

I thought we talk about how we'd like our country to be governed in this forum. I think this case has exposed some inadequacies in our lawmaking and it seems many others agree. I already stated my peace that it didn't seem like you could convict based on the laws at play and the evidence presented, but that doesn't mean that the laws are good or the procedures to execute those laws are good. The question at hand is whether, based on all the evidence, you think George Zimmerman should go unpunished. Not based on the law, but based on your own moral/political compass. If you were making the laws, would your laws make him innocent? Will you encourage your politicians to make laws that make this result more or less likely?

 

Us talking about how we believe things should be is one thing, but the attitude I'm reading here isn't that, it's as if things should be that way and anyone that disagrees is a moron/dumbass/etc. That's not a conversation, it's a get along gang that slings insults at anyone that disagrees with the hive mind. That's why I said this thread has devolved.

[Jake]

Us talking about how we believe things should be is one thing, but the attitude I'm reading here isn't that, it's as if things should be that way and anyone that disagrees is a moron/dumbass/etc. That's not a conversation, it's a get along gang that slings insults at anyone that disagrees with the hive mind. That's why I said this thread has devolved.

 

I think tensions are understandably high when it seems that lives are at stake. I'm trying to give everyone a pass.

[EvilMonkey]

Well, if this happened in New York Zimmerman would probably be in prison, but in Florida, he didn't technically do anything wrong.

If Zimmerman's name more reflected his Hispanic heritage none of this media circus would have happened either. George Sanchez instead of Zimmerman and this case never make any news outside of Sanford, and we never hear of the made up term 'white Hispanic'.

[Jake]

The reason this got media coverage is because a grown man shot a young man dead in very questionable circumstances and no arrest was made.

 

Also, white hispanic is a strange designation that you'll find on all kinds of official documents. You'll be asked if you're white, black, etc. and then if you are hispanic. Many researches have tried to tease out if white hispanics and black hispanics (these folks are usually from places like the Dominican Republic, where African slavery played a big role in society) have different social outcomes, so these questions are asked to pick up on trends.

[Y2HH]

I think tensions are understandably high when it seems that lives are at stake. I'm trying to give everyone a pass.

 

Then where were these "tensions" on July 8th when like 14 people were murdered and another 50 were shot over the span of 3 days? Lives were lost or at stake, but nobody gave a s***. I think it got all of a single mornings worth of media coverage and discussion.

 

Don't give anyone a pass. If you're upset about this, you should be upset about all of it, not just the ones the media gives you permission to be upset about.

[southsider2k5]

the prosecution was overzealous with the 2nd degree murder charge. they should have gone with manslaughter and proved that out IMO

 

There was no strategy here. According to FL law, there was never a case. The lack of a conviction isn't the problem. It is the law.

[southsider2k5]

I think you're getting wrapped in the technical, legal definition of stalking and not as a colloquial description of what Zimmerman was doing.

 

Seeing as this was a legal case, I would call that relevant.

[BigSqwert]

More like Officer.

 

Big deal. Is he on the Sanford PD?

[greg775]

Haven't followed this case, unlike the Casey Anthony case and Jodi Arias and some of the other hi profile cases of the last few years.

 

That said, I've read Whitlock's stuff on foxsports about race issues.

What's the quick take on this case?? Did the jury not have anything to go by? Why is he innocent? Is it more of the lack of evidence thing?

[iamshack]

Seeing as this was a legal case, I would call that relevant.

But he wasn't charged for stalking.

[Y2HH]

Haven't followed this case, unlike the Casey Anthony case and Jodi Arias and some of the other hi profile cases of the last few years.

 

That said, I've read Whitlock's stuff on foxsports about race issues.

What's the quick take on this case?? Did the jury not have anything to go by? Why is he innocent? Is it more of the lack of evidence thing?

 

Based on the evidence available, the laws in Florida basically say its legal. It's obviously more complicated, but that's the gist of it.

[southsider2k5]

But he wasn't charged for stalking.

 

Which kind of proves his point...

[iamshack]

Which kind of proves his point...

Yes...which I have conceded numerous times...but honestly, the law covers Facebook stalking...how is this not worse?