Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Debating with the enemy


Trayvon Martin Case

Debating with the enemy


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-12-2013, 01:58 PM   #1006
Playmaker
 
HailGreen28's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,523
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
Yup. What you say is true and I agree. Still, a very good and concise tagline that will likely resonate with some of the jurors.
Yeah, and what gets me is like you and RR say: No, legally it's not about staying in your car at all. Where did we get to the point where getting out of your car means you deserve to be beaten up? I'm not saying Martin attacked Zimmerman for that, but that's exactly what some people here have said they would do, and that's totally wrong and they should go to jail themselves if they actually do attack someone under those circumstances.

To hear a prosecutor talk along those lines was unbelievable to me. "Is that all they have at that point?", I was thinking.

Last edited by HailGreen28; 07-12-2013 at 02:05 PM.
HailGreen28 is offline  

Advertisements
Old 07-12-2013, 01:58 PM   #1007
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,544
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
Yup. What you say is true and I agree. Still, a very good and concise tagline that will likely resonate with some of the jurors.
Not sure if you caught the TV coverage last night but (I think) CNN had their quasi-jury and they were clearly split along racial lines. Some of the personal comments were utterly ridiculous.

My concern is that the jurors are mouth-breathers, I hope not.
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 07-12-2013, 02:18 PM   #1008
MVP
 
Chico23231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 37
Posts: 10,580
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
Prosecution - "This is not about race"....but Trayvon and his friend sure as **** don't like creepy-assed crackers.

**** sake!
*sigh*
__________________
@RSherman_25 just make sure you stay in Seattle cause without that pass rush you are who we thought you were. 5th rd PK no speed good hands

— DeAngelo Hall (@DeAngeloHall23) March 14, 2014
Chico23231 is offline  
Old 07-12-2013, 02:34 PM   #1009
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 34
Posts: 9,841
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
Yup. What you say is true and I agree. Still, a very good and concise tagline that will likely resonate with some of the jurors.
They may not but it shows Zimmerman getting reasonableness in real-time. Not to mention the community's neighborhood watch protocol.
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins

Last edited by saden1; 07-12-2013 at 02:43 PM.
saden1 is offline  
Old 07-12-2013, 02:49 PM   #1010
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chico23231 View Post
*sigh*
Asthma? You should get an inhaler.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 07-12-2013, 03:24 PM   #1011
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,395
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

To me, as always, it depends on how seriously the jury takes the presumption of innocence charge. If every fact for which there is not direct or immediate circumstantial evidence is presumed to be in GZ's favor or presumed unproven, I just don't see how a jury could convict.

On the other hand, they don't do so, and allow certain prosecutorial assumptions to stand (key being that (1) TM was either in imminent fear of physical harm before attacking GZ or (2) that TZ initiated the fight plus a host of assumptions relating to the self-defense issue). Then they may very well let it stand.


** When I say "immediate circumstantial evidence", I mean:
(1) "In a forest filled with deer, I saw deer tracks on a path. At the end of the tracks, I saw a deer. Although I didn't see it make the tracks, I assume the deer standing at the end of the tracks is the deer who made the tracks leading up to them"; or,
(2) "In an area filled with deer, a field is fully enclosed on the first of the month. At the time of the enclosure, an inspection was done and there is direct evidence that there were no deer in the field when it was enclosed. People have been allowed to place deer in the enclosure but, since its enclosure, a video camera at the sole entrance verifies that only one deer has ever been placed in the field. The enclosure was inspected immediately after I visited it, and it is intact and has never been repaired, Therefore even though I didn't see the tracks being made, I assume that the tracks I saw when I visited the field on the 15th were made by the only deer placed in the field".

As compared to:
(1) "I saw deer tracks leading down a path in the woods then they disappearred but a twenty yards down the path, I saw a deer. I assumed that deer is the one that made the tracks I saw"; or
(2) "A field is fully enclosed on the 1st, no inspection was done, but the owner believes no deer were in the enclosure because he saw none as constructed the enclosure. Although others have access to the field and are permitted to place their deer in the field, he states is the only person to do so and he has placed only one deer in the field since its enclosure. He inspected the enclosure after I visited the field on the 15th and it was intact and had never been repaired. On the day of my visit I saw only one deer. Therefore even though I didn't see the tracks being made, I assume that the tracks I saw when I visited the field on the 15th were made by the deer the owner placed in the field.


The more little holes you fill with assumption and inference, the more and more you risk ignoring the presumption.
__________________
"We're very sorry, but we're too permissive to allow your sort".
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-12-2013, 03:52 PM   #1012
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,395
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
They may not but it shows Zimmerman getting reasonableness in real-time. Not to mention the community's neighborhood watch protocol.
Reasonableness IS NOT the standard for manslaughter. Here is the instruction given:

Quote:
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Trayvon Martin is dead.

2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.

George Zimmerman cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:

Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.
Emphasis mine.

The assertion that (1) getting out of his car against the instructions of a dispatcher; and (2) in violation of protocols -- is unreasonable is not enough to convict for the crime of manslaughter [although it may be enough in a civil wrongful death tort claim].

Rather, for a conviction you must assume - b/c there is no evidence one way or the other on this - that he had a conscience intent to cause harm. The closest thing to direct evidence on this point is GZ's comment "these **** always get away". For guilt, you must presume from that statement that GZ intended to cause harm. While I agree that is a reasonable assumption, there are three or four other reasonable assumptions which I ran through several pages ago when Chico and discussed this specific point. If you take the presumption of innoncence seriously, you cannot presume the necessary state of mind unless the State proves that it is the only reasonable assumption. (i.e.- the State's evidence eliminates all other reasonable assumptions).

I just don't see that. To me, it takes a lot of assumptions contrary to the presumption of innocence to read what was in GZ's mind that night and to get from a level general frustration to an intention to cause harm. [I mean really, if he had the "conscious intention to harm", why not approach with the gun drawn? If there was evidence of that, whole 'nother story.]
__________________
"We're very sorry, but we're too permissive to allow your sort".
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-12-2013, 04:53 PM   #1013
Playmaker
 
over the mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: baltimore
Posts: 3,057
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

whether a dispatcher's instruction is an official order or martin's past history or zimmerman's past dispatch calls, etc are all immaterial imo and you all are getting lost in the sauce to the central issue:

Was zimmerman in actual and reasonable fear for his life?

EMT said zimmerman's injuries werent life threatening.

having injuries that would make you "concerned for your medical safety" doesnt rise to the level of life threatening injuries imo.

you cant shoot someone because you are losing a fist fight.

the prosecutions apparent inability to draw a clear picture and the defense attorney's ability to color outside the lines has made for an unclear picture ....

so i havent seen anything to change my mind that its going to be man 1. but i have been paying attention to this thread about the trial and not the actual trial so my opinion is gut instinct.
__________________
RJJ Apr. 10, 2014 at 4:40pm
BOB, Where have you been hiding? Good to you around again.
BobOathKeeper Apr. 10, 2014 at 4:42pm
I had to take a break and stomp some liberals into mud-holes, just keeping in shape for what’s coming brother, RJJ. :)
over the mountain is offline  
Old 07-12-2013, 05:07 PM   #1014
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,395
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

It's death or great bodily harm.

EMT said that a person on their back with GZ's injuries would "probably" be in "fear for their medical safety".

Direct evidence that he was on the ground with Martin on top with "flailing arms", had a blood running down his throat, evidence of his head striking the concrete more than once (certainly no conclusive evidence it ONLY struck once - assumptions go to GZ favor), no visible injuries to TM evidencing even a single blow landed by GZ and GZ screaming for help.

Again, a perfectly reasonable inference - to me - is that he wasn't "losing a fight", he was being given a beat down with reckless abandon with no help in sight. To me, if true, sounds like reasonable fear of great bodily harm.

And to be fair, both sides colored outside the lines.
__________________
"We're very sorry, but we're too permissive to allow your sort".
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-12-2013, 05:14 PM   #1015
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,395
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Again, I am not saying your interpretation of the key moment is unreasonable OMT. It is certainly one take. Given the evidence and the need for more than one or two, less than airtight inferences (deer standing with tracks leading to it example), however, I think the presumption of innocence is a burden the prosecution just can't overcome beyond a reasonable doubt in this case.
__________________
"We're very sorry, but we're too permissive to allow your sort".
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-12-2013, 05:21 PM   #1016
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,395
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Also, I absolutely agree with you OMT - at the moment he fired the gun, it is manslaughter if he is not reasonably in fear of his life or great bodily harm.

It is the State (and saden1 and chico and others) saying the initial act of following is what evidences the necessary intent for manslaughter.
__________________
"We're very sorry, but we're too permissive to allow your sort".
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-12-2013, 06:17 PM   #1017
MVP
 
Chico23231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 37
Posts: 10,580
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by RGIII View Post
Well I guess we can stop crying over Sean Taylor's death using your twisted (legal) logic. Clearly Sean was killed by the intruders who feared their own lives.
killing someone in the commission of a felony (B&E, home invasion, robbery) is a way different situation. not comparable
__________________
@RSherman_25 just make sure you stay in Seattle cause without that pass rush you are who we thought you were. 5th rd PK no speed good hands

— DeAngelo Hall (@DeAngeloHall23) March 14, 2014
Chico23231 is offline  
Old 07-12-2013, 06:23 PM   #1018
MVP
 
Chico23231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 37
Posts: 10,580
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

If Sean would have killed them, than Stand your ground would have applied. Threshold of law is usually the doorway, window...once someone comes in your household without permission and intent to harm, they are fair game to be killed.
__________________
@RSherman_25 just make sure you stay in Seattle cause without that pass rush you are who we thought you were. 5th rd PK no speed good hands

— DeAngelo Hall (@DeAngeloHall23) March 14, 2014
Chico23231 is offline  
Old 07-12-2013, 06:27 PM   #1019
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chico23231 View Post
If Sean would have killed them, than Stand your ground would have applied. Threshold of law is usually the doorway, window...once someone comes in your household without permission and intent to harm, they are fair game to be killed.
Pretty much. Except "and intent to harm" isn't needed. It is presumed someone breaking into your home has an "intent to harm".
__________________
"We're very sorry, but we're too permissive to allow your sort".
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-12-2013, 06:33 PM   #1020
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGIII View Post
Well I guess we can stop crying over Sean Taylor's death using your twisted (legal) logic. Clearly Sean was killed by the intruders who feared their own lives.
Yes. Clearly to some here, the presumption of innocence we are ALL entitled to when accused of a crime is pretty "twisted (legal) logic".

Pitchforks and torches are so much easier and require much less thought.
__________________
"We're very sorry, but we're too permissive to allow your sort".
JoeRedskin is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.34005 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25