Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/8/13 07:05 PM, RacistBassist wrote: You need to recognize that acknowledging that in some cases it will be one race, or one income group, or one race from one income group, that ends up being the ones to riot.

Wait, so you're trying to tell us that race riots will usually be by blacks and/or other minorities? What a novel thought.

At 7/8/13 07:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Wait, so you're trying to tell us that race riots will usually be by blacks and/or other minorities? What a novel thought.

Lol.

My point is that acknowledging that does not make one have some super secret hidden racist agenda, which is, if I'm not mistaken, what Feoric is insinuating people of having

At 7/8/13 07:05 PM, RacistBassist wrote: I really don't get what your point is by pushing that people are saying that if a riot to occur, it will be black people doing it.

I just find it peculiar that nobody is saying angry white Zimmerman defenders will riot if he's found guilty.

At 7/8/13 08:03 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 7/8/13 07:05 PM, RacistBassist wrote: I really don't get what your point is by pushing that people are saying that if a riot to occur, it will be black people doing it.

I just find it peculiar that nobody is saying angry white Zimmerman defenders will riot if he's found guilty.

I haven't seen any angry white Zimmerman defenders say they would riot if he's found guilty, and usually speaking, people being convicted brings out a less emotional response than people walking

At 7/8/13 08:06 PM, RacistBassist wrote: I haven't seen any angry white Zimmerman defenders say they would riot if he's found guilty, and usually speaking, people being convicted brings out a less emotional response than people walking

Considering the fact that nobody decides to just riot like it's a pre-planned event, there is no way you're basing this off of anything other than Twitter and miscellaneous comments on online articles and taking it at face value.

At 7/8/13 11:55 AM, Feoric wrote:

That's very inclusive of you. I guess you're the first person ever to warn of rioting poor blacks as well as rioting poor whites. But didn't you say you lived in a small redneck town? Implying it's a homogeneous habitat which consists of lower-income white people?

And right there lies your problem. just because I said I live in a redneck town, you assume it's full of poor white trash and nothing else. That is profiling and profiling is wrong. There are plenty of nonwhites who live here too. Seems like none of them care either. they're too busy earning a living to be bothered with some case in another state that has nothing to do with them.

And that nothing was going to happen there? That's weird....

Not so much as you would think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

Why don't you just come out and call me a racist? you seem to really want to, considering you're insinuating that I am a racist by claiming that I am insinuating something, which I'm not.

At 7/9/13 01:16 PM, Ceratisa wrote: evidence points to there was indeed a punch to the nose, and his injuries were consistent with at least 6 other blows.

Dr. Di Miao has all but wrapped this up for the defense. Unless the prosecution has some major up their sleeve for the doctor, it's more or less over.

At 7/9/13 01:26 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/9/13 01:16 PM, Ceratisa wrote: evidence points to there was indeed a punch to the nose, and his injuries were consistent with at least 6 other blows.

Dr. Di Miao has all but wrapped this up for the defense. Unless the prosecution has some major up their sleeve for the doctor, it's more or less over.

Not necessarily. All this proves is that there was an altercation, which neither side denies.

Many people here are very much oversimplifying how self defense relates to murder. They tend to fudge two VERY important key issues: proportionality and reasonableness.

Many people here are mixing up generic self defense with the use of dedly force for self defense. They are not the same. For generic self defense the mere existence of striking by the victim is enough (except when the defendant struck first) to prove that generic self defense, such as a punch back, was warranted. That is NOT the case with lethal self defense. For lethal self defense their must be a reasonable fear, held by the defendant, that his life was in danger or he was in danger of serious injury (akin to losing the functionality of an organ, or dismemberment). While an altercation is evidence that such a fear may have existed it is HARDLY conclusive of such a fear. The existence of a gun or a knife in the hands of the victim is the type of evidence that is darn near conclusive.

The biggest issue here, and the point the prosecution should (and likely will be) hammering home during closing is reasonableness. The fear of death cannot just exist. Zimmerman's well documented belief that "they" (whether that be black people or youths, or both) cause trouble is not to be taken into account as that is a subjective view held by the defendant. So what we have is the question as to whether a husky and stocky man with a gun should feel like he is danger of death or serious injury after he was punched a few times by a horiffically scrawny kid who just happened to be taller than him. That is very much borderline. This is a factual question that jury must decide based on less than optimal facts.

Prosecution claims there was a generic fist fight. Defense claims he was getting curb stomped. Mere fist fight = failure of self defense (though not necessarily guilty of 2nd degree murder). Curb stomp makes a much stronger argument for self defense. As of yet, the evidence has been VERY unclear as to the actual nature of the altercation leaving this very important fact quite foggy.

There is one last issue that may cause problems as well, though it may lean more toward a nullification style ruling than one based purely in law. This is the issue that Zimmerman picked a fair fight (it has been strongly established and not disputed by the defense, that Zimmerman's actions were very threatening and could easily have elicited a reasonable self defense response from Matrin) and killed the kid because he was losing. While the law is fairly clear in that even if a person initiates the original violence, but the initial vicim then ups the ante, any act in response to the ante upping by the initial aggressor can be justified in self defense, it is unclear how the jury will see ths and whether they will punish Zimmerman for picking the fight even if they believe Martin upped the ante.

So, don't believe the NRA crowd in saying that this is a done deal. It's not. Not only is the law more complex than this crowd is purporting, juries can be very unpredictable.

At 7/9/13 02:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So, don't believe the NRA crowd in saying that this is a done deal. It's not. Not only is the law more complex than this crowd is purporting, juries can be very unpredictable.

Considering that the law in Florida states that self defense is not an affirmative defense (which is absolutely fucking retarded if you ask me) I really don't see Zimmerman being found guilty of murder 2. Possibly manslaughter, but not murder 2.

At 7/9/13 04:15 PM, Feoric wrote: Considering that the law in Florida states that self defense is not an affirmative defense (which is absolutely fucking retarded if you ask me) I really don't see Zimmerman being found guilty of murder 2. Possibly manslaughter, but not murder 2.

Just looked up florida law regarding justifiable use of force in defense of self or others, and aside from the completey unusable provision stating that if self defense is proven a person is immune from presecution (which makes no fucking sense as it takes prosecutorial trial for the defendant to prove such defense) nothing says that self defense is NOT an affirmative defense. By the very definition of the terms affirmative and negative defense (the only two types of defenses in US jurisdprudence) self defense is an affirmative defense.

At 7/9/13 06:34 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Can you point out to me where the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman profiled and stalked TM eventually ending in an unjustified shooting?

The state really has to prove very little, seeing as Zimmerman has admitted to following the kid, engaging with him and shooting him. The state does not have to prove that the shooting was unjustified. All homocides are presumed unjustified unless the defense can prove otherwise.

What the state needs to do here is affirmatively prove the mental state (in order to classify which level of homocide it is) and to negate or create doubt in Zimmerman's lethal self defense claim.

At 7/9/13 06:07 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Just looked up florida law regarding justifiable use of force in defense of self or others, and aside from the completey unusable provision stating that if self defense is proven a person is immune from presecution (which makes no fucking sense as it takes prosecutorial trial for the defendant to prove such defense) nothing says that self defense is NOT an affirmative defense. By the very definition of the terms affirmative and negative defense (the only two types of defenses in US jurisdprudence) self defense is an affirmative defense.

Here's the standard jury instruction the jurors will be given:

"If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved."

So, yeah, you're technically correct, but in practice Florida doesn't actually require the person claiming self-defense to prove that to any legal standard.

At 7/9/13 07:01 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

Before we even get to affirmative defense don't we specifically need Law Enforcement in regards to Flordia law to have evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's claim?

The jury decides what evidence and whose stories they find credible.

At 7/9/13 07:27 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Who is countering Zimmerman's story who was there to hear or see anything?

Have you been watching the trial? Honest question. Like, actually watching the trial on HLN or a livestream.

At 7/9/13 08:01 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Yes I have, and before when the prosecution was presenting its case we had people who weren't there.

What do you mean "weren't there?" Only two people were there, and one of them is dead. Do you have a problem with the defense calling ballistics experts to the stand or something?

A medical expert who testified that the DNA evidence on TM's shirt had not been properly preserved and thus it could damage his ability to properly collect it.

Both the prosecution and defense agree that Zimmernman's gun was against the clothing when fired. It changes nothing, since the defense did not prove that the evidence was mishandled or as far as I know even attempt to get it thrown out of the courtroom. Earlier in the trial there was a biological analyst that testified that wet clothing can possibly remove DNA evidence, which could possibly explain the lack of DNA on Trayvon's hoodie, so that's probably where the defense was heading with that.

Jeantel, who didn't actually say anything damning about Zimmerman

Thats not true. Her testimony paints Zimmerman as the instigator of the fight.

, and her testimony was both inconsistent and questionable. (Proven to be lying on numerous occasions and then openly denied something she claimed TM said previously)

And finally Mr. Good who basically said TM was on top of Zimmerman and it appeared that TM was pummeling him.

am I missing anyone important?

Serino? Dr. Bao?

At 7/9/13 07:01 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Before we even get to affirmative defense don't we specifically need Law Enforcement in regards to Flordia law to have evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's claim?

No, that's not how affirmative defenses work.

At 7/9/13 07:11 PM, Ceratisa wrote: In regards to affirmative defense isn't that considered a low burden of proof?

As I have said before, I am unsure of what the burden level is on the presenter of an affirmative defense in a criminal trial.

At 7/9/13 07:18 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Oh right also this
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592866-504083/georg e-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martin-was-on-top-of-zimmerman-whe n-teen-was-shot-gunshot-wound-expert-testifies/

Two things:

- The mere positioning of one person on top of another in a fist fight is HARDLY grounds to believe one's life is in danger.
- That same expert admitted that the evidence was unclear and could also suggest that Matrin was disengaging from the fight.

At 7/9/13 11:15 PM, Ceratisa wrote: So basically even though he was bias he still completely backed the defense
So 3 marks actually on TM's knuckles according to prosecution witness Dr. Bao.

If this were a Dicorderly COnduct, battery, or an assault trial, than yes. HOWEVER, like I mentioned before, this is a murder trial which has a very nuanced form of self defense. The mere evidence that Martin and Zimmerman were fighting, or even that Martin was beating Zimmerman up alone is not enough to conclusively prove that Zimmerman's claimed belief that he feared for his life was reasonable. Fist fights CAN be seriously injurious and deadly, but in a HUGE SUPER DUPER REAGAN V. DUKAKIS amount of cases they are not and do not even come close. This is why evidence of a light or medium fist fight is not conclusive.

At 7/9/13 11:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

- The mere positioning of one person on top of another in a fist fight is HARDLY grounds to believe one's life is in danger.

let someone smack you around, take you to the ground and get on top of you and see how fast you go into a panic. Once someone mounts you, you're essentially helpless unless the person is light weight enough that you can grab them and force them off.

there's a reason why someone mounts another, to render them helpless while they mercilessly batter them, usually battering their head, which contains many parts, including the brain, eyes, nose, teeth, and jaw which can become damaged from repeated strikes to the head. I would say someone mounting you in a fight is a good reason to believe you're in danger of death or great bodily harm, since they can break your jaw, your nose, break teeth, blind you from damaging your eyes with repeated blows, cause brain damage from swelling, or kill you from brain hemorrhaging or swelling.

At 7/9/13 11:45 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Which is why we've already brought up concrete and according to Florida self defense one has to believe they are in danger, correct?

Do I need a sledgehammer here? How many times do I have to say that THIS IS NOT GENERIC SELF DEFENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In order to use lethal force in self defense one must reasonably (i.e. what a reasonable person intheri circumstances) believe that their life is in danger. They cannot simply be hit, or fear that they may get hurt or beaten up.

And according to numerous self defense ruling severity of injuries did not come into play when determining if an individual felt their life was in danger.

It's not the severity of the injuries that are at issue. The lightness of the injuries here are indicators that the altercation was not as such a large person would fear for their life from a small person. It COULD mean that, but then again, it could not. It's not conclusive as many here so wish it was.

I believe we've already discussed unarmed men ... rushing at someone was enough to allow for a legal cause of lethal self defense in numerous circumstances.

Depends on the circumstances. When someone rushes they may have a knife or a gun. When you're in a fist fight you've passed that point, and u nless there is an indication that the person either has such a weapon or is doing such a move that could cause extreme injury, the likelihood that your life is in danger shrinks exponentially.

Could you explain to me where the state has scored big points, ya know since you firmly feel it isn't over.

ZImmerman admitted to following, engaging and killing the kid. Manslaughter case closed. He avoids this quick outcome by claiming self defense, yet the evidence is very wishy washy as to whether a reasonable person would have felt like their life was in danger (not just their pride or their pain) under the circumstances. The fact that his head bled is evidence of very litte as the lightest nicks on the cranium created abonormally high amounts of blood. The positioning of Martin in an MMA position above Zimmerman is not evidence that Martian planned to kill or nearly kill Zimmerman.

Subjective panic is not grounds to kill someone, especially when the facts skew HEAVILY away from the ability or intent to kill.

The jury could reasonably and validly determine EITHER outcome based on the evidence.

Oh and another sledghammer moment. Prosecution doesn't have to prove against self defense.

At 7/10/13 10:35 AM, Korriken wrote: let someone smack you around, take you to the ground and get on top of you and see how fast you go into a panic. Once someone mounts you, you're essentially helpless unless the person is light weight enough that you can grab them and force them off.

Are you telling me Zimmerman, who outweighed Martin by close to 100 pound scouldn;t lift the scrawny kid off of him? That is proposterous.

there's a reason why someone mounts another, to render them helpless while they mercilessly batter them, usually battering their head, which contains many parts, including the brain, eyes, nose, teeth, and jaw which can become damaged from repeated strikes to the head.

None of those amount to the serious injuries required for lethal force to be used.

I would say someone mounting you in a fight is a good reason to believe you're in danger of death or great bodily harm, since they can break your jaw, your nose, break teeth, blind you from damaging your eyes with repeated blows, cause brain damage from swelling, or kill you from brain hemorrhaging or swelling.

The evidence COULD be read to show this. Then again, its could reasonably be read to show that this was a simple garden variety fight that Zimmerman was in no danger and that his belief was not reasonable.

Zimmerman was 100% in the right to use generic self defense, such as hitting Matrin, pushing him, kicking him, and pistol whipping him. That is VERY clear. However the line between generic self defense and the use of lethal force in self defense is VERY thick, and the evidence isn't very convincing that Zimmerman should have believed his life was in danger.

THAT is the crux here. How many times will I need to repeat myself to get you guys to understand?