Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Social > Politics and News

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-06-2013, 01:34 PM   #43426
soundforbjt
Diamond Member
 
soundforbjt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In an office
Posts: 6,846
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spidey07 View Post
Broken nose is considered "great bodily harm" according to the law. It is harm that offers the possibility of permanent disfigurement.
Spidey's never heard of rhinoplasty...
__________________
"Soitenly, if at first you don't succeed, keep on suckin' till you do succeed." - Curly Howard


The Heat 106-0-0
soundforbjt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 01:36 PM   #43427
airdata
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Londo_Jowo
What about all the heads that will explode should spidey's posts be proven true which is very much a possibility.
And until such a time, it's all speculation & bullshit.

I'm glad you agree.
__________________
Check for reply next week in case I'm banned.

1JYdDv2YHXthtLjEiwtLSW9LjsN4ehQjkc
airdata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 01:58 PM   #43428
randomrogue
Diamond Member
 
randomrogue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spidey07 View Post
Broken nose is considered "great bodily harm" according to the law. It is harm that offers the possibility of permanent disfigurement.
I've broken someone's nose. It took almost nothing to do so. I find it amazing that it can be classified as a GBI. Sometimes it is though. Keep in mind though that a jury can judge the injuries on a case by case basis. They're not forced to accept a broken nose as GBH.

If the lawyers can prove that it was Zimmerman who started the fight, and provoked the use of violence, then the great bodily harm defense is not valid as I understand it.

So wait for the damn trial.
randomrogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 02:02 PM   #43429
spidey07
No Lifer
 
spidey07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 65,443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randomrogue View Post
I've broken someone's nose. It took almost nothing to do so. I find it amazing that it can be classified as a GBI. Sometimes it is though. Keep in mind though that a jury can judge the injuries on a case by case basis. They're not forced to accept a broken nose as GBH.

If the lawyers can prove that it was Zimmerman who started the fight, and provoked the use of violence, then the great bodily harm defense is not valid as I understand it.

So wait for the damn trial.
Even IF zimmerman was initial aggressor he could still lawfully shoot in self defense because of the following known FACTS. These FACTs are key in showing how all evidence actually PROVES self defense rather than refute it. There is zero evidence this wasn't self defense. None.

1) On back, after being brutally beaten by martin repeatedly about the head - that means martin was an imminent threat to zimmeran's life and capable of inflicting great bodily harm (he had already done so)
2) Martin on top of zimmerman, proven by ballistics and eye witnesses
3) Zimmerman unable to retreat as he was mounted by martin

Quote:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
__________________
___
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
spidey07 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 02:11 PM   #43430
randomrogue
Diamond Member
 
randomrogue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,462
Default

Will be interesting. That exception could be severely exploited.
randomrogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 02:15 PM   #43431
soundforbjt
Diamond Member
 
soundforbjt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In an office
Posts: 6,846
Default

My friend's five year old daughter broke his nose while she straddled him. Ok to shoot spidey?
__________________
"Soitenly, if at first you don't succeed, keep on suckin' till you do succeed." - Curly Howard


The Heat 106-0-0
soundforbjt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 02:16 PM   #43432
They Live
Senior Member
 
They Live's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 552
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randomrogue View Post
Will be interesting. That exception could be severely exploited.
Yep, and Spidey knows this.

I guarantee if the Sanford PD had evidence that Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon first, or brandished his weapon at Trayvon, he would have been charged. The reason why he was never charged is because they had no proof that he assaulted Trayvon in any way shape or form, or flashed his gun, or threatened Martin with his gun.

Also, "aggressor" could be considered many things, and so can "
provoke". I can walk up to someone and blatantly insult them and their family, and I would be considered the aggressor in that scenario, though if he did attack me, I could shoot.

Someone like Spidey could pull a Bruce Willis in Die Hard 3 and go to Harlem with a "I hate ******s" sign strapped to his back, which would be considered provoking people, however if he was attacked, he could shoot.

However, someone brandishing a weapon or assaulting someone then shooting when they are starting to get beat up? Haven't found once case that matches those scenarios yet. Perhaps cases like that do exist, I've just haven't found one yet.

Last edited by They Live; 02-06-2013 at 02:23 PM.
They Live is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 02:21 PM   #43433
TerryMathews
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 11,474
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randomrogue View Post
Will be interesting. That exception could be severely exploited.
Yes, and it may have been exploited in this case however that doesn't invalidate it.

There is no equivalent of jury nullification for conviction. They cannot return a verdict not founded in the law, and if they do the judge is duty bound to set it aside.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgm...anding_verdict
__________________
Asrock Z87 Extreme4 | 4770K @ 4.6GHz (46x100 at 1.096V + 0.139V adaptive) | Noctua NH-D14 | 16GB RAM |2x MSI GTX 770 OC Dual Fan | Fractal Design Define R4 | QNIX QX2710 @ 2560x1440 96Hz
My Heatware evals
TerryMathews is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 02:44 PM   #43434
They Live
Senior Member
 
They Live's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 552
Default

Using Spidey's logic, the black guy in this video could have legally shot the old white man: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA-BRHjsnCc

While the black guy was clearly the aggressor, the old white guy started to brutally beat the black guy down to the ground. Using Spidey's logic, he could have shot and killed the old white guy, and would have never been charged.

However, chances are if he did have a gun and did shoot the old man after the beat down, he would have been charged with a crime.
They Live is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 02:49 PM   #43435
SpatiallyAware
Lifer
 
SpatiallyAware's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randomrogue View Post
Will be interesting. That exception could be severely exploited.

Welcome to our justice system.

It is understandably designed in a way where one is innocent until proven guilty.

Many in here would prefer that we decide guilt based on gut feelings.
SpatiallyAware is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 03:08 PM   #43436
spidey07
No Lifer
 
spidey07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 65,443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by They Live View Post
Using Spidey's logic, the black guy in this video could have legally shot the old white man: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA-BRHjsnCc

While the black guy was clearly the aggressor, the old white guy started to brutally beat the black guy down to the ground. Using Spidey's logic, he could have shot and killed the old white guy, and would have never been charged.

However, chances are if he did have a gun and did shoot the old man after the beat down, he would have been charged with a crime.
Black guy committed forcible felony, so of course he would be charged.

I've explained this dozens of times to you, stop making shit up.

Any evidence zimmerman committed a forcible felony? Any evidence at all that this wasn't self defense?

Anything? One piece? One shred of evidence?

No, you have nothing and neither does the prosecution.

Also, the initial aggressor had avenues of retreat. One more time for you so you can read...

Quote:
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
__________________
___
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Last edited by spidey07; 02-06-2013 at 03:13 PM.
spidey07 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 03:15 PM   #43437
Londo_Jowo
Lifer
 
Londo_Jowo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Richmond, TX
Posts: 13,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by airdata View Post
And until such a time, it's all speculation & bullshit.

I'm glad you agree.
The same can be said about your fairy tale theories as well.
Londo_Jowo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 03:16 PM   #43438
They Live
Senior Member
 
They Live's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 552
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spidey07 View Post
Black guy committed forcible felony, so of course he would be charged.

I've explained this dozens of times to you, stop making shit up.
So you admit that it does matter how it started between Zimmerman and Martin.

Not having evidence that Zimmerman is the aggressor is one thing, but repeating over and over again that "being brutally beat down = okay to shoot, no matter who started the fight" is in fact a lie on your part. Unless of course you agree that the black guy in that video, who was the aggressor, had a right to shoot the old white man.

Edit: And black guy had no way to retreat. Nobody was helping him, and it could be argued that few punches from a clearly strong old man could have killed him.
They Live is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 03:18 PM   #43439
spidey07
No Lifer
 
spidey07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 65,443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by They Live View Post
So you admit that it does matter how it started between Zimmerman and Martin.

Not having evidence that Zimmerman is the aggressor is one thing, but repeating over and over again that "being brutally beat down = okay to shoot, no matter who started the fight" is in fact a lie on your part. Unless of course you agree that the black guy in that video, who was the aggressor, had a right to shoot the old white man.

Edit: And black guy had no way to retreat. Nobody was helping him as it was, and it could be argued that few punches from a clearly strong old man could have killed him.
No, it doesn't matter how or who "started it". Unless there is some forcible felony involved. I've explained this to you dozens of times. The key to this case is martin over zimmerman, mounting him, after brutally beating him repeatedly about the head while zimmerman screamed for his life. Those are known facts that make it self defense.

The black guy would be able to shoot if white guy mounted him, with black guy on his back, preventing retreat and then continued the beating.

Read more, since it is obviously not sinking in yet...

Quote:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
__________________
___
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Last edited by spidey07; 02-06-2013 at 03:22 PM.
spidey07 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 03:20 PM   #43440
EagleKeeper
Discussion Club Moderator
Elite Member
 
EagleKeeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bumps west of Denver
Posts: 42,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soundforbjt View Post
My friend's five year old daughter broke his nose while she straddled him. Ok to shoot spidey?
Was he being beaten?
Was blood pooling so he felt he was choking?
Was she unwilling to let him up?
Was he unable to get up because she was straddling him?
Was she trying to harm?



See how ridiculous you seem?

the more the TM crowd reaches out to belittle the evidence the more foolish they seem.

And where is this thoughtful scenario/theory, supported by the evidence,that you indicated you would be able to provide.

You have typed enough in this thread since stating that you had one.
__________________
F15 Air Superiority Fighter - Never has one been lost in aerial combat (104 kills)
EagleKeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 03:20 PM   #43441
They Live
Senior Member
 
They Live's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 552
Default

I'll let you get the last word in Spidey, even though you are wrong. This is my last post on this particular subject (the subject of the aggressor, not the Zimmerman case itself).
They Live is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 03:20 PM   #43442
soundforbjt
Diamond Member
 
soundforbjt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In an office
Posts: 6,846
Default

Quote:
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Had GZ tried/exhausted every reasonable means to escape? He didn't fight back (no defensive wounds).
__________________
"Soitenly, if at first you don't succeed, keep on suckin' till you do succeed." - Curly Howard


The Heat 106-0-0
soundforbjt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 03:24 PM   #43443
EagleKeeper
Discussion Club Moderator
Elite Member
 
EagleKeeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bumps west of Denver
Posts: 42,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by They Live View Post
Yep, and Spidey knows this.

I guarantee if the Sanford PD had evidence that Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon first, or brandished his weapon at Trayvon, he would have been charged. The reason why he was never charged is because they had no proof that he assaulted Trayvon in any way shape or form, or flashed his gun, or threatened Martin with his gun.

Also, "aggressor" could be considered many things, and so can "
provoke". I can walk up to someone and blatantly insult them and their family, and I would be considered the aggressor in that scenario, though if he did attack me, I could shoot.

Someone like Spidey could pull a Bruce Willis in Die Hard 3 and go to Harlem with a "I hate ******s" sign strapped to his back, which would be considered provoking people, however if he was attacked, he could shoot.

However, someone brandishing a weapon or assaulting someone then shooting when they are starting to get beat up? Haven't found once case that matches those scenarios yet. Perhaps cases like that do exist, I've just haven't found one yet.
Seems as if you and others seem to fail to realize that it is not who does the provocation that matters.

It is who is in danger and feels that they have no other recourse.

Spitting on each other does not cut it; nor throwing out silly insults.

As much as others want to close the trial as a provocation; it is the last 2-3 minutes that determine the legal outcome.

Everything else is frosting on the cake as to explain how the situation developed and to try to explain actions as a distraction.
__________________
F15 Air Superiority Fighter - Never has one been lost in aerial combat (104 kills)
EagleKeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 03:26 PM   #43444
spidey07
No Lifer
 
spidey07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 65,443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soundforbjt View Post
Had GZ tried/exhausted every reasonable means to escape? He didn't fight back (no defensive wounds).
He wasn't the initial aggressor, he didn't need to retreat or attempt to.

Even IF zimmerman was the initial aggressor he could shoot in self defense when martin was mounting him on his back after martin brutally and viciously beat zimmerman about the head many times.

That's what makes this such a rock solid case of self defense. There are witnesses, ballistics and all the other evidence that actually PROVE self defense.

Anybody have one shred of evidence this wasn't self defense? Anything? One piece?
__________________
___
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
spidey07 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 03:27 PM   #43445
They Live
Senior Member
 
They Live's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 552
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleKeeper View Post
Seems as if you and others seem to fail to realize that it is not who does the provocation that matters.

It is who is in danger and feels that they have no other recourse.

Spitting on each other does not cut it; nor throwing out silly insults.

As much as others want to close the trial as a provocation; it is the last 2-3 minutes that determine the legal outcome.

Everything else is frosting on the cake as to explain how the situation developed and to try to explain actions as a distraction.
Provoking someone verbally doesn't matter (unless you threaten to kill them).

Assaulting someone, or flashing a weapon at someone does matter, and I guarantee if the Sanford PD had evidence that he assaulted, threatened, or flashed a weapon at Martin, he would have been charged, and even convicted.

He will walk because there is no proof that he did any of those things. That's the only reason why he'll walk.
They Live is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 03:28 PM   #43446
EagleKeeper
Discussion Club Moderator
Elite Member
 
EagleKeeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bumps west of Denver
Posts: 42,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soundforbjt View Post
Had GZ tried/exhausted every reasonable means to escape? He didn't fight back (no defensive wounds).
Was he able to fight back with Martin mounting him?

From what the witness indicated he saw, NO.
Had he tried to escape - who knows; can the prosecution prove that he did not try and had the ability to do so?
__________________
F15 Air Superiority Fighter - Never has one been lost in aerial combat (104 kills)
EagleKeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 03:30 PM   #43447
EagleKeeper
Discussion Club Moderator
Elite Member
 
EagleKeeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bumps west of Denver
Posts: 42,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by They Live View Post
Provoking someone verbally doesn't matter (unless you threaten to kill them).

Assaulting someone, or flashing a weapon at someone does matter, and I guarantee if the Sanford PD had evidence that he assaulted, threatened, or flashed a weapon at Martin, he would have been charged, and even convicted.

He will walk because there is no proof that he did any of those things. That's the only reason why he'll walk.
So in that case; why is the TM crowd trying to come up with what if theories as to what happened;

There is no proof/evidence that Martin felt threatens by a weapon.
__________________
F15 Air Superiority Fighter - Never has one been lost in aerial combat (104 kills)
EagleKeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 03:32 PM   #43448
soundforbjt
Diamond Member
 
soundforbjt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In an office
Posts: 6,846
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleKeeper View Post
Was he able to fight back with Martin mounting him?

From what the witness indicated he saw, NO.
Had he tried to escape - who knows; can the prosecution prove that he did not try and had the ability to do so?
Who knows, there's been no trial and the prosecution hasn't presented their case, It's who's interpetation and who's story the facts tell best that determine the outcome in these cases.
__________________
"Soitenly, if at first you don't succeed, keep on suckin' till you do succeed." - Curly Howard


The Heat 106-0-0
soundforbjt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 03:32 PM   #43449
SpatiallyAware
Lifer
 
SpatiallyAware's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleKeeper View Post
So in that case; why is the TM crowd trying to come up with what if theories as to what happened;

There is no proof/evidence that Martin felt threatens by a weapon.

Because they came to the conclusion that zimmerman was guilty based off of the pictures released the week this all came out.


They have then spent months doing everything possible to justify their predetermined conclusion.
SpatiallyAware is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 03:32 PM   #43450
momeNt
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6,082
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by They Live View Post
Provoking someone verbally doesn't matter (unless you threaten to kill them).

Assaulting someone, or flashing a weapon at someone does matter, and I guarantee if the Sanford PD had evidence that he assaulted, threatened, or flashed a weapon at Martin, he would have been charged, and even convicted.

He will walk because there is no proof that he did any of those things. That's the only reason why he'll walk.
The best evidence that he assaulted martin is the fact he even was able to get his weapon out from behind himself while being pummeled on his back. It stands to reason that the gun was out when the confrontation started.

Can't really convict on that because there is no witness or actual evidence to that point, and a re-enactment showing how its basically impossible to do this still isn't enough to prove he assaulted Martin by drawing his weapon before Martin ever struck him.
momeNt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.