Londo_Jowo
Lifer
MoM will depose her very soon, I suspect after he has the legible tape of her original statements to Crumb and social media postings on the night of the incident/through a few days after TM's funeral.
MoM will depose her very soon, I suspect after he has the legible tape of her original statements to Crumb and social media postings on the night of the incident/through a few days after TM's funeral.
Geosurface
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2012
- 5,773
- 4
- 0
LOL so let me get this straight, I can marry a woman... take out an insurance policy on her, and if I wait enough years after doing that so as to make it not seem suspicious... and use a method which totally looks like an accident, I can get away with murder and get a ton of money too?
Or, I can drive up to a hitchhiker and shoot him in the head from my car on a lonely dark highway, and if the police have no reason to ever suspect me or compare the bullet to my gun, I can just get away with murder like that too?
I could go on listing things like this for a while. And keep in mind, these sorts of spousal poisoning, random kill, or even high profile murders were gotten away with very regularly before the advent of modern forensic techniques. Despite what CSI would like you to believe, people still can and do get away with murders, a lot. Rapes as well, thefts as well. It has always been possible to get away with crimes if you are careful or lucky or both. Ever watch those true crime shows where they'll discover a murder and catch a murderer that had gotten away with it for decades and thought they were scott free? Well, for each one like that, which makes a good story... there are tons who got away with it for even more decades, all the way until they died. Never faced consequences. Flash back to 1000 A.D. or the caveman days, or just consider the entirety of human history... the number of assaults, murders, rapes, and horrors committed by one person upon another, or by some animal upon some person, or vice versa... which were never punished, discovered, and for which the perpetrator(s) never faced one iota of consequence, is MIND-BOGGLINGLY HUGE. Civilization and law are meant to mitigate this and provide a framework for us to live more peacefully, but they are not an absolute guarantee of nothing bad happening or nobody bad getting away with anything.
When it comes to what you find ridiculous about this, you'd have to punch that theoretical person square in the face without it leaving any mark on their face to completely avoid suspicion... there'd have to be no witnesses to contradict your version, etc etc... you might end up getting away with it though, that's true.
But can you describe a formation of law which could both eliminate 100% of abuses and sneaky people getting away with stuff, AND provide a reasonable right to defend one's own life?
Last edited:
They Live
Senior member
- Oct 23, 2012
- 556
- 0
- 71
Right, and the law allows idiots to start a fight with anyone, and if you are losing and can't get free, you can just shoot them and claim self defense.
So what I said stands. The law basically allows idiots with guns to start shit with people, and shoot them if they get a beat down and "fear for their life". If I walk into a bar and piss in someone's drink, then get my ass kicked badly, I can just shoot them even though I started the entire thing.
Not saying this is what happened between that fat idiot Zimmerman and the wannabe thug Martin, but still the law is a joke.
Last edited:
Londo_Jowo
Lifer
Who's to say that the person with the gun will be lucky enough to survive the beat down? You do realize depending on the severity of the beat down it could become a felony assault and battery. This law is also designed to protect women who find themselves on the losing end of a fight.
This case is lacking any proof that GZ instigated the confrontation or altercation.
It's not a joke, it's to protect people that may have done anything minor that could be contrued against them as "starting it". You say nasty words to somebody, or the wife slaps the abusive husband, etc.
Before, if they acted in self defense they could be run through the mill because they "started it" be it words, or motions, etc. Now keep in mind some 24=26 states have very similar laws with more and more states jumping on board to protect the victims from malicious prosecution from doing the right thing - defending themselves.
Don't want to get shot? Don't put somebody in a position they fear for their lives, and surely don't commit a foricble felony as martin did repeatedly. Keep in mind, it doesn't have to be a gun, if zimmerman or another victim picked up a large rock and crashed his skull in until martin is no longer on top, that's still justifiable homocide.
You are legally allowed to defend yourself with whatever force necessary once the attacker is on top of you, that's one of the golden tickets for "OK TO SHOOT". It removes any and all legal obligation and at that point you are allowed to do whatever it takes to stop the attack.
They Live
Senior member
- Oct 23, 2012
- 556
- 0
- 71
Right, and this is why the "law" is stupid. It allows idiots to pick fights with people and then shoot to kill when they are losing the fight. It is a joke.
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
Negative. It is only when the initial aggressor cannot remove himself from the beating.
Repeat. Don't ground and pound somebody lest you may get shot.
Do not commit forcible felony. Lest you may get dead.
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2007
- 9,262
- 3
- 76
So there's new proof that Zimmerman started a fight with Martin? Oh, no, you're just trolling? Very familiar.
They Live
Senior member
- Oct 23, 2012
- 556
- 0
- 71
Still doesn't change the fact that the law basically allows you to start a fight with someone, and then if you start losing badly, you can just shoot them. It's a stupid law.
They Live
Senior member
- Oct 23, 2012
- 556
- 0
- 71
They Live
Senior member
- Oct 23, 2012
- 556
- 0
- 71
They Live
Senior member
- Oct 23, 2012
- 556
- 0
- 71
Doesn't change anything I said. The person who started the fight can easily do something very violent, and still have a right to self defense according to the ludicrous law if he tries to break free, but can't. There's also the fact that you can easily lie about this if there are no witnesses who saw anything.
And before conservatives go ape shit, I'm not saying this happened in Zimmerman's case.
It changed everything you've said.
Read it again. There are very few circumstances where initial aggressor can defend themselfs.
In this case all of those are met. In this case Zimmerman wasn't the initial aggressor.
Glad to see you think protecting woman from a man trying to kill is dumb.
If you walk into a bar, and piss into someone's drink, they are not legally allowed to deliver a "beat down" upon you for doing so. There is nothing in the law books that says by pissing in that person's drink you have given that other person unrestricted permission to physically assault you to the extent they see fit. If they throw the first punch, they have physically assaulted you. If they knock you to the ground, get on top of you, and continue to strike you, you can, and should be, legally allowed to shoot them. The random, or not so random dude whose drink you pissed in is not allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner for your transgression of pissing in his drink.
That's not to say pissing in someone's drink is legal, and it's not surprising that that would cause the person who's drink you pissed in to become, well, pissed, and possibly become violent. It's still not legal, and still not something that should be condoned.
I think there's also a problem with this idea of "starting a fight". You don't "start a fight", you assault someone, and then that person has a right to defend themselves up to a certain point. I'm not exactly sure what that point is, but I would imagine if you struck them once, and then ran away, they aren't allowed to chase you down and beat on you, since by you fleeing, you are no longer a threat. Now, if you continue trying to strike that person, they can strike back up until you are no longer a threat. If they strike you and you fall to the ground, the threat you present is temporarily halted. They cannot get on top of you, for as long as they see fit, and pound you in retaliation.
The issue in this case, is that there is not only zero evidence GZ ever made any offensive, physical actions towards TM, but there isn't even any indication that such a thing happened. No injuries to TM, other than an offensive wound he sustained to one of his fingers, and no tearing/deformation of TM's clothing, indicating GZ grabbed at it, which, if present, could support the notion that GZ tried to detain TM (which some people want to claim, with zero evidence to support it).
They Live
Senior member
- Oct 23, 2012
- 556
- 0
- 71
Meh, I still don't like the law. You can still basically assault someone very badly, and then if that person gives you the beat down you deserve, you are allowed to shoot them. I don't agree with that law, but what can I do? Nothing. And I never said this is what happened with Zimmerman and Trayvon. I never even mentioned them until someone brought them up.
Another scenario: I walk up to someone with a beer bottle, and smash that bottle on their head. That person turns around and rightfully gives me a beat down, and somehow I can't get free, I can just shoot them despite using very lethal force which started the altercation in the first place. I personally think this law allows you to go around pissing people off and start altercations, and then you have a right to self defense despite being the one who started trouble. It works even better when nobody witnessed anything.
I'm not sure if the beat down they give you is a "right", as you appear to be saying it is. The problem is that in certain altercations, it's a he said, she said kinda deal. If there are no other witnesses, and one of the two parties involved in the altercation dies, then it's really just the word of the survivor, and whatever physical evidence the police can gather to try to either corroborate, or dispute his/her story. If the survivor has zero wounds, and the person who was shot also has obvious signs of physical trauma before the shot, then it's going to be hard to believe if there's a claim by the survivor that the other guy was assaulting him, and that's why he shot him.
I think it's easy to confuse retaliation and self-defense. In your bar scenario, where you piss in someone's beer: the guy who got his beer pissed in is not defending himself, he's retaliating, or trying to get even with the guy who pissed in his beer. There is no law (to my knowledge) that condones retaliation/getting even.
Here's another scenario for ya: Woman has suffered continuous physical abuse at the hand of her husband over a lengthy period of time. One night, the husband is verbally insulting the wife, and getting in her face, etc. Frightened, she slaps him across the face, and one of her rings leaves a small cut on his face. Ok, so at this point, what is the husband permitted to do? He weighs 220 lbs, she weighs 105 lbs. She started "the fight", so to speak. To what extent is he allowed to retaliate? Is it reasonable to believe that her slap to his face, and the small cut he received, has given him a reason to fear for his life? So, he starts wailing on her, grabbing her by the hair, throwing her against the wall; punching her in the face, knocking her to the ground. She runs to the bedroom, and he chases her in there. She's in the corner, between the bed and the wall, and as he begins to lunge towards her she pulls a gun out from under the bed and shoots him.
Now, she "started the fight", so she was the initial aggressor, and there is physical evidence (the cut on his face) to confirm this, and she admits it as well. I believe, in some states, without the SYG law, that she could get charged with the murder. I think that's the point of the SYG law, to protect people in those types of scenarios. The law isn't perfect, and it is abusable, but without it, people like her potentially spend years behind bars.
They Live
Senior member
- Oct 23, 2012
- 556
- 0
- 71
Fair enough, you make some good points. I still believe the law can easily be abused though, but obviously not in all situations. In the scenario you gave with the abused wife, she was obviously justified in shooting the husband.
HumblePie
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,665
- 440
- 126
any and all laws can and have been "abused" as nothing is ever going to be perfect. The trick is to make it so less innocents are punished than the other way around. The SYG law clearly does that when compared to other self defense laws that force the person to flee first regardless as some states have. This has been discussed with many legal merits many times in this thread. I suggest going back and re-reading that.
Basically if someone starts crying uncle, you can NOT let blind rage control your actions. No matter how good it feels or how right you think you are in the retaliation, I can assure you that the choice is always the wrong one.
In this case, there are witnesses that have stated that TM was on top of GZ at one point BEFORE the gun was in evidence and that GZ was trying to call for help or escape his situation while TM was attacking him.
As spidey has put it several times, THAT is the only relevant point that matters in this case for the law. Everything else is moot. While it may never be known if GZ really did follow, instigate, and even goad TM into a fight, it does NOT matter in the least according to the law. Unless evidence can show that GZ not only started but also continued an altercation without trying to get away, then his actions for defense were legal under Florida law.
Speaking of which, that is the ONLY thing the prosecution can try to focus on. Proving GZ either started the fight or proving that GZ at some point after a "heated discussion" took place that GZ made TM fear for his life instead and continued actions that present clear and present danger to TM.
Unfortunately for the prosecution, they have already stated that have zero evidence that GZ started anything. That doesn't mean GZ didn't start it, but that the prosecution has no evidence to support any such claim. Without evidence that goes against GZ showing he was the one that started the fight, then GZ's testimony becomes the only evidence for that part of the incident. That is how the law works.
Last edited:
They Live
Senior member
- Oct 23, 2012
- 556
- 0
- 71
And that's why I think it's a shitty law. No matter how you slice it, the law allows you to get very physical with someone, and if you suddenly happen to lose that fight, and somehow can't get free, the law says you can shoot them. In a case of an abused woman against an abusive husband, this is understandable. In the case of dolts who may go around starting physical altercation's with people and then cry "self defense" if they start losing the fight badly, this is a problem, IMO. Not saying this is what happened in Zimmerman's case though. While I think Zimmerman is bullshitting, there's pretty much no proof as far as I know that shows he's lying. So he's either telling the truth, or is lucky there isn't any evidence to disprove his version of the events.
Last edited:
Geosurface
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2012
- 5,773
- 4
- 0
Sorry we all ganged up on you, I hope you stay around the thread. We could use some fresh posters here!
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
You are wrong on this second statement. It's not about getting free and/or losing. It's fear for your life or in the situation as SYG (which is politically being misapplied to the Tray Tray situation in order to get it neutered) if in your car or home can attacked for any reason.
You had something about pissing in one's drink as not a measure for lethal force, but there are cases for this like if that person may be HIV+ and one had worry. No need for the biology lesson on HIV and urine, it's been used in the past as a 'lethal force' deal especially with spitting and esp. by LEO.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
The original intention was to allow a batter person in a household to be allowed to defend themselves against further injury.
If you write a law to tight; then it is difficult to substantiate.
If it is written to encompass anticipated scenarios; something comes out of left field to blind side the law.
It is very possible that TM could have crippled/severely injured GZ if he had another 5-10 minutes of control before the LEO arrived;
He was not going to give up control just because a neighbor was yelling at him.
He realized that no one would physically do anything.
So at what point would GZ have the right to use lethal force to defend himself - 5 minutes, 10 minutes?
They Live
Senior member
- Oct 23, 2012
- 556
- 0
- 71
If someone comes at you and starts a physical altercation with intentions of hurting you, and you defend yourself and perhaps take it too far, the attacker who had intentions of hurting you can claim "self defense" because the law allows them too, which is ludicrous.
Again, I'm not talking about Zimmerman and Martin here. I'm just saying the law is heavily flawed, and can be easily abused, especially if there are no witnesses to what happened.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 347
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter