Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

[BigBallinStalin]

@ BBS.

So basically Boston Legal is an accurate representation of the American courts system?

In seriousness though, it seems waaaay more subjective than I thought it would be.

Well, since the courts are owned and managed by the government, and their formal rules constantly conflict with and usually override the informal rules of civil society, so what do you expect? Some kind of means for decreasing marginal costs and increasing marginal benefits? Not with government!

In all seriousness, that's just a tiny sample of it, and it's criminal law. Civil suits involving businesses and employees/customers, I'm more familiar with, and most proceedings are pretty blase and regular--yet can be challenging. I don't mean to paint a jaded picture; I just wanted to show the entire range in one post. However, arguing the law is an art. It thrives on rhetoric, on interpretation--on the subjective, yet it is complemented by logic and empirical studies particular to the circumstances. It's a balancing act between art and science--in much the same regard to economics and econometrics.

I wouldn't be surprised if things were handled similarly in NZ's courts.

[Woodruff]

its an example of another nitwit hiding behind the stand your ground law...

and for those of you who say that law did not play a part in the case I offer this

"The stand your ground law played an important role in the early stages of the Trayvon Martin murder case, although defense attorney Mark O'Mara did not rely on it in winning Zimmerman's acquittal last week, and many states have similar laws on the books. The map indicates states where Sunlight has found self-defense laws (almost all of them). Those that have passed statues most similar to Florida's are highlighted in yellow.

Because Zimmerman claimed self defense immediately following the shooting of Martin, an unarmed teenager, police in Florida initially could not arrest him. Indeed, police even slowed their investigation, citing the state's "stand your ground" law. It was only after a public outcry that he was taken into custody. Last week, a Florida jury found Zimmerman was found not guilty of second-degree murder. "

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013 ... rtin-case/

You only have to spend 2 seconds on the internet to see where this played into the case. It is true his lawyers did not cite this in his defense however it did certainly play a part in the initial stages of the investigation when the police arrived.

Ok, but given that he was eventually acquitted, it seems to me that the initial move by the police was proven out, wasn't it? I certainly don't believe that evidence was missed by the police investigation, at least not that I've seen...so where was the actual impact?

[Woodruff]

One of the most important question is who keeps voting on this poll? "self defense, no jail time" only had 22 votes the other day...

Probably the same folks who hold their votes until the winner becomes apparent so they can pretend how smart they are. <chuckle>

[Woodruff]

You mean the ONLY witness, because the other individual who could have been a witness was dead?

Yeah, I guess you and all the other liberal whack-jobs can just FILL-IN-THE-BLANKS as you see fit....

I don't even know what that is supposed to mean in reference to the point I made.

[Woodruff]

Hispanic IS WHITE. Hispanic is not a race. Hispanic is an ethnicity.

I hope you realize how ridiculous this sounds..

I can't help it if your personal definition for something is wrong.

[Woodruff]

The guy is charged with 1st degree murder, he's been denied bail twice. It's been ruled that he has to pay for his own legal defense (he claimed to be indigent, the motion was denied). His parents are paying the legal fees (between $75,00-$100,000 not counting what was paid to the first defense team). His trial is scheduled to begin on September 23.

Why does this stuff take so bloody long?

And guess who the prosecuting attorney is? Angela Corey, the very same who led the prosecution of Zimmerman. Ole Mr Dunn is up a crap creek as Corey fresh off her setback in the Zimmerman case will be pulling no punches getting this guy convicted.

Yeah, that's definitely not a good sign, never mind that this situation looks far worse than Zimmerman's did.

Dunn has fired his first defense team. The first judge was removed from the case (who recused herself ultimately).

Interesting...why did the first judge recuse herself?

[Jdsizzleslice]

Hispanic IS WHITE. Hispanic is not a race. Hispanic is an ethnicity.

I hope you realize how ridiculous this sounds..

I can't help it if your personal definition for something is wrong.

I can't help that you think something is right when it isn't.

[Woodruff]

Hispanic IS WHITE. Hispanic is not a race. Hispanic is an ethnicity.

I hope you realize how ridiculous this sounds..

I can't help it if your personal definition for something is wrong.

I can't help that you think something is right when it isn't.

Except that it's not my opinion, it's a definition.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Hispanic IS WHITE. Hispanic is not a race. Hispanic is an ethnicity.

I hope you realize how ridiculous this sounds..

I can't help it if your personal definition for something is wrong.

I can't help that you think something is right when it isn't.

Except that it's not my opinion, it's a definition.

Except that it is your opinion, and that it is wrong.

[Woodruff]

Hispanic IS WHITE. Hispanic is not a race. Hispanic is an ethnicity.

I hope you realize how ridiculous this sounds..

I can't help it if your personal definition for something is wrong.

I can't help that you think something is right when it isn't.

Except that it's not my opinion, it's a definition.

Except that it is your opinion, and that it is wrong.

Your willful ignorance is really sad.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Your willful ignorance is really sad.

The fact that you think Hispanic people are white is even more saddening.

[thegreekdog]

Here you go Woodruff:

Let the riots begin. I hope everyone here realizes that this had NOTHING to do with white people. Someone from a Hispanic descent was defending himself against a Black kid roaming the streets.

I think what you meant to say was ;
' A hispanic coward stalked a black kid for no other reason than the colour of his skin , he then got his arse kicked so murdered the innocent teenager in order to escape. '

I don't see the implication there that Martin necessarily instigated the fight. Where do you see that?

That wasn't my point. My point was that comic boy seems to find it acceptable (morally and legally) for someone to kick someone's "arse" when they are stalked.

[thegreekdog]

There was literally another case in Florida where a black woman received 20 year in jail for firing warning shots with her gun at her husband despite her claiming the stand your ground laws.

That's what happens when you have trials... you get different verdicts and different punishments. Perhaps you have a better way? For what it's worth, the jury in both cases (the Zimmerman case and the case you refer to above) were picked by the prosecution and defense and were as unbiased as one could get (assuming the jurors didn't lie under voir dire).

In my limited experience with high profile cases involving race (and by experience, I mean seeing the news), there tends to be an avoidance of racism against the minority party (I suppose in this case both Martin and Zimmerman were minorities, but I suppose that also depends on what media outlet you're getting your information from - some places called Zimmerman white and some called him Hispanic; not to go on a tangent, but all media outlets call the president black, when he's as white as Zimmerman is).

It's kinda disgusting how Trayvon was put on trial instead essentially. The latent racial undercurrents in calling him a thug and so really went beyond subtext and into the almost outright said zone.

Again, that's what happens in trials when an attorney is trying to defend his or her client. You put the victim on trial. Happens in murder cases, happens in rape cases, happens all the time. It's rarely effective (again, in my limited experience).

I can't imagine how terrifying it would be to be persistently followed by someone in a car, then on foot, while I'm walking home alone at night. Zimmerman pursued him, antagonised him, created the conflict, and shot him because he thought he was losing that same fight he was responsible for.

Again, you Brits with your weird logic. You're essentially inferring (chang also inferred it) that if someone is following you, it is perfectly legal and justifiable for you to turn around and slam that person's face in the curb. I keep reading about how Zimmerman created the situation; why aren't those same people holding Martin responsible? There are many different scenarios whereby Martin would have remained alive. He could have said, "Sir, I'm walking to my father's house" or he could have just kept walking and ignored Zimmerman or he could have let Zimmerman take him into custody (I would not have chosen that route given the penchant for people to impersonate police officers and the like) or he could have, you know, called the fucking police instead of texting his girlfriend if he thought some asshole was following him (that would have been my decision). Instead, Martin turned around, beat the shit out of a guy and was shot. I have nothing but contempt for Zimmerman, mostly because I think he's an idiot and should have been punished in some way, but I absolutely will not have sympathy for Martin beyond that the kid is dead.

This is a non-story that was made into a huge story by a national media looking for ratings and playing about the racism of black people and white people. Black teenagers are shot on a regular basis in this country and their killers go free on a regular basis. But if someone whose last name sounds white kills an "innocent" teenager, it's national news (if you're watching MSNBC and others... and the president, I suppose). Or if someone who is a hard-working Hispanic man carrying a gun defends himself against a hardened juvenile delinquent who attacked him, it's national news (if you're watching Fox News and others). The way you all have been played by your respective media choices and biases is absurd, but not surprising (for some, others do surprise me - like you Iliad and chang50 - you guys seemed smarter than this).

Whoa...the only comment I have made was about Fox news being trustworthy,I have inferred precisely zero about the verdict.

No, again, you inferred that Martin was justified, morally and legally, to confront someone stalking him and smashing his face in the curb. To you, that was okay. It was Hernandez, I mean Zimmerman, shooting him and stalking him in the first place that wasn't okay. In other words, you're implying that Martin did nothing wrong, whereas Garcia, I mean Zimmerman, did everything wrong. There is plenty of culpability to go around.

Perhaps someone should create a poll, as follows:

If someone is following you at night and you have access to a cell phone, what do you do?

(a) Run
(b) Call the police
(c) Text your girlfriend, turn around, and beat the shit out of the preson following you

[oVo]

No, Martin was not justified in pummeling Zimmerman, unless he was defending himself. Once again, only one person knows what happened and he did not testify in court.

I do believe Zimmerman needed to be held accountable because he created this situation. It did not have to happen and had he listened to the police it wouldn't have.

Zimmerman is not an authority "policing" the neighborhood, he is a neighborhood watch volunteer with the task of reporting suspicious activity to the police.

[thegreekdog]

No, Martin was not justified in pummeling Zimmerman, unless he was defending himself. Once again, only one person knows what happened and he did not testify in court.

I do believe Zimmerman needed to be held accountable because he created this situation. It did not have to happen and had he listened to the police it wouldn't have.

Zimmerman is not an authority "policing" the neighborhood, he is a neighborhood watch volunteer with the task of reporting suspicious activity to the police.

He didn't "create" the situation. Stop with that nonsense. He helped create the situation, along with Martin.

I'm also confused by your use of the phrase "only one person knows what happened" as if to cast aspersions on the narrative in the courtroom.

It seems you had a preconceived notion (maybe preconceived after listening to your favorite media) as to what happened and who was responsible before the trial began and have continued that notion subsequent to the trial. That seems counterproductive and, as we've seen recently, can lead to unnecessary violence and hatred.

Further, and I probably should have brought this up before, it appears that "creating a situation in which you are attacked and forced to defend yourself lethally" should lead to a conviction for second degree murder. That seems preposterous. As I indicated previously, if I took my gun and walked into North Philadelphia, I get attacked, and I defend myself lethally, if we use the logic you and others want us to use with Zimmerman v. Martin, I should be convicted of second degree murder. And if we further layer on the Woodruff legal handbook, the jury should be forced and required to convict me of second degree murder based on precedent.

I'm not defending Zimmerman and I don't want to defend Zimmerman. He's an idiot who should have waited in his car for the police to arrive (and he's going to be haunted by this the rest of his life). But that does not make him guilty of second degree murder. And the victim being black CERTAINLY does not make him guilty of second degree murder. And that's the narrative that people who have a problem with the verdict are espousing. And that's irrational and dangerous and those people need to stop right now.

[oVo]

I'm also confused by your use of the phrase "only one person knows what happened" as if to cast aspersions on the narrative in the courtroom.

By only one person knows what happened, I'm referring to Zimmerman.
I do think this situation was caused by the actions of two idiots, but George
was in the driver seat. The kid is dead, a high price to pay for his stupidity
and I feel the shooter deserved a few years incarceration time to ponder what he did.

[Doc_Brown]

I came across an interesting article about the prosecutor: http://nationalreview.com/article/35363 ... le?splash=

One interesting (and relevant to the current conversation) snippet:

Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder, also known as “depraved mind” murder. The case law for that charge, an attorney who has worked in criminal prosecution outside Florida tells me, is near-unanimous: It almost never applies to one-on-one encounters. Second-degree murder is the madman who fires indiscriminately into a crowd or unlocks the lions’ cage at the zoo. “Nothing in the facts of this case approaches that.” Which Angela Corey, a veteran prosecutor, should have known, and a grand jury would have told her.

[Doc_Brown]

The kid is dead, a high price to pay for his stupidity and I feel the shooter deserved a few years incarceration time to ponder what he did.

A clear example of mistaking fairness for justice. You're right. It's not fair that a grown man walks away without any penalty while a kid is left dead. However, it is just in a legal sense. The man was allowed to carry a gun. He was not forbidden from confronting someone he thought was an intruder in his neighborhood (he was told he "didn't need to do that"). He may or may not have actually confronted the kid. The defense said one thing and the prosecution said another. A jury that had access to all the testimony ultimately decided that the defense's story was more credible. Zimmerman did not commit any crime. The result is unfortunate and unfair, but the man did not break any laws and cannot be punished under our existing legal system. I don't like the result, but I can't deny that justice (in the legal sense) was done.

I do hope that the Martin family has a successful verdict from the expected wrongful death civil suit. Maybe they'll be able to seize whatever Zimmerman wins from NBC in his libel suit.

[Lootifer]

@ BBS.

So basically Boston Legal is an accurate representation of the American courts system?

In seriousness though, it seems waaaay more subjective than I thought it would be.

Well, since the courts are owned and managed by the government, and their formal rules constantly conflict with and usually override the informal rules of civil society, so what do you expect? Some kind of means for decreasing marginal costs and increasing marginal benefits? Not with government!

In all seriousness, that's just a tiny sample of it, and it's criminal law. Civil suits involving businesses and employees/customers, I'm more familiar with, and most proceedings are pretty blase and regular--yet can be challenging. I don't mean to paint a jaded picture; I just wanted to show the entire range in one post. However, arguing the law is an art. It thrives on rhetoric, on interpretation--on the subjective, yet it is complemented by logic and empirical studies particular to the circumstances. It's a balancing act between art and science--in much the same regard to economics and econometrics.

I wouldn't be surprised if things were handled similarly in NZ's courts.

Yeah you are probably correct; thou I think our legal system does endevour to make things black and white (pun NOT intended) where possible. For example: You can not own a firearm for self defense; that means if you did use a firearm in self defence you better have a completely watertight argument as to why.

[rishaed]

I would point out that a jury convicted the woman of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, which caries a minimum sentence of 20 years in Florida. So she received the minimum sentence she could for that conviction.

Woodruff - This is what would happen if we "treated similar crimes the same way" - we'd get mandatory minimum sentences. Which, hey!, we already have.

A point here is that precedents don't expire
So the ruling by the Supreme Court back when Andrew Jackson was President about how the Cherokee get to keep there land, well sorry all you people living in the South they get their land back.
And All you blacks living in the south, don't forget precedents set before the Civil Rights Movement. So don't be angry when a racist young white sees a black guy and a white girl kissing and shoots the black then goes free off of "precedent." Our court system cannot work if rulings are based off of precedent. It allows the juries, the judge, and the prosecutor to ignore the "Innocent until proven guilty doctrine" our legal system is founded on. Instead its "Innocent unless Precedent states otherwise"

Precedent changes all the time. It changes when Congress or a state legislature passes a law. It changes when a court makes a decision overruling itself or a lower court.

I agree with you TGD, I was just trying to show how ridiculous rulings would be solely based off of precedent. Because if it was solely based off of precedent precedent would never change. Precedent should only be weighed if the situation REQUIRES it, and after every other measure available has been used IMO.

[Jdsizzleslice]

http://www.examiner.com/article/mob-bea ... right-next

[Phatscotty]

http://www.nydailynews.com/man-shoots-teen-loud-music-article-1.1209345#bmb=1


well that didnt take long did it...

what in the good f*ck is wrong with people.

Sure it wasn't a drug deal gone wrong? Cuz you don't usually report that part to the police or the media. You have to make something up....

The thing that is missing in this case and the Trayvon Martin case is respect for elders and a respect for the peace of others.

Yeh and in the gas station case those kids sure got a good lesson in respect! Amirite?!

No, you are wrong.

[Phatscotty]

How did Zimmerman get a broken nose? How did he get a cut on the back of his head?

Just wondering if anyone knows.

Assuming that is true, could it be that he attacked the kid he was fucking stalking, and the kid defended himself?

You guys are clowns.

Assuming that is true?????? THEY HAVE PICS OF IT!!!!!!!

They have pics of the fight? If that's not what you're referring to, then what ARE you referring to?

Are you a complete idiot or what? Oh, just trolling and purposefully acting like and idiot? Whatever suits ya

Of course there was not someone watching the fight taking photographs. Get a clue

[Phatscotty]

Also question about self defense laws in the US:

Are you entitled to use lethal force in self defense when you are not threatened with lethal force (i.e. is ok mto shoot someone if they are clearly attacking you with only their bare hands)?

I know you can argue that bare hands is more than sufficient to kill someone, but lets, for arguments sake, assume that you know full well that you are not at risk of death, can you still use lethal force in self defense?

If you are, what are the limitations on this? Can you shoot someone because they swear at you (that's still technically causing harm)?

In Florida and some other states there is something called the "stand your ground law"

here is the link to the Florida statute

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 6.013.html

and Zimmerman didn't use it, so you need to make a new thread because that has nothing to do with Zimmerman or this case.

[Phatscotty]

Hispanic IS WHITE. Hispanic is not a race. Hispanic is an ethnicity.

I hope you realize how ridiculous this sounds..

Almost as ridiculous as using the term "white Hispanic". It's clear to anyone with a brain that they used "white hispanic" solely because it has the word "white" in it. If they didn't use the word white to describe Zimmerman, who is a Latino, then racists wouldn't give a crap.