Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

[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. '

[Woodruff]

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?

Could it be that it happened just like the witnesses said it happened??? WOW!

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

[Woodruff]

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.

I thought you believed in the freedom to play your music at a level you desire as long as it's not breaking the law? Aren't you a Libertarian?

Sure...it must have been a drug deal gone wrong. <rolling eyes>

[Woodruff]

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)?

The FEAR that the other individual is threatening you with lethal force is sometimes enough (Texas and Florida, I'm looking at you).

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?

Well...in court, you certainly wouldn't admit that.

[Woodruff]

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?

[lokisgal]

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

[Lootifer]

So its death or great bodily harm. Thats cool. Answers my question thanks.

[Night Strike]

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

Stand Your Ground law did not apply in this case. This was a simple case of self-defense, where any person has the right to use lethal force in defense of themselves whenever a reasonable person would conclude that their life is being directly threatened (the actual legalese is something similar to that wording). Stand Your Ground simply states that people do not have to try to escape prior to defending themselves. Because Zimmerman could not consider escaping, Stand Your Ground did not apply. And the defense never put forward that reason for defense.

[patrickaa317]

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


well that didnt take long did it...

can you clarify what you mean by "well that didn't take long, did it..." This article is from November 28, 2012....

[patrickaa317]

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


well that didnt take long did it...

Sad isn't it?

Apparently it is now legal to shoot non-white children in Florida if you feel the least bit threatened.

Apparently you read the article close and used critical thought on it. See above post and the first line would have been a giveaway that it was outdated.

The first line:

Michael Dunn, 45, shot and killed teen Jordan Davis in Jacksonville on Friday,

So even if this was a new story, it would have came out BEFORE the Zimmerman/Martin verdict that was released on Saturday.

[Woodruff]

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

well that didnt take long did it...

can you clarify what you mean by "well that didn't take long, did it..." This article is from November 28, 2012....

Good catch.

[lokisgal]

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.

[patrickaa317]

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...

[Dukasaur]

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...

Since there's no option to change your vote, it's obviously new people who are just discovering this thread.

[jay_a2j]

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....

[patrickaa317]

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

It's also an example you had never even heard of until tonight. You even thought the events took place after the Martin verdict. Not a big deal but it makes me question where you get your info from more than anything, seems your source(s) may mislead you into false assumptions such as they did here. Just keep that in mind when you are perusing the info from your sources that most sources have an agenda or motive behind how things are presented to you.

And I would agree he is a nitwit, I'd actually call this guy something way worse than a nitwit.

[BigBallinStalin]

Also question about self defense laws in the US:

[1] 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)?

[2] 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?

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

So its death or great bodily harm. Thats cool. Answers my question thanks.

Kind of. It depends on whether or not "excessive" force was used, and on the circumstances at that time (place, persons)--and in court, which can be ridiculous. The following is what I gathered from conversations with lawyers:

[1]
So, if you shoot and kill someone who threatens you with their hands, and if the law is on your side (e.g. self-defense), then you likely get off scot-free. But still, it looks bad because "excessive" force. They'll ask, "why didn't you try to scare him away with a warning shot? He only was 'armed' with his hands." If you say, "cuz I'm a macho man" or something stupid, then the case will look bad for you, but maybe you could still win on self-defense.

You have to provide a convincing case that your life was threatened, and that therefore you acted correctly (e.g. "I'm an old feeble man." or "I just got out of surgery and/or have this permanent injury, therefore I can't run very well," and/or "A warning shot? He threatened me, I was scared, I couldn't think clearly, he was approaching quickly, and he could have had a concealed weapon."** etc.). (It also helps to play on people's feelings--moral rhetoric!, e.g. "I have a wife and kids, so I can't risk my life. The loss to my family would be devastating. [insert more Court Drama]).

**It's worth noting the difference between 'at that moment' and hindsight. Many people forgot about that distinction--e.g. those regarding the Zimmerman v. Martin case.

In other cases, you might be charged with something like manslaughter---if you failed to provide a convincing enough case to excuse your action.

In other cases, you might be charged with attempted murder, or "extreme" battery (whatever it's called). For example, if you don't kill them, then you could face a worse scenario: your story v. his story. Assuming no other testimonies, camera surveillance, etc.--which range in helpfulness to your defense, then you could be in even more trouble. So, even if you were rightfully defending yourself, you could be royally screwed because lying in court can be very profitable (iirc, polygraphs are inadmissible as evidence in court). Sometimes, the law doesn't matter as much--so it helps to attack/defend one's character + using other factors advantageously.


Place matters. The law is generally on your side if you kill someone in your house. If they're on your yard, then you're marginally losing the law in your defense. Shooting them in the back doesn't look good either (lol). Places that serve alcohol aren't good. "Gun-free" zones aren't good for your case. If you're in your car, then that helps. If you get outta the car, that might not help (depends on other variables). If you're in a neighborhood which has a lot of crime and drugs, and you're from a nice, uppity rich neighborhood, then that's questionable (e.g. being suspected of buying drugs).

Image matters, so play cognitive bias to your advantage. For example, looking good in court can work wonders. Depending on the jury "of one's peers," things can go poorly or very well--even if the law is on your side, and you did the right thing.


[2] "you know full well that you are not at risk of death"
That's never really known because people can be very surprising. But, if you say that in court, and if you used lethal force in self-defense, then it doesn't help your case.


Oh, most importantly, in these matters, it really helps your case if you were physically attacked first, so sometimes, even a verbal threat might not be sufficient (But if they pull out a lethal weapon, or there's more than 1 of them, then that changes things).


[3]
Anyway, more to your question, in some states, e.g. Texas, there's the "them's fighting words" clause, where if someone verbally accosts you so viciously, and you eloquently respond with a fist to their face, then you'll probably not be charged with anything. If you beat them to a bloody pulp, and you're hardly scratched, then that may not look good for you in court. So, verbal 'harm' may count in some States, but I think in most States, 'who hits who first' matters a lot more.

Shooting the insulter would count as excessive force. You'd get either manslaughter or murder--depending on how much premeditation there was (among other factors).

And there's more. "Mitigating circumstances" is a useful phrase I forgot.


There's also that saying. If the law is on your side, then argue the law. If the law isn't, then argue the facts. (And jokingly), if neither the law nor the facts are on your side, then yell very loudly.

[Jdsizzleslice]

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

I hope you realize how ridiculous this sounds..

[patrickaa317]

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

I hope you realize how ridiculous this sounds..

Woodruff is fairly correct on this. Hispanic can actually be white, black, asian, etc. Hispanic refers to anyone who came to the US with origins of Latin America, Spain, or Portugal. I actually just learned this the other day, had no idea. Most of the hispanic ethnicity is white though there is a large number of black hispanics that come from Puerto Rico or the Domican Republic.

[patches70]

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


well that didnt take long did it...

Yeah, that happened last Thanksgiving, or the day after, in 2012.

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.

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.

Dunn has fired his first defense team. The first judge was removed from the case (who recused herself ultimately). Dunn is trying to get the trial moved back. Lots of stuff going on, delaying the trial it seems.

[Army of GOD]

Scotty can you change the poll to:
I agree with the verdict and am mostly liberal
i disagree/mostly liberal
i agree, mostly conservative
I disagree, mostly conservative
I agree, libertarian
I disagree, libertarian
I'm a douchebag

[chang50]

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.

[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.

[oVo]

There is no accurate depiction of US courts on TV
because it just isn't entertaining enough.