George Zimmerman is a piece of crap

[Rage Against the McKee]

i don't agree with nuts kicked on much in this thread, but i do agree with him on his last point.  a juror has a moral duty to offer justice to the parties dependent on his judgement.  if the laws relevant to the case in question clearly conflict with what is just, then the juror cannot escape his obligation to do what is just by hiding behind the letter of the law.

you and nuts kicked are exhibit A as to why the jury system scares the living eff out of me. essentially what you're lobbying for is no set laws. just if your "peers" think you did something wrong you could wind up in jail for 20 years. never mind that most of our "peers" are mouth breathing fucktards that couldn't find canada on a map of north america.

so you want to move from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "my gut tells me he's guilty of something.". what a great rough ridin' plan because we're just not throwing enough people in jail these days.

I may have been giving you too much credit. I could've sworn you were smarter than this.

I don't think anybody is advocating for that, Rams. I don't think it's reasonable at all to think that Zimmerman should have followed Martin.

[Rams]

Seriously?

I've been on the record in this thread that GZ should be in jail.  But that is not the law in florida.

eff the law. If you are a juror and you believe GZ should be in jail, you should vote guilty. No consequences, other than the world being a better place.

Do you think that crazy-gun-nut, fanatical-syg-supporter guy should also apply, exclusively, his own subjective determination of "justice" when determining guilt or innocence in a self-defense case?  Seems kind of dangerous to start down that road.

Isn't that what happened? Let's look at a hypothetical situation that is actually less far fetched than the actual case. Say a man breaks into a house to steal a tv in the middle of the night. The home owner wakes up and proceeds to beat the crap out of the robber. The robber, fearing for his life, or at the very least great bodily harm, pulls out his gun and shoots the homeowner dead. Do you convict him of murder, and why? I don't, because I don't believe he entered the house with the intent to kill. I do reject self defense and convict of manslaughter, though. Sure, it would be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that the robber was not in fear of great bodily harm. It would probably be easier to prove that he was. You have to look at the reason that fear existed, though. He put himself in that situation, just like George Zimmerman did.

I would like to think that just about everybody knows what is just and what is not. The law was written to line up on the side of what is just. When it doesn't line up, as a juror, you should use your own judgement.

wow. you just need to stop. right now.

[GCJayhawker]

I find it amusing that GZ wanted to be some bad ass neighborhood watch guy who would stop crime from impacting the neighborhood. In that gist he sees someone who looks suspicious to him and follows said person. When bad ass GZ confronts the person, said person doesn't like it and proceeds to beat his ass.  At this point GZ if probably thinking that being a bad ass is not such a good idea and he doesn't like getting his ass beat. What does he do? Instead of taking his ass whooping like he should have, he shoots said person and then claims he was fearful for his life.

[Rage Against the McKee]

If Trayvon were actually committing some kind of a crime that Zimmerman were trying to stop, I would vote not guilty, even if the law doesn't allow for that kind of thing, fwiw.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I say we tie him up and throw him in a lake to see if he floats or sinks. If he sinks he's innocent.

[Rams]

I say we tie him up and throw him in a lake to see if he floats or sinks. If he sinks he's innocent.

feels like we're about 5 pages from somebody seriously arguing for that.

[Rams]

If Trayvon were actually committing some kind of a crime that Zimmerman were trying to stop, I would vote not guilty, even if the law doesn't allow for that kind of thing, fwiw.

assault and battery is a crime in all 50 states.

[Rage Against the McKee]

If Trayvon were actually committing some kind of a crime that Zimmerman were trying to stop, I would vote not guilty, even if the law doesn't allow for that kind of thing, fwiw.

assault and battery is a crime in all 50 states.

Not in self defense.

[steve dave]

I find it amusing that GZ wanted to be some bad ass neighborhood watch guy who would stop crime from impacting the neighborhood. In that gist he sees someone who looks suspicious to him and follows said person. When bad ass GZ confronts the person, said person doesn't like it and proceeds to beat his ass.  At this point GZ if probably thinking that being a bad ass is not such a good idea and he doesn't like getting his ass beat. What does he do? Instead of taking his ass whooping like he should have, he shoots said person and then claims he was fearful for his life.

this is why the type of people who become gun people and apply for concealed carry are the type of people that shouldn't have guns. meanwhile, the type of people who could handle the responsibility of it usually don't want one.

[sys]

so you want to move from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "my gut tells me he's guilty of something.". what a great rough ridin' plan because we're just not throwing enough people in jail these days.

i think it is very, very hard, though not impossible, to conceive of situations where it would be just to punish someone when they were not clearly in violation of law (chiefly, but not solely because those people would have legitimate reason to assume their behavior was appropriate).  however, it is not at all hard to conceive of myriad situations where it is just to not punish someone who did transgress some law.

[Rams]

so you want to move from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "my gut tells me he's guilty of something.". what a great rough ridin' plan because we're just not throwing enough people in jail these days.

i think it is very, very hard, though not impossible, to conceive of situations where it would be just to punish someone when they were not clearly in violation of law (chiefly, but not solely because those people would have legitimate reason to assume their behavior was appropriate).  however, it is not at all hard to conceive of myriad situations where it is just to not punish someone who did transgress some law.

holy eff

[Rage Against the McKee]

so you want to move from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "my gut tells me he's guilty of something.". what a great rough ridin' plan because we're just not throwing enough people in jail these days.

i think it is very, very hard, though not impossible, to conceive of situations where it would be just to punish someone when they were not clearly in violation of law (chiefly, but not solely because those people would have legitimate reason to assume their behavior was appropriate).  however, it is not at all hard to conceive of myriad situations where it is just to not punish someone who did transgress some law.

I agree completely.

[CNS]

so you want to move from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "my gut tells me he's guilty of something.". what a great rough ridin' plan because we're just not throwing enough people in jail these days.

i think it is very, very hard, though not impossible, to conceive of situations where it would be just to punish someone when they were not clearly in violation of law (chiefly, but not solely because those people would have legitimate reason to assume their behavior was appropriate).  however, it is not at all hard to conceive of myriad situations where it is just to not punish someone who did transgress some law.

I agree completely.

I disagree.  Illegal or GTFO!

[sys]

holy eff

i stand in awe of your ability to express yourself.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Seriously?

I've been on the record in this thread that GZ should be in jail.  But that is not the law in florida.

eff the law. If you are a juror and you believe GZ should be in jail, you should vote guilty. No consequences, other than the world being a better place.

Do you think that crazy-gun-nut, fanatical-syg-supporter guy should also apply, exclusively, his own subjective determination of "justice" when determining guilt or innocence in a self-defense case?  Seems kind of dangerous to start down that road.

Isn't that what happened? Let's look at a hypothetical situation that is actually less far fetched than the actual case. Say a man breaks into a house to steal a tv in the middle of the night. The home owner wakes up and proceeds to beat the crap out of the robber. The robber, fearing for his life, or at the very least great bodily harm, pulls out his gun and shoots the homeowner dead. Do you convict him of murder, and why? I don't, because I don't believe he entered the house with the intent to kill. I do reject self defense and convict of manslaughter, though. Sure, it would be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that the robber was not in fear of great bodily harm. It would probably be easier to prove that he was. You have to look at the reason that fear existed, though. He put himself in that situation, just like George Zimmerman did.

I would like to think that just about everybody knows what is just and what is not. The law was written to line up on the side of what is just. When it doesn't line up, as a juror, you should use your own judgement.

wow. you just need to stop. right now.

I am genuinely curious if you would let the robber off the hook for the death in this situation. Is there a limit to how closely you are willing to follow the letter of the law?

[sys]

nk, i'm pretty sure that most self-defense laws have something about how someone engaging in a crime has no right to defend himself.  the florida one definitely did.

in fact, i'm also pretty sure that most murder laws have something about how any killing that occurs during the commission of a felony is murder, not manslaughter.

so your robber is pretty mumped.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Seriously?

I've been on the record in this thread that GZ should be in jail.  But that is not the law in florida.

eff the law. If you are a juror and you believe GZ should be in jail, you should vote guilty. No consequences, other than the world being a better place.

Do you think that crazy-gun-nut, fanatical-syg-supporter guy should also apply, exclusively, his own subjective determination of "justice" when determining guilt or innocence in a self-defense case?  Seems kind of dangerous to start down that road.

Isn't that what happened? Let's look at a hypothetical situation that is actually less far fetched than the actual case. Say a man breaks into a house to steal a tv in the middle of the night. The home owner wakes up and proceeds to beat the crap out of the robber. The robber, fearing for his life, or at the very least great bodily harm, pulls out his gun and shoots the homeowner dead. Do you convict him of murder, and why? I don't, because I don't believe he entered the house with the intent to kill. I do reject self defense and convict of manslaughter, though. Sure, it would be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that the robber was not in fear of great bodily harm. It would probably be easier to prove that he was. You have to look at the reason that fear existed, though. He put himself in that situation, just like George Zimmerman did.

I would like to think that just about everybody knows what is just and what is not. The law was written to line up on the side of what is just. When it doesn't line up, as a juror, you should use your own judgement.

wow. you just need to stop. right now.

I am genuinely curious if you would let the robber off the hook for the death in this situation. Is there a limit to how closely you are willing to follow the letter of the law?

The robber is committing a felony on private property and can't claim self defense. letter of the law.

[Daddy Claxton]

Look up the murder trial of Roy Bryant and JW Milan for an example of what can happen when juries are allowed to disregard the law and  use their subjective determination of "justice".  Apologize I don't have a link but I'm on my phone.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Look up the murder trial of Roy Bryant and JW Milan for an example of what can happen when juries are allowed to disregard the law and  use their subjective determination of "justice".  Apologize I don't have a link but I'm on my phone.

Jurors still are allowed to do that, if you weren't aware.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Seriously?

I've been on the record in this thread that GZ should be in jail.  But that is not the law in florida.

eff the law. If you are a juror and you believe GZ should be in jail, you should vote guilty. No consequences, other than the world being a better place.

Do you think that crazy-gun-nut, fanatical-syg-supporter guy should also apply, exclusively, his own subjective determination of "justice" when determining guilt or innocence in a self-defense case?  Seems kind of dangerous to start down that road.

Isn't that what happened? Let's look at a hypothetical situation that is actually less far fetched than the actual case. Say a man breaks into a house to steal a tv in the middle of the night. The home owner wakes up and proceeds to beat the crap out of the robber. The robber, fearing for his life, or at the very least great bodily harm, pulls out his gun and shoots the homeowner dead. Do you convict him of murder, and why? I don't, because I don't believe he entered the house with the intent to kill. I do reject self defense and convict of manslaughter, though. Sure, it would be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that the robber was not in fear of great bodily harm. It would probably be easier to prove that he was. You have to look at the reason that fear existed, though. He put himself in that situation, just like George Zimmerman did.

I would like to think that just about everybody knows what is just and what is not. The law was written to line up on the side of what is just. When it doesn't line up, as a juror, you should use your own judgement.

wow. you just need to stop. right now.

I am genuinely curious if you would let the robber off the hook for the death in this situation. Is there a limit to how closely you are willing to follow the letter of the law?

The robber is committing a felony on private property and can't claim self defense. letter of the law.

Zimmerman was committing assault. Can he still claim self defense under the law? It's not a felony, so I'm really not sure.

[OK_Cat]

this thread needs to be zimmerman'd

[Daddy Claxton]

Look up the murder trial of Roy Bryant and JW Milan for an example of what can happen when juries are allowed to disregard the law and  use their subjective determination of "justice".  Apologize I don't have a link but I'm on my phone.

Jurors still are allowed to do that, if you weren't aware.

I am aware that juries have the power to do that. However, unlike you and sys, I don't think it is good for a jury to use that power because a subjective standard of justice isn't something I believe is good for society.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Look up the murder trial of Roy Bryant and JW Milan for an example of what can happen when juries are allowed to disregard the law and  use their subjective determination of "justice".  Apologize I don't have a link but I'm on my phone.

Jurors still are allowed to do that, if you weren't aware.

I am aware that juries have the power to do that. However, unlike you and sys, I don't think it is good for a jury to use that power because a subjective standard of justice isn't something I believe is good for society.

Well, yeah, I agree that jurors should not just flat deny the truth in a murder trial. A self defense trial, where the law is very vague and has tons of room for interpretation, is very different, though. For example, there is no definition provided for "great bodily harm". Jurors are allowed to interpret that as they see fit and vote accordingly. Using the law as a framework, and your own common sense judgement, I could certainly understand how a juror could go either way on this one. The fact is that I'm going to give leeway if GZ is actually in the right, and I'm not going to give any if he isn't.

[Daddy Claxton]

Look up the murder trial of Roy Bryant and JW Milan for an example of what can happen when juries are allowed to disregard the law and  use their subjective determination of "justice".  Apologize I don't have a link but I'm on my phone.

Jurors still are allowed to do that, if you weren't aware.

I am aware that juries have the power to do that. However, unlike you and sys, I don't think it is good for a jury to use that power because a subjective standard of justice isn't something I believe is good for society.

Well, yeah, I agree that jurors should not just flat deny the truth in a murder trial. A self defense trial, where the law is very vague and has tons of room for interpretation, is very different, though. For example, there is no definition provided for "great bodily harm". Jurors are allowed to interpret that as they see fit and vote accordingly. Using the law as a framework, and your own common sense judgement, I could certainly understand how a juror could go either way on this one. The fact is that I'm going to give leeway if GZ is actually in the right, and I'm not going to give any if he isn't.

I pretty much agree with you there, but that's different than "eff the law if you are a juror and you believe GZ should be in jail, you should vote guilty" (which is the standard that was used by Bryant's/Milan's jury).

[Rage Against the McKee]

Look up the murder trial of Roy Bryant and JW Milan for an example of what can happen when juries are allowed to disregard the law and  use their subjective determination of "justice".  Apologize I don't have a link but I'm on my phone.

Jurors still are allowed to do that, if you weren't aware.

I am aware that juries have the power to do that. However, unlike you and sys, I don't think it is good for a jury to use that power because a subjective standard of justice isn't something I believe is good for society.

Well, yeah, I agree that jurors should not just flat deny the truth in a murder trial. A self defense trial, where the law is very vague and has tons of room for interpretation, is very different, though. For example, there is no definition provided for "great bodily harm". Jurors are allowed to interpret that as they see fit and vote accordingly. Using the law as a framework, and your own common sense judgement, I could certainly understand how a juror could go either way on this one. The fact is that I'm going to give leeway if GZ is actually in the right, and I'm not going to give any if he isn't.

I pretty much agree with you there, but that's different than "eff the law if you are a juror and you believe GZ should be in jail, you should vote guilty" (which is the standard that was used by Bryant's/Milan's jury).

Yeah, it was late last night and this thread has been going on for so long that I was kind of trolling (though sort of serious as well) and I admit that I took that way too far.