How to get away with murder (non-state actor edition)

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

All kidding aside, I think it's insulting to imply that anyone here has a leader of any kind. We're all free thinking individuals, whether you agree with what we think or not.

I believe you started this by implying that I only gave my letter replies to people that agree with me, kind of pegging how I think, I would say.

Once again, "who me"

[SMR 368]

The threshold for a self-defense claim ought to be higher than someone merely saying so. What we have here is a man having shot a teenager, claiming self defense and now the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did NOT act in self defense. That's all but impossible in this scenario. So there you have a certain set-up in which one can get away with murder. And that's what happened. And it can happen again.

I understand and support one's right to defend oneself but I believe that there ought to be some level of a burden of proof on the person that committed the homicide that it was justifiable.

So what type of evidence do you think that I legitimate practitioner of self defense would invariably be able to produce that a murderer just claiming self defense wouldn't, or likely wouldn't, be able to produce?

The precedent and approach is that we assume that someone is innocent and have to prove them guilty and I am unwilling to change that precedent. Unless you believe that someone who kills someone else in legitimate self defense is less innocent than someone who doesn't kill someone else at all, they are both entitled to the same legal defense. This means that the only evidence that they can be expected to produce is evidence that they would invariably have unless they were in fact not innocent. That really narrows down the list of things that they can be expected to have. In fact, if you can think of something that George Zimmerman should have had were it legitimately self defense but didn't have (or conversely, something he couldn't have had were he a murderer but did have), then you probably aught to apply for a job as a prosecutor in Florida because I know a couple that you could have done better than.

In essence, I am for the standard of proof for self defense being as high as possible without introducing a significant risk that a legitimate practitioner of self defense would be found guilty of murder (or manslaughter, etc.). However, I feel that the current standard of proof is consistent with this.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

No. You either support kids being bad and stealing, or you support them dying. Pick a side.

Yes that's it.

Geezh

I don't support kids beating people in the face, without understanding that may have serious consequences up to and including getting shot

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

So what type of evidence do you think that I legitimate practitioner of self defense would invariably be able to produce that a murderer just claiming self defense wouldn't, or likely wouldn't, be able to produce?

The precedent and approach is that we assume that someone is innocent and have to prove them guilty and I am unwilling to change that precedent. Unless you believe that someone who kills someone else in legitimate self defense is less innocent than someone who doesn't kill someone else at all, they are both entitled to the same legal defense. This means that the only evidence that they can be expected to produce is evidence that they would invariably have unless they were in fact not innocent. That really narrows down the list of things that they can be expected to have. In fact, if you can think of something that George Zimmerman should have had were it legitimately self defense but didn't have (or conversely, something he couldn't have had were he a murderer but did have), then you probably aught to apply for a job as a prosecutor in Florida because I know a couple that you could have done better than.

In essence, I am for the standard of proof for self defense being as high as possible without introducing a significant risk that a legitimate practitioner of self defense would be found guilty of murder (or manslaughter, etc.). However, I feel that the current standard of proof is consistent with this.

GZ should have at least allowed TM to kill him before he fired.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I believe you started this by implying that I only gave my letter replies to people that agree with me, kind of pegging how I think, I would say.

Once again, "who me"

You do tend to only give your letters to people whose opinion you disagree with. Maybe that's not a trend you happen to notice.

How does that translate into me pegging how you think? And how does that relate to you implying that I have some kind of leader on here?

Explain, please.

Yes that's it.

Geezh

I don't support kids beating people in the face, without understanding that may have serious consequences up to and including getting shot

I was being sarcastic.

I thought that was obvious.

Apparently not.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

You do tend to only give your letters to people whose opinion you disagree with. Maybe that's not a trend you happen to notice.

How does that translate into me pegging how you think? And how does that relate to you implying that I have some kind of leader on here?

Explain, please.

I was being sarcastic.

I thought that was obvious.

Apparently not.

Wow I don't poke fun at statements I agree with . You don't either. Water is wet.. Japs bombed Pearl harbor and in other news.

Why are you always on my #######. It's almost as if we are married.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Wow I don't poke fun at statements I agree with . You don't either. Water is wet.. Japs bombed Pearl harbor and in other news.

Why are you always on my #######. It's almost as if we are married.

I respond to posts I feel like responding to. Is that not how an internet forum is supposed to work?

You respond to nearly everything the "ring leader" says, no?

He's your Gary.

If you don't want people to respond to your nonsense, stop posting nonsense.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Penny Lane

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Such as? GZ had the blood and the bruises, not sure what else there would be in a case like this.

Zimmermann had nothing but a couple of minor, insignificant injuries. His entire medical treatment amounted to three band aids.

Here's a guy whose head smashed into concrete this past weekend in NYC - that's what that looks like. And I can tell you that the assailant will not be charged for arming himself with a sidewalk.

[GandD 5,966]

You respond to nearly everything the "ring leader" says, no?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Zimmermann had nothing but a couple of minor, insignificant injuries. His entire medical treatment amounted to three band aids.

Here's a guy whose head smashed into concrete this past weekend in NYC - that's what that looks like. And I can tell you that the assailant will not be charged for arming himself with a sidewalk.

You should change your forum name to Ring Leader. Everyone should know what kind of power you possess.

[Darnell 8,478]

If you don't want people to respond to your nonsense, stop posting nonsense.

60 percent of the time it does resemble nonsense, aye?

I blame the gear he's using.

If'n he switched his gear, had a real keyboard, that percentage would drop.

[GandD 5,966]

You should change your forum name to Ring Leader. Everyone should know what kind of power you possess.

We're part of his Krewe I assume

[Penny Lane 8,159]

60 percent of the time it does resemble nonsense, aye?

I blame the gear he's using.

If'n he switched his gear, had a real keyboard, that percentage would drop.

What? How do you know what people are using?

[Teddy B 17,252]

Zimmermann had nothing but a couple of minor, insignificant injuries. His entire medical treatment amounted to three band aids.

Here's a guy whose head smashed into concrete this past weekend in NYC - that's what that looks like. And I can tell you that the assailant will not be charged for arming himself with a sidewalk.

Insignificant to who? Certainly not Zimmerman. Those injuries are consistent with having someone on top of you, punching your face and slamming your head into the ground, not sure where your mind would be at that point, but I'd be looking for anyway possible out of that situation. How many punches and head slams does one get on a person before it's ok for someone to be in fear of his life or serious bodily harm. Or does a person need to be lying unconscious like the guy in your pic, before he can think of using deadly force? At which point does one get to make that decision?

What other evidence would you suggest be necessary to prove self defense?

Edited July 15, 2013 by Teddy B

[DaveE 178]

Florida law has nothing to do with New York law. GZ did not need any injuries at all, only to convince the jury that he was in fear of great bodily harm. Under New York law, GZ would have been convicted. If Floridians want to change their law they will.

In New York he would be guilty - In Florida, not guilty.