The problem with your argument ....
Yes, you have.
I seem to recall that you recently wailed about someone calling you a liar. Really, sir, if you don't like the perception that you are dishonest, change your behavior.
This argument turns history on its head. Many individuals have been prosecuted in federal court for crimes that escaped state-level justice; in many cases, these are charged as civil rights crimes.
The Florida SYG law will not trump a civil rights charge against Zimmerman.
See, this is one of those questions about your integrity:
You have the appearance of arguing that the stock photo of the road cone you provided is from the site of the shooting.
As I see it, you have provided an image of a road cone.
Until someone shows me the cones from the Retreat at Twin Lakes, your "cones" argument is pretty desperate.
Additionally, where are the conifers that would create those cones?
Hint: That little bush on the left side of the frame, behind the hydrant? Insufficient.
Mario Tama's photo for Getty Images looks through a security gate at the Retreat at Twin Lakes.
The question persists when we look at the scene itself:
Cones: Anybody? Hello?
What I'm getting at is that, while you are correct that tripping over a road cone or crunching over a seed cone might inspire one to say, "Fucking cones," that also appears to be wishful speculation. No evidence lending support to your theory has emerged.
If one wishes to establish, so that—
—the ears of a federal jury will believe "cones", it might be a good idea to provide some evidence that those cones were actually there. Otherwise, it's just desperate, straw-grasping speculation.
This is one of your sleights of rhetoric, Arthur: Self-defense and Stand Your Ground are two different things.
Throwing the first punch (i.e., starting the fight) is a self-defense standard. As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, SYG is different.
What you seem to be trying to avoid here is Blow's question of whether or not self-defense is transferable. Zimmerman was stalking Martin, first in a car, and then on foot. Under SYG, the question is whether Martin had a right to fear severe bodily harm and stand his ground.
When you try to switch the argument to mere self-defense, you're dodging that question.
See above.
Here you're tilting windmills. We both agree that the law is problematic. Only one of us, however, is trying to establish George Zimmerman's innocence.
As far as Sonner and the self-defense aspect, that's a gamble; one of the big transformations of the SYG law is that one no longer has to proactively justify their self-defense claim.
The SYG law is what protects Zimmerman right now; reverting to mere self-defense means he's going to have to prove his story, and as the reliability of that story continues to erode, so does any claim of mere self-defense—Sonner will, if this case ever goes to trial, at some point invoke the SYG law, because that is all that protects Zimmerman, and seems to be the reason for such sloppy forensic work by the police.
Demonstrate that self-defense will be a passive, because-I-say-so standard.
Honest up, Arthur. Stop tilting windmills.
You gave a bad example:
This is another windmill, Don Quixote.
It's a completely irrelevant argument for the reasons I've noted; furthermore, the SYG law does not require that what a person one stands ground against is doing is illegal.
That is a desperate and dishonest argument, Arthur. Your wallet example simply doesn't work.
If you are stalking a person in a car, and then following them on foot, with the alleged intention of returning a dropped wallet, and never bother to hail the person, yeah, you might well be giving them reasonable fear for their life or safety.
In a federal civil rights prosecution, we can expect that the audiotape, the black-guy-in-a-hoodie suspicion, the "fucking (something)" recording, the security video, and the lack of hospital records—one would think those would be released by now, but they could still be forthcoming—may well be enough to convince a jury.
Remember U.S. v. Price et al., more famously known as the "Mississippi Burning Trial": Deputy Sheriff Price was convicted, as were private citizens: Jimmy Arledge (truck driver), Sam Bowers (KKK Grand Wizard; owner, Sambo Amusement Company), Alton Roberts (dishonorably discharged U.S. Marine; auto salesman), Jimmy Snowden (truck driver), Billy Wayne Posey (gas station attendant), and Horace Doyle Barnette (salesman); acquitted were Sheriff Lawrence Rainey and private citizens Bernard Akin (salesman), Olen Burrage (farmer), Frank Herndon (restaurateur), Richard Willis (Philadelphia police officer), Herman Tucker (bulldozer operator), and James Harris (truck driver); the jury hung on private citizens Edgar Ray Killen—a preacher convicted of manslaughter in 2005 for the 1964 incident—Jerry McGrew Sharpe (pulp hauler), and Ethel Glen Barnett (nominee to sheriff's office).
We very well could see U.S. v. Zimmerman, for general civil rights violations.
We will see what comes. Meanwhile, the fact that you claim to recognize the difference between not guilty and innocent does not mean you aren't arguing for Zimmerman's innocence.
____________________
Notes:
Shanklin, Mary. "Homeowners could pay in Trayvon Martin killing". Los Angeles Times. April 2, 2012. LATimes.com. April 2, 2012. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trayvon-homeowners-20120402,0,4496790.story
Editorial. "Preemptive self-defense". The Christian Century. March 29, 2012. ChristianCentury.org. April 2, 2012. http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2012-03/preemptive-self-defense
Adoucette said:
Bull, I've not been justifying Zimmeman's actions ....
Yes, you have.
I seem to recall that you recently wailed about someone calling you a liar. Really, sir, if you don't like the perception that you are dishonest, change your behavior.
As to the Fed, as I understand it, their laws would only apply against the Sanford Police and the Seminole DA's office, not Zimmerman. And no, I've seen nothing to indicate that the Police or the DA have been racist in this matter.
This argument turns history on its head. Many individuals have been prosecuted in federal court for crimes that escaped state-level justice; in many cases, these are charged as civil rights crimes.
The Florida SYG law will not trump a civil rights charge against Zimmerman.
You said it made no sense, those pictures show why it could make sense.
See, this is one of those questions about your integrity:
Tiassa: I'm still waiting for the picture of the road cone that George Zimmerman might have tripped over ....
Adoucette: You said it made no sense, those pictures show why it could make sense.
Adoucette: You said it made no sense, those pictures show why it could make sense.
You have the appearance of arguing that the stock photo of the road cone you provided is from the site of the shooting.
As I see it, you have provided an image of a road cone.
Until someone shows me the cones from the Retreat at Twin Lakes, your "cones" argument is pretty desperate.
Additionally, where are the conifers that would create those cones?
Hint: That little bush on the left side of the frame, behind the hydrant? Insufficient.
Mario Tama's photo for Getty Images looks through a security gate at the Retreat at Twin Lakes.
The question persists when we look at the scene itself:
Cones: Anybody? Hello?
What I'm getting at is that, while you are correct that tripping over a road cone or crunching over a seed cone might inspire one to say, "Fucking cones," that also appears to be wishful speculation. No evidence lending support to your theory has emerged.
If one wishes to establish, so that—
And as I've pointed out, most of the analysis that I've seen comes down on Punks, not Coons, Goons or Cones. And I've pointed out that not only do I have old ears, but that what I hear is in the minority, so no, I'm not pushing anything. But the KEY point I was making was not claiming I knew what was said but that given the bad audio recording, no one is going to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what was actually said.
—the ears of a federal jury will believe "cones", it might be a good idea to provide some evidence that those cones were actually there. Otherwise, it's just desperate, straw-grasping speculation.
BUT Florida law does not allow you claim self-defense if you start the fight and since nobody saw the first punch neither we, nor the State knows who or how the fight started.
And since Zimmerman was carrying the gun legally it is not an agressive act to just walk up to someone with a weapon in it's holster.
This is one of your sleights of rhetoric, Arthur: Self-defense and Stand Your Ground are two different things.
Throwing the first punch (i.e., starting the fight) is a self-defense standard. As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, SYG is different.
What you seem to be trying to avoid here is Blow's question of whether or not self-defense is transferable. Zimmerman was stalking Martin, first in a car, and then on foot. Under SYG, the question is whether Martin had a right to fear severe bodily harm and stand his ground.
When you try to switch the argument to mere self-defense, you're dodging that question.
Indeed, you keep going on about the "Stand Your Ground" portion of the law, but in this actual case, it's not even particularly relevant since no one saw how the fight started. In a public space like this, both had that right.
See above.
More to the point, you keep forgetting (conveniently) that I'm the one who posted the scathing legal critique of this law, "DON'T DIAL 911. USE .357" and have from my first post said the law was very lenient and that it needed to be changed.
Here you're tilting windmills. We both agree that the law is problematic. Only one of us, however, is trying to establish George Zimmerman's innocence.
As far as Sonner and the self-defense aspect, that's a gamble; one of the big transformations of the SYG law is that one no longer has to proactively justify their self-defense claim.
But perhaps most disturbing is the fact that on this last point the police are probably right. In 2005, Florida was the first state to adopt a stand-your-ground law, which permits deadly force when one "reasonably believes," rightly or wrongly, that it's needed for self-defense—not just in one's home but in public, and whether or not there's an opportunity to retreat. This law didn't come about as a result of popular clamor. It's based on model legislation drafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council, which is funded in part by the National Rifle Association.
Florida's law is particularly aggressive: it puts the burden of proof not on the person claiming self-defense but on the prosecutor who disputes that claim. Since the law went into effect, the state has seen a dramatic rise in self-defense homicides. Supporters cite this as evidence that more citizens are successfully defending themselves. But how is killing someone a better outcome than simply running away?
Zimmerman didn't run away; he gave chase. Whatever the sequence of events in his physical confrontation with Martin, it was a confrontation that Zimmerman initiated.
(The Christian Century)
Florida's law is particularly aggressive: it puts the burden of proof not on the person claiming self-defense but on the prosecutor who disputes that claim. Since the law went into effect, the state has seen a dramatic rise in self-defense homicides. Supporters cite this as evidence that more citizens are successfully defending themselves. But how is killing someone a better outcome than simply running away?
Zimmerman didn't run away; he gave chase. Whatever the sequence of events in his physical confrontation with Martin, it was a confrontation that Zimmerman initiated.
(The Christian Century)
The SYG law is what protects Zimmerman right now; reverting to mere self-defense means he's going to have to prove his story, and as the reliability of that story continues to erode, so does any claim of mere self-defense—Sonner will, if this case ever goes to trial, at some point invoke the SYG law, because that is all that protects Zimmerman, and seems to be the reason for such sloppy forensic work by the police.
I'm not ignoring the fact that Trayvon had the right to stand his ground, it just doesn't impact Zimmerman's claim of self defense since no one saw how the fight started.
Demonstrate that self-defense will be a passive, because-I-say-so standard.
And so since I've never once argued that it's good law, don't act like I have.
Honest up, Arthur. Stop tilting windmills.
Could you be any more dishonest Tiassa?
The "Returning the Wallet" example was NOT offered as an example of what happened with Zimmerman.
A number of people have suggested that what Zimmerman did by following Martin was illegal and thus negates Zimmerman's later claim to self-defense.
It wasn't and it doesn't.
You gave a bad example:
You mean if I'm following you to return your wallet you can shoot me?
No you can't.
There is no Florida law that makes what Zimmerman did, when he was just following Martin, illegal.
This is another windmill, Don Quixote.
It's a completely irrelevant argument for the reasons I've noted; furthermore, the SYG law does not require that what a person one stands ground against is doing is illegal.
So no Tiassa, this was not framed as a discussion about what Zimmerman did or didn't do that night, but just pointing out that under Florida Law, what Zimmerman did by following Martin, and even asking him what he was doing there, was not legally any different and to also show how lenient the Self-Defense laws are in Florida.
That is a desperate and dishonest argument, Arthur. Your wallet example simply doesn't work.
If you are stalking a person in a car, and then following them on foot, with the alleged intention of returning a dropped wallet, and never bother to hail the person, yeah, you might well be giving them reasonable fear for their life or safety.
In a federal civil rights prosecution, we can expect that the audiotape, the black-guy-in-a-hoodie suspicion, the "fucking (something)" recording, the security video, and the lack of hospital records—one would think those would be released by now, but they could still be forthcoming—may well be enough to convince a jury.
Remember U.S. v. Price et al., more famously known as the "Mississippi Burning Trial": Deputy Sheriff Price was convicted, as were private citizens: Jimmy Arledge (truck driver), Sam Bowers (KKK Grand Wizard; owner, Sambo Amusement Company), Alton Roberts (dishonorably discharged U.S. Marine; auto salesman), Jimmy Snowden (truck driver), Billy Wayne Posey (gas station attendant), and Horace Doyle Barnette (salesman); acquitted were Sheriff Lawrence Rainey and private citizens Bernard Akin (salesman), Olen Burrage (farmer), Frank Herndon (restaurateur), Richard Willis (Philadelphia police officer), Herman Tucker (bulldozer operator), and James Harris (truck driver); the jury hung on private citizens Edgar Ray Killen—a preacher convicted of manslaughter in 2005 for the 1964 incident—Jerry McGrew Sharpe (pulp hauler), and Ethel Glen Barnett (nominee to sheriff's office).
We very well could see U.S. v. Zimmerman, for general civil rights violations.
We will see what comes. Meanwhile, the fact that you claim to recognize the difference between not guilty and innocent does not mean you aren't arguing for Zimmerman's innocence.
____________________
Notes:
Shanklin, Mary. "Homeowners could pay in Trayvon Martin killing". Los Angeles Times. April 2, 2012. LATimes.com. April 2, 2012. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trayvon-homeowners-20120402,0,4496790.story
Editorial. "Preemptive self-defense". The Christian Century. March 29, 2012. ChristianCentury.org. April 2, 2012. http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2012-03/preemptive-self-defense