45
   

Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

 
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 11:42 am
@oralloy,
Legally, the right to self defense is not absolute; it has many limitations.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 11:43 am
@oralloy,
DrewDad wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Zimmy had & has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to defend himself from violence,
regardless of what the perp was THINKing.


Regardless of your personal views, from a legal standpoint that statement is incorrect.


According to your post,
Zimmy had a duty to permit the perp to injure or kill him.
I dispute that.

The perp was beating Zimmy 's head against the street.


Legally, self defense is not an absolute right.

Sorry to burst your bubble.
oralloy wrote:

Depends on what you mean. Certainly if it could be shown that Zimmerman started the fight,
any subsequent act would not count as self defense.

But if the act does count as self defense, Zimmerman's right to defend himself is pretty absolute.
OF COURSE!
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 11:48 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
Legally, the right to self defense is not absolute; it has many limitations.


That's too vague to either agree or disagree. What sort of limitations are you referring to?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 11:50 am

Zimmy's defense counsel has an available argument
founded DIRECTLY on the 2nd Amendment,
with the HELLER 554 US 290; 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008)
and the McDONALD 561 U.S. 3025 (2010) cases.

The USSC found, in HELLER that the central core right
of the Amendment was self defense. The McDONALD case
leaves no room for doubt that this binds the State governments.

In HELLER the USSC wrote:
As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.






David
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 12:24 pm

In HELLER the USSC also wrote:
At the time of the founding,
as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.”

See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary
of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford).

When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose— confrontation.

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998),
in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm”
in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that
“surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]:
‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing
or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and
ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person
.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion)
[All emphasis has been lovingly added by David.]

Thus, the USSC adopts that opinion of Justice Ginsburg.






David
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 01:01 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Zimmy's defense counsel has an available argument
founded DIRECTLY on the 2nd Amendment,
with the HELLER 554 US 290; 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008)
and the McDONALD 561 U.S. 3025 (2010) cases.

The USSC found, in HELLER that the central core right
of the Amendment was self defense. The McDONALD case
leaves no room for doubt that this binds the State governments.

In HELLER the USSC wrote:
As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.






David



"The right to defend yourself" and "the right to carry a gun in case you might have to defend yourself" are two separate rights.


"The right to carry a gun in case you might have to defend yourself" comes from English Common Law, and is protected by the Constitution. Since the rest of the Former British Empire has repealed that right, Americans are the only people today who still possess it.


"The right to defend yourself" is far deeper and more pervasive. It is something that all humans everywhere possess by virtue of their humanity, and no government anywhere has any power to repeal it.


Note Thomas Hobbes' First Law of Nature:

"That every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war."


So Zimmerman gets his right to carry a gun from the Constitution. And he gets his right to use the gun from his very humanity.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 01:44 pm
@oralloy,
You're welcome to try that argument in a court of law.... somehow I doubt you will be successful.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 03:18 pm
@oralloy,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Zimmy's defense counsel has an available argument
founded DIRECTLY on the 2nd Amendment,
with the HELLER 554 US 290; 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008)
and the McDONALD 561 U.S. 3025 (2010) cases.

The USSC found, in HELLER that the central core right
of the Amendment was self defense. The McDONALD case
leaves no room for doubt that this binds the State governments.

In HELLER the USSC wrote:
As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.






David
oralloy wrote:
"The right to defend yourself" and "the right to carry a gun in case you might have to defend yourself" are two separate rights.
One includes the other.




oralloy wrote:
"The right to carry a gun in case you might have to defend yourself" comes from English Common Law,
and is protected by the Constitution.
That is the function of the 9th Amendment.





oralloy wrote:
Since the rest of the Former British Empire has repealed that right, Americans are the only people today who still possess it.

"The right to defend yourself" is far deeper and more pervasive.
In the absence of gun possession, that right is little more
than empty theory for most citizens.
Pillows don't serve as well as guns for self defense.





oralloy wrote:
It is something that all humans everywhere possess by virtue of their humanity,
and no government anywhere has any power to repeal it.
Qua alien governments (e.g. Saddam or North Korea) functional power is dispositive.


oralloy wrote:
Note Thomas Hobbes' First Law of Nature:
"That every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it,
that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war."


So Zimmerman gets his right to carry a gun from the Constitution.
And he gets his right to use the gun from his very humanity.
In US v. CRUIKSHANK 92 US 542 (1875)
felonious convictions of some Klansmen for violation of the 1st Amendment (right of assembly),
and of the 2nd Amendment (right to keep and bear arms), had been reversed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In affirming that decision, the US Supreme Court held that the rights of the 1st and 2nd Amendments
long antedated the Constitution, such that when created, the US government found them in being.

Accordingly, these rights are older than the Constitution,
which neither created nor granted them to the citizenry
any more than the Constitution created the moon nor granted the stars.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 03:58 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
You're welcome to try that argument in a court of law.... somehow I doubt you will be successful.


You'd be wrong. Courts of law tend to be run by people who are informed about the fundamental underpinnings of our entire legal system.

Very unlikely that any judge would be unfamiliar with the concept of self-defense.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 03:59 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
oralloy wrote:
"The right to defend yourself" is far deeper and more pervasive.


In the absence of gun possession, that right is little more
than empty theory for most citizens.
Pillows don't serve as well as guns for self defense.


True that the right to carry guns makes self defense much easier.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 09:35 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
True that the right to carry guns makes self defense much easier.


If he had not been carrying that gun Zimmerman death or long hospital stay at the hands of a young hoodlum would hardly had gotten onto the local news.

Inspite of all the hell the state is putting Zimmerman through he is far better off now for having been carrying that firearm then not to had been carrying that firearm.


OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 09:42 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
True that the right to carry guns makes self defense much easier.
BillRM wrote:
If he had not been carrying that gun Zimmerman death or long hospital stay
at the hands of a young hoodlum would hardly had gotten onto the local news.

Inspite of all the hell the state is putting Zimmerman through
he is far better off now for having been carrying that firearm
then not to had been carrying that firearm.
" Its better to be tried by 12 men
than carried by 6."






David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 09:46 pm

That remark does not imply
that I approve of carrying 9mm automatics:
woefully underpowered (to say nothing about mechanical reliability).





David
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  3  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2012 06:20 pm
By Frances Robles
[email protected]

George Zimmerman’s attorneys got a second judge kicked off his murder trial Wednesday, when the Fifth District Court of Appeal ordered the sitting jurist to step down from the controversial case.
In a 2-1 ruling that the appellate court acknowledged was a “close call,” Seminole County Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester was ordered to recuse himself and ask the chief circuit judge to name a replacement.
The decision came after Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara, accused Lester of being so biased against his client that the former neighborhood watch volunteer had lost faith in the court.
In July, Lester wrote a scathing bond ruling, in which he said the defendant had manipulated the court and suggested that he was guilty of other crimes. O’Mara took particular umbrage at comments the judge made suggesting that he could some day hold Zimmerman in contempt of court.
Later, Lester ordered the release of nearly 150 taped jailhouse calls, even though he had suggested in court that only phone calls which prosecutors had transcribed should be made public.
The judge also decided to release a statement by a woman who came forward to say Zimmerman touched her sexually when they were both children. Lester released the statement, even though both the defense and prosecutors agreed that it was highly prejudicial, O’Mara said.
In the opinion posted on the court website late Wednesday, the appeal judges said the weight of all the defense complaints together helped sway the Daytona Beach appellate court.
“Although many of the allegations in Zimmerman’s motion, standing alone, do not meet the legal sufficiency test, and while this is admittedly a close call, upon careful review we find that the allegations, taken together, meet the threshold test of legal sufficiency,” the majority of the judges wrote.
One judge disagreed and said Lester did not cross the line in his decisions.
Zimmerman faces one count of second-degree murder for the Feb. 26 killing of Miami Gardens teenager Trayvon Martin.
Zimmerman said he found the teen suspicious in light of a rash of burglaries in his Central Florida townhouse complex, and got out of his car to see where he went. Minutes later they tussled on the grass, and Zimmerman shot Trayvon once in the chest.
Zimmerman told police that Trayvon punched him in the face hard enough to break his nose and banged his head on the concrete. He is claiming self defense.
The Sanford Police department’s decision not to arrest Zimmerman triggered protests nationwide. When the case finally went to court six weeks later, the defense attorney asked the initial trial judge to step down, because her husband worked for the same law firm as Mark NeJame, a CNN legal analyst Zimmerman consulted early in the case.
Judge Jennifer Recksiedler agreed to recuse herself.
The next judge in the rotation, Judge John D. Galluzzo, told the court that he had his own conflict of interest: a personal and business relationship with the defense attorney.
Lester came up next.
He lasted just three months before O’Mara asked him to step down, too.
The request came after Zimmerman’s wife got caught lying in a bond hearing about how much money the couple had raised online.
Prosecutors provided audio tapes of Zimmerman and his wife talking in detail about the deluge of donations that had arrived via PayPal — and how they planned to hide it.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/29/2975210/appeal-court-removes-judge-in.html#storylink=cpy
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2012 07:40 pm
@BillRM,
Zimmerman is facing a very seriously flawed justice system, but at least he appears to have the best representation possible. At the beginning he had pond scum who abused him. In fact zimmerman being abused is a recuring theme in this case.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2012 03:43 am
@hawkeye10,
You're right there. It's a justice system so flawed, that it takes a public outcry to arrest an armed man who stalked and murdered an unarmed boy.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2012 04:57 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
You're right there. It's a justice system so flawed, that it takes a public outcry to arrest an armed man who stalked and murdered an unarmed boy.


Nonsense. There is no possible way this was murder. Manslaughter at the worst.

And given the fact that Zimmerman remained in the same area from the time the dispatcher advised they didn't need him to follow, to the time when the shooting occurred, it is getting harder to see the path even to manslaughter.


And Zimmerman might have been arrested even without the outcry (assuming a reason to do so). A grand jury was in the process of being empaneled.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2012 05:57 am
@izzythepush,
The guy was 17 at the time, Poop. He belonged to come sort of a local fight club and was using MMA tactics in trying to kill Zimmerman. Zimmerman on the other hand does not appear to have any background in combative sport or martials arts at all. That's basically like a two year old male lion versus an adult sheep.

Muhammed Ali won the 1960 Olympic light heavyweight competition at age 18.

Do you really think you or somebody like you could have taken him a year prior to that because he was "just a child"?????

Do you find being an idiot painful?
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2012 05:57 am
@oralloy,
Kidly address your comments to people who don't mind talking to misanthropic inadequates with a limited vocabulary, who harbour genocidal fantasies, and couldn't beat a headless chicken in a game of noughts and crosses.

izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2012 05:59 am
@gungasnake,
You've demonstated your idiocy and racism time and time again Gungasnakkke. A 17 year old is a minor, but you couldn't be expected to know that because you can't count that high.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/18/2024 at 10:36:42