27
   

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sat 30 Nov, 2013 12:10 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
There is no Constitutional "right" of the mentally ill to possess firearms.

Zimmerman's behavior, certainly since his acquittal, suggests he is mentally ill, and that his functioning has deteriorated in the past several months, according to those closest to him. And, I think it's fairly safe to say, the public has seen only the tip of the iceberg with him, the actions that led to his police involvements. We don't know what else might be going on in private that might reveal even more disturbing behavior. Certainly his recently discovered stockpile of guns, in the context of everything else, gives us a glimpse of that.


the state has been very reluctant to impose involuntary mental health care, to include a diagnosis, in large part because the follow on is well known to be the removal of rights. This is why the standard is "clear and present danger", and the removal of rights proposition is why there has been great sensitivity to alerting the state to individuals who have voluntarily sought mental health help. in a world where the majority of the population is mentally ill according to some definitions great care must be taken to define the degree to which mental unwellness should give the state the right to remove individual rights, and we are not there yet. We also need to begin to question assertions that behavior is an abnormality when huge chunks or even the majority of the population exhibits that behavior, the definitions of mental illness have been constantly expanding at at some point the phrase becomes nonsense.

the american mental health system and our laws are not at present ready or able to be the arbiter of who should and should not be allowed to carry guns, and any talk about how Zimmerman should not be allowed to carry, or should not have been allowed to carry years ago, must reflect this reality.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sat 30 Nov, 2013 12:23 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
According to his estranged wife he is "unraveling", according to his friend Frank Taaffe he has PTSD, according to his girlfriend he has been deeply depressed, voicing suicidal ideation and making suicidal gestures, and behaving toward her in ways that have her in fear of him, his former lawyer, Mark O'Mara, recently said he is very worried about him and hopes he gets counseling, and even a Chief of Police has referred to him as a "ticking time bomb."

did the state even ask at the bail hearing for a psych eval? If not why not? We have heard often about the alleged instability of Zimmerman, remember all of the hollering about him being suicidal when he was out on bail for the Martin killing about how he was a mental mess , and the short lived suicide watch while he was in prison....i am betting that he has recently been forcibly examined by a state shrink and been found to be not a clear and present danger, so there is no ability to play that card again. This also would give pause to any serious consideration of these amateur shrinks who claim that he has a problem.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 30 Nov, 2013 12:39 pm
@hawkeye10,
You,
Quote:
This also would give pause to any serious consideration of these amateur shrinks who claim that he has a problem.


We are not "amateur shrinks." We are citizens of this country who views Zimmerman as an mentally unbalanced, depressed, threatening individual, who should not have guns.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Sat 30 Nov, 2013 12:52 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
We are not "amateur shrinks." We are citizens of this country who views Zimmerman as an mentally unbalanced, depressed, threatening individual, who should not have guns
I think that all good looking women should wear only short skirts/dresses with no panties, but that does not mean that I am the one who gets to decide. we are a nation of laws, and we claim to want to preserve individual rights. If the state thinks that zimmerman is mentally ill to the degree that would allow it to remove some of his rights it has the ability under the law to check him out, and if they are right do it. zimmerman bounced out of jail almost instantly on only $9k bail and with so far as I know no appointment with a shrink...this tells me that the state either is not concerned or that it has already played this card and been found to be wrong.
BillRM
 
  1  
Sat 30 Nov, 2013 01:14 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
We are citizens of this country who views Zimmerman as an mentally unbalanced, depressed, threatening individual, who should not have guns.


Who give a **** how you view Zimmerman as far as allowing you the ability due to those feelings to take away the man constitutions rights?

In my opinion he is a clear victim of both a hoodlum and then the state that overrule the decision to not prosecute him for political reasons.

The other ongoing nonsense is a direct results of the first two events.

Lot of crime victims have marriage/relationship problems as a result of them being victims and add the state and pressure groups then prosecuting Zimmerman both in the media and in the courts the results are sadly predictable.

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 30 Nov, 2013 01:18 pm
@hawkeye10,
That you believe our country's laws are without problems, errors, and creates more problems, you are mistaken! Guns results in more violent crimes and suicides in the US. You just don't like factual statistics about how guns are used in crime, killings, and suicides.

See if you can justify guns based on your beliefs and these statistics.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf#Page=7
firefly
 
  0  
Sat 30 Nov, 2013 01:20 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
the state has been very reluctant to impose involuntary mental health care, to include a diagnosis, in large part because the follow on is well known to be the removal of rights. This is why the standard is "clear and present danger", and the removal of rights proposition is why there has been great sensitivity to alerting the state to individuals who have voluntarily sought mental health help

Your thinking is, once again, confused and poorly informed.

For one thing, you are confusing mental health laws with those of the criminal justice system.

The "imminent danger to self or others" refers to the involuntary detainment of someone in a psychiatric unit for a very brief period of observation. There can be involuntary detainment for longer periods that must be justified in terms of why such inpatient treatment is needed. And the main concern about such procedures is that the person is effectively being civilly incarcerated without having broken criminal laws.

Regarding someone receiving outpatient treatment, mental health professionals are required to breach confidentiality only if specific threats are made by their patients to harm/kill another individual, and these are considered to be valid threats, or if their patient reveals on-going harmful behaviors, such as child abuse. So, if someone tells his shrink that he's going to kill Hawkeye, and he has already acquired a weapon and has a detailed plan to carry it out, that shrink is obligated to warn you, as the intended victim, and/or notify authorities, and, in addition, they may be obligated to try to have the person hospitalized if such a plan is due to a dangerous mental illness, rather than to the fact that they just hate your guts.
Quote:
in a world where the majority of the population is mentally ill according to some definitions...

In your mind maybe. Not according to the main current classification systems for mental disorders.

Behavior that occurs with great frequency within a population is considered within the norm.

And, it is not just that someone is "mentally ill", it's the type of mental illness, and how it manifests itself, that determines whether the person poses a danger, and many of these people, who many also violate laws, wind up in the criminal justice system.

And the state, via the courts, mandates mental health care, such as outpatient therapy, all the time, when there is felt the need for treatment is called for. Zimmerman's previous mandate to attend anger management was a form of that, since, in the opinion of the court, his criminal behavior indicated problems in that area. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have helped him very much, if at all.


0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Sat 30 Nov, 2013 01:24 pm
am I the only one who has a problem with OMara agreeing to represent Zimmerman pro bono and then when it was all over changing his mind and presenting a bill for $2.5 million? He is sniveling that Zimmerman raised $400k and did not give him any, but he is the lawyer, where the **** is the contract he got signed that spells out this exception? What about those 6 law school students who worked all of those hours in his law office for free to help zimmerman under the understanding that OMara was also working for free, where is their do over?

it seems to me that almost everyone connected to zimmerman and the killing have deep ethical issues, to include zimmerman for sure, but this seems to be a window onto the state of the human race.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 30 Nov, 2013 01:31 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Bill, Who gives a **** what you think about guns. These statistics speak for themselves. You're an idiot when it comes to US gun ownership and the violence perpetrated by them.

From Huffington Post.
Quote:
Adjusting for population, the U.S. death rate by firearms -- which includes homicides, suicide and accidents -- was 10.2 per 100,000 people in 2009, according to the Coalition for Gun Control. The closest developed country was Finland, with a firearms death rate of 4.47 per 100,000 people in 2008, less than half that of the U.S. rate. In Canada, the rate was 2.5 per 100,000 people in 2009. In the United Kingdom, the 2011 rate was 0.25 per 100,000 people.


If you can do the math, that's over 32,000 death by firearms in the US.
But, you're too ignorant to understand these simple facts about guns.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 30 Nov, 2013 01:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Guns Kill Young Children Daily In The U.S.
By SUZANNE GAMBOA and MONIKA MATHUR 12/24/12 07:16 PM ET EST
WASHINGTON — Before 20 first-graders were massacred at school by a gunman in Newtown, Conn., first-grader Luke Schuster, 6, was shot to death in New Town, N.D. Six-year-olds John Devine Jr. and Jayden Thompson were similarly killed in Kentucky and Texas.

Veronica Moser-Sullivan, 6, died in a mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., while 6-year-old Kammia Perry was slain by her father outside her Cleveland home, according to an Associated Press review of 2012 media reports.

Yet there was no gunman on the loose when Julio Segura-McIntosh died in Tacoma, Wash. The 3-year-old accidentally shot himself in the head while playing with a gun he found inside a car.

As he mourned with the families of Newtown, President Barack Obama said the nation cannot accept such violent deaths of children as routine. But hundreds of young child deaths by gunfire – whether intentional or accidental – suggest it might already have.

Between 2006 and 2010, 561 children age 12 and under were killed by firearms, according to the FBI's most recent Uniform Crime Reports. The numbers each year are consistent: 120 in 2006; 115 in 2007; 116 in 2008, 114 in 2009 and 96 in 2010. The FBI's count does not include gun-related child deaths that authorities have ruled accidental.


You wouldn't understand these stats because you're either too dumb or incapable of understanding the suffering of parents who lose their children by gun violence. Maybe (I have doubts) you might begin to understand what I'm talking about if your own child is killed by a gun.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Sat 30 Nov, 2013 01:50 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
You wouldn't understand these stats because you're either too dumb or incapable of understanding the suffering of parents who lose their children by gun violence. Maybe (I have doubts) you might begin to understand what I'm talking about if your own child is killed by a gun.
we are a people who glorify violence (go watch Hollywood movies if you dont know this), THAT is the underlining problem, not the tools used in violence. When D's no longer seek to do away with R's and vis versa then we might be ready to deal with the gun violence problem, but so long as the go to response is to try to eliminate those who dont agree with us rather than to find a way to work with them we are going to be nowhere trying to deal with violence no matter how much we allow government to steamroll our human right to individuality. the law is not the solution to every problem.
firefly
 
  0  
Sat 30 Nov, 2013 02:03 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
did the state even ask at the bail hearing for a psych eval? If not why not? We have heard often about the alleged instability of Zimmerman, remember all of the hollering about him being suicidal when he was out on bail for the Martin killing about how he was a mental mess , and the short lived suicide watch while he was in prison....i am betting that he has recently been forcibly examined by a state shrink and been found to be not a clear and present danger, so there is no ability to play that card again.

You know, you're really out to lunch, even when it comes to basic understandings of laws and the court system.

The state was not going to ask for a psych eval of Zimmerman at his most recent bail hearing. They are charging him criminally, and will try to hold him criminally responsible for his actions. And the idea that the state has had him already "forcibly examined by a state shrink" is another of your paranoid fantasies. The state is only trying to prevent him from skipping town and harming his girlfriend right now--potential criminal actions--by having him wear an electronic monitor, and prohibiting him from having contact with her or with guns.

It's up to Zimmerman's defense if they want to offer a psychiatric defense for his criminal actions, and present a psychiatric evaluation for that purpose.

Any suicide watch that was placed on Zimmerman during his previous incarceration was likely routine, simply because he was a high profile inmate. And these suicide watches are often asked for by defense attorneys. And any contact with Zimmerman that the mental health service of the jail might have had, would not have found him to be a serious suicide risk at that time, otherwise he would have been transferred out of the jail, to a forensic psych unit of a hospital, because suicide watches are not intended for identified high risk inmates.

Even Mark O'Mara said recently, on the Anderson Cooper show, that he was in very close contact with Zimmerman for a year and a half, and the man was not acting the way he is now--with both recent domestic incidents, particularly the most recent one. O'Mara said he is "very worried" about Zimmerman and that he hopes he gets counseling. Zimmerman's estranged wife said that, while she could see the potential for some of his recent behavior while she was living with him, he was not acting this disturbed, and she thinks he's "unraveling". These people are actually concerned about Zimmerman's well being, and the threat he may pose to others, particularly if he is armed.

And Zimmerman's mental health issues, as well as his marital problems, started long before the night he killed Trayvon Martin.

His former fiancée, in 2005, said he was also voicing suicidal ideation when she obtained her restraining order against him for domestic violence. And a court did mandate anger management for him, to satisfy a criminal assault charge. And he was in therapy, and was prescribed some type of medication, at the time he killed Martin. And his wife had walked out on him the day before he killed Martin.

It is not hard to see that he already had some pre-existing psychiatric problems before that homicide, and everything that has followed that--including his acquittal--appears to have further, and perhaps dangerously, exacerbated those problems.

It would not surprise me, at all, if Zimmerman's new lawyer, who doesn't feel anyone should have guns, resorts to some sort of psychiatric defense for him for his current charges.

It's not just amateur shrinks who have voiced concerns, I've heard several real shrinks on cable voicing the same concerns based on the way he's been behaving. And one way mental illness is evaluated is by a person's behavior, and by changes in behavior. And, with Zimmerman, we're likely seeing only the tip of the iceberg with his run-ins with the police.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 30 Nov, 2013 02:11 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawk, How stupid can you be? *But I repeat myself. Mr. Green
Movies are movies, and gun violence in real life kills people. You can't even separate movies from reality. You need to go see a shrink for your own health needs. Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
BillRM
 
  1  
Sat 30 Nov, 2013 02:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Bill, Who gives a **** what you think about guns. These statistics speak for themselves. You're an idiot when it comes to US gun ownership and the violence perpetrated by them.


LOL take away the gangbanger and such from the homicide rate who firearms are mainly not legal in the first place and you have one hell of a lower number of homicides by firearms.

footnote the homicide rate is at a 50 years low in the US also but what the hell let pretend otherwise........

Next no laws are going to stop people in the US from being arm illegally and gun laws might cause more people to become criminals due to them not being willing to be disarmed but as far as the homicide rate guns with special note of legally own guns are not the problem.

We need to address the sad homicide rate among the poorer black population where the chief cause of death of black teenage males are other black teenage males not the police or white armed racists!!!!!!

More support for the poor in general not only blacks , better education for this class also and better careers paths then selling drugs on street corners.

Saner drug laws and treating drugs as mainly a public health problems and so on.

But none of that support your wish to find excused to disarmed the American people so I am sure you will not wish to address the real problem of homicide rates that as I already stated is in any case for the population as a whole is at a fifty years low.


firefly
 
  0  
Sat 30 Nov, 2013 02:22 pm
@BillRM,
http://theoutloudblog.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/head-up-ass.jpg
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sat 30 Nov, 2013 02:23 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
The state was not going to ask for a psych eval of Zimmerman at his most recent bail hearing. They are charging him criminally, and will try to hold him criminally responsible for his actions. And the idea that the state has had him already "forcibly examined by a state shrink" is another of your paranoid fantasies. The state is only trying to prevent him from skipping town and harming his girlfriend right now--potential criminal actions--by having him wear an electronic monitor, and prohibiting him from having contact with her or with guns.
if the state believes that zimmerman is mentally unstable to the point that he is a danger (ie believes what you believe) then it has an obligation to press at the bail hearing for a mental health component of condition of release, for monitoring purposes in its pursuit of its duties to protect the welfare of the citizens. this is NOT about competency to stand trial.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Sat 30 Nov, 2013 02:26 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

hawk, How stupid can you be? *But I repeat myself. Mr. Green
Movies are movies, and gun violence in real life kills people. You can't even separate movies from reality. You need to go see a shrink for your own health needs. Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes


Quote:
Literally thousands of studies since the 1950s have asked whether there is a link between exposure to media violence and violent behavior. All but 18 have answered, "Yes." The evidence from the research is overwhelming. According to the AAP, "Extensive research evidence indicates that media violence can contribute to aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, nightmares, and fear of being harmed." [14] Watching violent shows is also linked with having less empathy toward others [14a].

An average American child will see 200,000 violent acts and 16,000 murders on TV by age 18 [15].
Two-thirds of all programming contains violence [16].
Programs designed for children more often contain violence than adult TV [17].
Most violent acts go unpunished on TV and are often accompanied by humor. The consequences of human suffering and loss are rarely depicted.
Many shows glamorize violence. TV often promotes violent acts as a fun and effective way to get what you want, without consequences [18].
Even in G-rated, animated movies and DVDs, violence is common—often as a way for the good characters to solve their problems. Every single U.S. animated feature film produced between 1937 and 1999 contained violence, and the amount of violence with intent to injure has increased over the years [19].
Even "good guys" beating up "bad guys" gives a message that violence is normal and okay. Many children will try to be like their "good guy" heroes in their play.
Children imitate the violence they see on TV. Children under age eight cannot tell the difference between reality and fantasy, making them more vulnerable to learning from and adopting as reality the violence they see on TV [20].
Repeated exposure to TV violence makes children less sensitive toward its effects on victims and the human suffering it causes.
A University of Michigan researcher demonstrated that watching violent media can affect willingness to help others in need [20a]. Read about the study here: Comfortably Numb: Desensitizing Effects of Violent Media on Helping Others.
Viewing TV violence reduces inhibitions and leads to more aggressive behavior.
Watching television violence can have long-term effects:
A 15-year-long study by University of Michigan researchers found that the link between childhood TV-violence viewing and aggressive and violent behavior persists into adulthood [21].
A 17-year-long study found that teenaged boys who grew up watching more TV each day are more likely to commit acts of violence than those who watched less [22].

http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/tv.htm
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 30 Nov, 2013 02:49 pm
@hawkeye10,
"Thousands of studies" have not shown that the majority of people who look at violent movies do not turn into criminals.

I've seen my share of violent movies during my lifetime - as well as the majority of those who look at movies - are not violent people by any stretch of anybody's imagination - except for people like you! Your ignorance is classic; suffering from myopia that can't see anything except what you believe.

Has any university done studies on the majority of us who have been exposed to violence on tv and movies, but are not violent? How about the reading of books on violence?

From nolo.com.
Quote:
Historically, children have been considered to lack the capacity to commit crime in that they don’t have the mental capacity to fully understand the consequences of their actions. One’s intent or mental state is an important feature of criminal law, and if someone doesn’t have the intent to commit a crime, then often that person can’t be found guilty.
For example, if an expensive vase fell into your bag while shopping without your knowledge, then you wouldn’t be guilty of shoplifting because you lacked the intent to steal (although you might have a tough time proving that in court). Because we consider children as having a different understanding of reality, right and wrong, and societal norms, we often don’t hold them responsible if they commit a crime. In essence, the tradition in criminal law is not hold children to an adult code of conduct.
Age Limits for Prosecution
The age at which a child has the legal capacity for crime has changed over time. In the past, any child younger than the age of seven was considered to lack criminal capacity and could not be tried for a crime. Children between the ages of seven and 14 were also seen as lacking capacity, but if a prosecutor could show that the child’s age, experience, and understanding caused him or her to know the acts were wrong, then the state could proceed with a criminal prosecution.
coldjoint
 
  0  
Sat 30 Nov, 2013 02:56 pm
Quote:
How about the reading of books on violence?


How about talking something to death?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Sat 30 Nov, 2013 03:10 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I've seen my share of violent movies during my lifetime - as well as the majority of those who look at movies - are not violent people by any stretch of anybody's imagination - except for people like you!


you are amazingly unselfaware:

Quote:
violence
1. Definition
B2 actions or words that are intended to hurt people:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/violence

you have been extremely violent towards dozens of A2K members.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 07/12/2025 at 03:31:29