Zimmerman, murderer and plagiarist

[Svartalf]

I'm definitely above stupid laws, especially when not within their jurisdiction

But the jurors COULD have convicted him and did not. If the law had been that clear cut, there wouldn't even have been a prosecution, so bugger the twelve asses for giving a well intentioned piece of legislation more scope than it should.

[Seth]

It's better than all the other alternatives, which have all been tried and found severely wanting.

Actually, Seth, that is not true. Lots of other potential systems have never been tried.

Pettifoggery.

Charles Dickens said the law is an ass. I think its asinine character is related to its conservative nature and resistance to innovation.

No he didn't. If there's a ass involved here it's not the law, or Charles Dickens, or conservatives or me. What he actually wrote, in his novel Oliver Twist, is:

"That is no excuse," replied Mr. Brownlow. "You were present on the occasion of the destruction of these trinkets, and indeed are the more guilty of the two, in the eye of the law; for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction."

"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass- a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience- by experience."

This was nothing more than a rejection of stupid, misogynistic, patriarchal bombast by a character in his novel, not a judgment on "the law."

I would like to see becoming a juror as being a career choice for tertiary qualified people who pass aptitude tests showing they can think rationally. A year of extra training to make sure they are knowledgeable about things a juror needs to know, like what evidence is credible, forensics, a little law, a little relevant psychology etc., and you would have people who would piss all over the "12 good men and true" selected at random from the 'Great Unwashed', which is the ridiculous system today.

Except that a professional jury is both prone to corruption and interested in maintaining it's position and paycheck, which means that it can (and probably will) become the creature of whomever signs their paycheck, which would inevitably be the government. However, if you actually like this system I'll go to trial with a "professional" jury of my choosing that I pay for if you like.

Are you beginning to see the problem?

The reason that a jury of one's peers, chosen randomly and compelled by the law to serve whether they want to or not as a duty of citizenship is the best alternative is that there is much less opportunity for anyone, prosecutor or defendant, to tamper with a juror or jury panel, and therefore it provides the best available opportunity for a fair (but not perfect) trial.

If you want to review the problem I note, go study ecclesiastical courts to see what happens when the triers of fact are in the employ of the prosecution.

[Seth]

Nice sspeech, but let's be serious, the guy still got away with murder and is making off like a bandit... that speaks ill of the hoi polloi that let him off and let him earn money.

Thanks. Okay you wish me to be serious? (BAH!) Okay Svart, just for you.

I don't agree. I do agree than in many places he may have been found guilty because there is no such "stand your ground law" but then many territories have different laws applicable. Just because you can travel at 90 mph down one motorway in Europe does not make it legal for you to do so everywhere nor is "everyone else does it" a decent legal defence.

The highlighted text is the critical failure in the reasoning of Svartalf. Zimmerman was not found not guilty because of a "stand your ground" law. Zimmerman was found not guilty because the prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted illegally in shooting an assailant that was, according to all the evidence, astride him as he lay on the ground and bashing his skull on a concrete walkway, which if true (and the jury found it was true) meets the definition of "imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death" in every single jurisdiction in the United States and any other civilized nation, which threat fully authorizes the victim to do what is necessary, including taking the assailant's life, in order to survive. According to the evidence, Zimmerman had no possibility of retreat once he was attacked by Martin, who struck him from behind and knocked him to the ground.

Whether Zimmerman should have or was legally justified in following Martin around his gated, private community is utterly irrelevant because absent him initiating an unlawful physical attack on Martin, Martin had absolutely no legal justification whatever to attack Zimmerman. Following someone you've never seen before around your neighborhood is not a crime.

Also it does not speak ill of the 12 people who considered him in the right, it speaks ill of the law, of the rolling assumption that when anyone other than a black police officer or other gang member kills a black person it is institutional racism and guilt is obvious. It speaks ill of a heavily agendized press which considers him guilty and will do anything and everything to keep the guy in the spotlight as a "bad person."

Is George Zimmerman guilty of killing Treyvon Martin, yes. He was found not guilty of murder. If you don't wish to accept that different countries have different laws and we should hold everyone to a similar standard then we should start imprisoning the troops and police officers who've killed people.

Well, "guilty" of killing Martin isn't the right term because it's pejorative. Did Zimmerman kill Martin? Indisputably yes. Does that make him "guilty" of something? No, because the definition of "guilt" is "the fact of having committed a specified or implied offense or crime." Since Zimmerman was acquitted of murder, he's not "guilty" of anything.

[Blind groper]

Seth

Charles Dickens definitely said : "The law is an ass." He used his character, Mr. McCawber to say it in Nicholas Nickleby.

Audley

My low opinion of the jury system comes from having served twice on juries myself. The number of total blithering idiots on those juries was unbelievable. Not only that, but the ignorance the jury members had for the most basic things acted to create long delays in the judicial process. Professional and trained jurors would lead to more accurate verdicts and shorter trials.

To Seth

We will never know whether Zimmerman was a cold blooded killer or simply acting in self defense, since we have nothing to go on except his word. However, we do know he set out to seek trouble. He found it, and a man is dead as a result. The odds are high that Zimmerman is scum.

[Svartalf]

But you're wrong, the very basis of the jury system is to use non professionals. Panels of 3 judges would be even more efficient than a professional jury.

[Seth]

Seth

Charles Dickens definitely said : "The law is an ass." He used his character, Mr. McCawber to say it in Nicholas Nickleby.

Revisionism. Did you read the quote I provided? Dickens did not say the law "is a ass," he wrote ""If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass- a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience- by experience."

When you take the words out of context to indict the law in general when the statement was only an indictment of a specific law (or interpretation thereof) you are either being irretrievably ignorant or deliberately obtuse.

Audley

My low opinion of the jury system comes from having served twice on juries myself. The number of total blithering idiots on those juries was unbelievable. Not only that, but the ignorance the jury members had for the most basic things acted to create long delays in the judicial process.

I'll bet you a dollar that I've spent more time with juries than you have in your wildest imagination, and while I agree that it can be a confederacy of dunces at times, as I've pointed out, there are perfectly good reasons why your alternative is substantially inferior. One of the benefits of a non-professional average guy jury is that it forces both the defense and prosecution to present their cases simply and clearly in terms the average Joe and Jill can understand. If the prosecution cannot present a clear and simple case for conviction that the average person can understand, then the defendant should not be convicted.

Professional and trained jurors would lead to more accurate verdicts and shorter trials.

Or more corrupt verdicts and miscarriages of justice.

To Seth

We will never know whether Zimmerman was a cold blooded killer or simply acting in self defense, since we have nothing to go on except his word.

Except for all that forensic evidence presented at trial that convinced a jury that there was reasonable doubt as to his motivations. You forgot about that.

However, we do know he set out to seek trouble.

No, he set out to prevent trouble.

He found it, and a man is dead as a result.

No, trouble was forced upon him and he responded as the law permits.

The odds are high that Zimmerman is scum.

Only to the confederacy of dunces who care nothing for evidence and everything for bigotry.

[JimC]

...let's be serious, the guy still got away with murder...

According to the locally prevailing law he did not. Your judgement plainly places you above the law. You are being extra-judicial. I wholly agree with Audley Strange. You can rail against the law in question as much as you like - and if you do, I cannot but concur - but to say that Zimmermann is guilty plainly places you above the it.

The biggest issue with the "not guilty" verdict is the green light it sends to other trigger-happy vigilantes...

[Seth]

...let's be serious, the guy still got away with murder...

According to the locally prevailing law he did not. Your judgement plainly places you above the law. You are being extra-judicial. I wholly agree with Audley Strange. You can rail against the law in question as much as you like - and if you do, I cannot but concur - but to say that Zimmermann is guilty plainly places you above the it.

The biggest issue with the "not guilty" verdict is the green light it sends to other trigger-happy vigilantes...

Well, ipso facto and de jure Zimmerman was neither "trigger-happy" nor a "vigilante." Given the fact that it cost him pretty much everything he had, including his marriage, to defend himself against two vicious and cowardly attacks (the one by Martin and the one by the public and the prosecutor), I don't really see his case as much of a "green light."

[Blind groper]

Seth

Since you give every impression in your posts of being a wannabe vigilante and killer of anyone who shows the least likely sign of being criminal, I do not take your opinions seriously.

[laklak]

Zimmerman didn't use stand your ground, he used traditional self defense. Had he tried SYG he would have had a hearing, prior to trial, where his lawyer would argue the case to a judge (no jury). If the judge agreed the charges would be dismissed and no trial would have occurred. Now, the asshat ex-cop in the theater will probably try to use SYG, but I'll take bets it won't fly.

[Seth]

Seth

Since you give every impression in your posts of being a wannabe vigilante and killer of anyone who shows the least likely sign of being criminal, I do not take your opinions seriously.

Go fuck yourself you mendacious revisionist shithead.

Every time I write about the use of force I make it perfectly and absolutely clear that I only support the use of physical force, any degree of physical force whatsoever, under the exact and precise conditions that the law sets forth as legal justification for the use of force, including lethal force. That's why I cite the language of the law.

I do that precisely because fuckwits like you like to try to take what I say out of context and I won't allow your sort of actionable libel to stand unanswered. Come say it to my face sometime you fucking cowardly asshat.

You may not approve of the law, but that's your problem, not mine.

[Seth]

Zimmerman didn't use stand your ground, he used traditional self defense. Had he tried SYG he would have had a hearing, prior to trial, where his lawyer would argue the case to a judge (no jury). If the judge agreed the charges would be dismissed and no trial would have occurred. Now, the asshat ex-cop in the theater will probably try to use SYG, but I'll take bets it won't fly.

He's got a very tough row to hoe if he's claiming self-defense. He'd have to convince a judge that the victim posed a credible threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm before he would even be allowed to present a self-defense argument. It's not automatic. You don't get to just go to trial and claim self-defense, you have to notify the prosecutor and the judge and then there is a pre-trial hearing where evidence is submitted that must provide a reasonable probability that self-defense was involved, otherwise you don't get to argue it at trial.

It's possible he did have such a reasonable belief, since we don't know what the victim said or did just prior to the shooting. That will have to await a trial.

But it appears to be very unlikely given the circumstances.

[Gallstones]

For those who haven't been able to move on from the Zimmerman trial, here is a discussion that occurred concurrent with the event and trial much of which is by very intelligent and informed persons. There's some idiots in there too, as would be expected.

Stand Your Ground Law

[Blind groper]

Seth

Over the last year or two, you have made many statements that imply you have little personal restraint when it comes to guns and vigilanteism.

For example, you stated that, if a burglar entered your home, you would shoot him twice in the chest and then in the head before you stopped to talk to him.

That kind of statement does not imply responsible behaviour. In fact, I regard anyone who does that as a yellow bellied despicable coward who is prepared to steal another person's life because he is too scared to wait long enough to determine if the 'offender' is a threat or not.

Human life is too precious, even if that life belongs to a criminal, to take without giving that person every chance.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Seth,

This post contains a series of clear attacks on another member. This is a warning to make your point without resorting to such invective or you will be facing a suspension.

XC