Search found 2 matches
Return to “17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL”
- Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:26 pm
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: 17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL
- Replies: 3383
- Views: 406103
- Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:27 am
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: 17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL
- Replies: 3383
- Views: 406103
Re: 17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL
I've been biting my tongue here for months on this thing. I can't stand it any longer. I'll try to summarize my thoguhts, put them out there, and see what everyone thinks.
1) Zimmerman made tactical errors, and judgement errors. He's not "perfect" as some say, but I don't think he was specifically "looking for a fight" as others would say.
2) Martin was no innocent kid. He (apparently) was somewhere he had the right to be (Staying with a relative), but the way he allegedly ended up there tells us of his background. Not perfect...by any stretch.
3) Between the MSM Hype/spin/selling commercials, the prosecution's witch hunt, and the defense keeping their case close to the vest (we hope, if they're worth what they're being paid) there are KEY FACTS we're not yet privvy to. We can only make our judgements based on what we have.
4) GIven (1) and (2) above, the CRIMINAL side of this doesn't really boil down to the entire incident, but the last 20-30 seconds of Martin's troubled life. From what evidence we have available, it appears that Zimmerman had cause to be in fear for his life--the head injuries at least make this PLAUSIBLE.
In short, Zimmerman *MAY* be 'elgible' for a manslaughter trial, with a defense of justifiable homicide. Murder indicates premeditation, and I really don't think that's where we're at--at least not based on what *I* get out of what's been released.
In short, the CRIMINAL side of this boils down to "does Z have the right to defend himself with deadly force." ALL the rest of this--the part that has otherwise reasonable and like-minded people at each others' throats--is a CIVIL issue...the "Was it preventable" side of it, or the "Should he?" question.
All the discussion and arguement is valid, but lets remember the difference between a criminal act, and the civil side of it...criminal law is necesarily very narrowly defined, and asks/answers very narrow questions about specific PARTS of the incident.
We talk about the "TOTALITY of the circumstance," but that's not as much the subject of a criminal trial as it is the subject of "what really happened here."
And let us never forget that in the end, the facts are only an element of the truth--that the "whole truth" is more than just the raw facts...the FACT that Nolan Ryan threw more home runs than any other pitcher in history doesn't tell the TRUTH that he's the greatest pitcher of all time....
The only thing we can truly be certain of is that this case is destined to set precedents. The sad thing is that it didn't have to, but at this point, there's no way it can't.
Whew. Now that I've got that off my chest, I now return you to the heart of the discussion!
1) Zimmerman made tactical errors, and judgement errors. He's not "perfect" as some say, but I don't think he was specifically "looking for a fight" as others would say.
2) Martin was no innocent kid. He (apparently) was somewhere he had the right to be (Staying with a relative), but the way he allegedly ended up there tells us of his background. Not perfect...by any stretch.
3) Between the MSM Hype/spin/selling commercials, the prosecution's witch hunt, and the defense keeping their case close to the vest (we hope, if they're worth what they're being paid) there are KEY FACTS we're not yet privvy to. We can only make our judgements based on what we have.
4) GIven (1) and (2) above, the CRIMINAL side of this doesn't really boil down to the entire incident, but the last 20-30 seconds of Martin's troubled life. From what evidence we have available, it appears that Zimmerman had cause to be in fear for his life--the head injuries at least make this PLAUSIBLE.
In short, Zimmerman *MAY* be 'elgible' for a manslaughter trial, with a defense of justifiable homicide. Murder indicates premeditation, and I really don't think that's where we're at--at least not based on what *I* get out of what's been released.
In short, the CRIMINAL side of this boils down to "does Z have the right to defend himself with deadly force." ALL the rest of this--the part that has otherwise reasonable and like-minded people at each others' throats--is a CIVIL issue...the "Was it preventable" side of it, or the "Should he?" question.
All the discussion and arguement is valid, but lets remember the difference between a criminal act, and the civil side of it...criminal law is necesarily very narrowly defined, and asks/answers very narrow questions about specific PARTS of the incident.
We talk about the "TOTALITY of the circumstance," but that's not as much the subject of a criminal trial as it is the subject of "what really happened here."
And let us never forget that in the end, the facts are only an element of the truth--that the "whole truth" is more than just the raw facts...the FACT that Nolan Ryan threw more home runs than any other pitcher in history doesn't tell the TRUTH that he's the greatest pitcher of all time....
The only thing we can truly be certain of is that this case is destined to set precedents. The sad thing is that it didn't have to, but at this point, there's no way it can't.
Whew. Now that I've got that off my chest, I now return you to the heart of the discussion!