Bloody new photo of Trayvon Martin's killer

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Maslo

 

So if someone picks a fight with you, and you defend yourself, but he ends up killing you, he is innocent because he killed you in self defense?

But that is not self-defense, legally speaking. Aggressor cannot claim self-defense (unless the attack from the victim continues beyond what is reasonable, in which case indeed he would be innocent when it comes to the killing).

reply to post by Maslo

But that is not self-defense, legally speaking. Aggressor cannot claim self-defense (unless the attack from the victim continues beyond what is reasonable, in which case indeed he would be innocent when it comes to the killing).

Correct. In this case, Zimmerman was the aggressor. We do not know whether Martin's response was "reasonable." Even if it were excessively violent, Zimmerman is still guilty of killing him. He may be found "not guilty" by reason of self defense, but he would not be "innocent," he would be a killer.

Originally posted by DJW001

Correct. In this case, Zimmerman was the aggressor. We do not know whether Martin's response was "reasonable." Even if it were excessively violent, Zimmerman is still guilty of killing him. He may be found "not guilty" by reason of self defense, but he would not be "innocent," he would be a killer.

1. We do not know if Zimmermann was the agressor or not.

2. No, people who really do kill in self-defense are innocent. Not only "not guilty", innocent.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by DJW001

(Continued from my previous post.)

And if they are genuine, do they necessarily support Zimmerman's claim?

Of course, that photo, if genuine, will support Zimmerman's claim! Why would you feel that it wouldn't?

Is it not possible that rather than beating Zimmerman's head against the ground "like a thug," he simply got in a lucky sucker punch "like a frightened High School kid?"

No, that is not possible! One "lucky sucker punch" wouldn't explain the injuries to both the front, and the back, of Zimmerman's head!

If you decide to refute anything in this post, or the preceding one, kindly follow my example, and show a bit of honesty, and integrity, for a change. A little bit of substance, to back up your claims, would also be a HUGE plus.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused

Criminal justice is not about proving innocence, legal or otherwise. It is only about proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please explain the fine distinction you appear to be making here.

reply to post by DJW001

So if someone picks a fight with you, and you defend yourself, but he ends up killing you, he is innocent because he killed you in self defense?

Why do you insist on going around, and around, on a subject that should, by now, BE CRYSTAL CLEAR TO YOU?

Your second post, in this thread, was an attempt to discredit me, by highlighting:

Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself

... as if that automatically excluded Zimmerman's right to defend himself, because of your ASSUMPTION that he prevoked the altercaction.

In my response to that post, I quoted one of the "EXCEPTION CLAUSES" of YOUR EXCERPT, that you failed to read, failed to understand, or, as I suspect, STILL CHOOSE TO IGNORE:

unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant

Based on the two portions of Florida Statute 776.041 quoted above, ONE SHOULD, EASILY, BE ABLE TO DETERMINE A PROPER ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.

Here is mine:
If someone picked a fight with me, and I continued to use overwhelming force, when it was no longer necessary, that aggressor would, according to Florida Statute 776.041, be justified in using, as a last resort, any, and all, necessary force to make me stop. That would, indeed, include killing me! If, after an investigation, it is determined that, that aggressor's actions were justified, he/she would, indeed be, and justly so, "innocent" of any, and all, charges related to that altercation.

You would like that, I'm sure... LOL

I say: FREE ZIMMERMAN!

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by DJW001

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by BenReclused

 

Criminal justice is not about proving innocence, legal or otherwise. It is only about proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please explain the fine distinction you appear to be making here.

Nope! That just ain't a gonna happen!

If you feel there is a "fine distinction" being made, you explain why. If I feel that explanation is worthy, perhaps I'll respond. Or, perhaps I won't. I reckon that depends more on your attitude, than anything else.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by DJW001


All evidence indicates Martin was the aggressor. So your post is a lie on your part. Whether you are repeating a lie or creating one, there is no evidence, let alone proof, that Zimmerman was the aggressor. On the other hand, there is an incredible amount of evidence indication Martin was the aggressor. Whether you choose to ignore that evidence, look into it, or continue to spin it, that is up to you.

reply to post by BenReclused


Remember, our principal evidence in this case is the testimony of someone who is attempting a "self defense" defense.You are using a very narrow definition of "assault" to make the case that Zimmerman was not the aggressor. Let's change this story up ever so slightly.

Jane is a 17 year old woman visiting relatives in a strange town. While making a trip to a convenience store after dark, she sees an older man in a car watching. He proceeds to follow her. Witnesses report hearing a high pitched scream for help, followed by a gunshot. The older man points to scratch marks on his face as proof that he acted in self defense. How do you think a jury would approach the case?

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

All evidence indicates Martin was the aggressor. So your post is a lie on your part. Whether you are repeating a lie or creating one, there is no evidence, let alone proof, that Zimmerman was the aggressor. On the other hand, there is an incredible amount of evidence indication Martin was the aggressor. Whether you choose to ignore that evidence, look into it, or continue to spin it, that is up to you.

Zimmerman admits that he followed and approached Martin. Was he being completely passive, just minding his own business? Or was he aggressively engaging a complete stranger, whether or not he intended to inflict harm on him? On the other hand, there is no proof that Martin initiated the violence, only Zimmerman's word.

Milt is correct that the presumption of innocence extends to Zimmerman in court, and that it is the task of the prosecution to find evidence that he struck first and used unnecessary force. The physical evidence is inconclusive. Martin may have punched Zimmerman so hard that he broke his nose, fell backwards, and hit his head. That is speculation, of course, but weakens the defense's interpretation of the evidence.

If, by some miracle, Zimmerman's can afford a good lawyer and gets a jury that has no preconceived notions about the case, he may be found not guilty of second degree murder under a strict interpretation of the burden of proof principle. This is quite different than being "innocent," as that word has metaphysical connotations. That is why OJ is often called "acquitted" or was found "not guilty."

reply to post by DJW001

Zimmerman was the aggressor.

It's time to put up, or shut up! I call you! Show your cards! Most of the "Zimmerman side" has been more than willing to show you theirs.

We do not know whether Martin's response was "reasonable."

That doesn't matter, at this point in time. In case you forgot, Martin is not on trial. Unfortunately, he is long gone from this old world.

Zimmerman is still guilty of killing him. He may be found "not guilty" by reason of self defense, but he would not be "innocent," he would be a killer.

Here is your excerpt concerning the definitionS (Please note that the "S" has been capitalized, colorized, and enlarged, for your benefit.) of the word "innocent":

[url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innocent]1
a : free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil : blameless; an innocent child
b : harmless in effect or intention searching for a hidden motive in even the most innocent conversation — Leonard Wibberley; also : candid; gave me an innocent gaze
c : free from legal guilt or fault; also : lawful; a wholly innocent transaction
2
a : lacking or reflecting a lack of sophistication, guile, or self-consciousness : artless, ingenuous
b : ignorant

Originally posted by DJW001
Zimmerman admits that he followed and approached Martin. Was he being completely passive, just minding his own business? Or was he aggressively engaging a complete stranger, whether or not he intended to inflict harm on him? On the other hand, there is no proof that Martin initiated the violence, only Zimmerman's word.
*snip*

No, Zimmerman did not admit to approaching Martin. He stated that he followed, and that Martin went out of sight. He stated that Martin approached him, after being out of sight, confronted him, then attacked him. Following is not approaching. Following is not attacking. If Martin had felt threatened, I ask, again, why did HE not call the police?

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

Following is not approaching.

No, it's creepier, isn't it?

reply to post by BenReclused

This is the definition THAT YOU, ALREADY, KNOW EVERYONE ELSE IS USING!

Which brings us back to the question: why use that ambiguous word, rather than the less emotionally charged "not guilty?" Is it a rhetorical device intended to mislead?

reply to post by DJW001

Remember, our principal evidence in this case is the testimony of someone who is attempting a "self defense" defense.

It is up to the State of Florida's prosecuting attorney to refute that "principal evidence". Be glad that you are not that attorney! Your inability to provide contradictory evidence WOULD INSURE that Zimmerman would be DEEMED INNOCENT of the crime for which he is charged.

You are using a very narrow definition of "assault" to make the case that Zimmerman was not the aggressor.

That is only your fantasy! I never made, or even insinuated, "that Zimmerman was not the aggressor". If you feel that I did, show the evidence to support that nonsensical crap. Furthermore, I never used a any definition of "assault", nor will you find that word used in the post you were responding to.

Let's change this story up ever so slightly.

No! I'm not willing to do that! That is only your way of avoiding the truth. Unfortunately, that is all you do.

Jane is a 17 year old woman visiting relatives in a strange town.

Why do you feel that a 17 year old female is a woman, and a 17 year old male is a helpless child?

How do you think a jury would approach the case?

In a much more realistic way than you are approaching Zimmerman's case.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by DJW001

there is no proof that Martin initiated the violence, only Zimmerman's word.

Proof is one thing, and evidence is, quite, another. There is no valid evidence that refutes "Zimmerman's word". There is, however, evidence that supports his claim.

Milt is correct that the presumption of innocence extends to Zimmerman in court, and that it is the task of the prosecution to find evidence that he struck first and used unnecessary force.

All of my posted statements are true, and correct! That includes those statements, that I made, in the posts that someone had removed. You know that, too! That's why you haven't directly, and honestly, refuted any of them.

The physical evidence is inconclusive.

Hmmm... I reckon that explains why you refuse to provide any support for your overtly, and intentionally dishonest, false claims that "Zimmerman was the aggressor":

It is an overt action, especially if coupled with a threatening greeting like "Hey! Punk!" George Zimmerman is guilty of assault.

Zimmerman may have thought he was doing the neighborhood a favor by assaulting Martin.

On the other hand, walking up to a stranger and saying "Hey! Punk!" is assault.

In this case, Zimmerman was the aggressor.

Martin may have punched Zimmerman so hard that he broke his nose, fell backwards, and hit his head. That is speculation, of course, but weakens the defense's interpretation of the evidence.

No, that wouldn't weaken "the defense's interpretation of the evidence", at all. That would only support the idea that Martin was the aggressor!

If, by some miracle, Zimmerman's can afford a good lawyer and gets a jury that has no preconceived notions about the case, he may be found not guilty of second degree murder under a strict interpretation of the burden of proof principle.

That, "has no preconceived notions about the case", part of that statement, would disqualify you from serving on that "miracle" jury.

(To be continued in my following post)

reply to post by DJW001

(Continued from my previous post):

This is quite different than being "innocent," as that word has metaphysical connotations.

No! "Innocent" only "has metaphysical connotations" when one intentionally, as you have been doing, applies the wrong definition, of "innocent", to a defendant who is facing criminal charges.

That is why OJ is often called "acquitted" or was found "not guilty."

That is not an accurate statement, for two reasons:
1) Many people, still, feel that Mr. Simpson, though he was acquitted on those charges, did indeed, "get away with murder".

2) Everyone knows that Mr. Simpson is a, convicted, thug!

Thank you! Because of the above statement, you just gave me the perfect opportunity to post, once again, the following portion of my, last deleted, response, that you previously demanded:

Now, I will indulge you in your attempt to derail this topic. Had it not been for the demanding, and selfish, nature of your "request", the following would have already been posted:

Your definition, of course.

As per your approval, I shall apply the following, legal definition of "innocent", to all three of your incorrect statements:

Innocent typically refers to a finding that a criminal defendant is not guilty of the charges, but may also refer to a finding that a civil defendant isn't liable for the accusations of the plaintiff, such as being found not negligent in a personal injury case. It is synonymous with acquit, which means to find a defendant in a criminal case not guilty.

"OJ Simpson is innocent because he was found "not guilty" in a court of law.

That is an incorrect statement:
OJ Simpson was only found to be "innocent" of the two counts murder, brought forth in criminal court.

"Adolf Hitler is innocent because he was never formally charged with anything."

That statement is incorrect for two reasons:
1) Adolf Hitler WAS "formally charged" on TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS, and was found to be guilty both times.

2) If one is "never formally charged with anything", the above quoted definition of "innocent" does not apply to that individual.

"Richard Nixon is innocent because he was never impeached."

That statement is, also, incorrect for two reasons:
1) According to the Articles of Impeachment, regarding Mr. Nixon, he was found to be guilty of Obstruction of Justice, Abuse of Power, and Contempt of Congress. Therefore, he was not "innocent" of those charges.

2) Mr. Nixon was "never impeached" because he avoided that process by resigning from office. However, that does not make him "innocent", of the above mentioned charges.

As for Mr. Zimmerman:
If Mr. Zimmerman is acquitted, or found to be not guilty, of the charge he now faces, he will, indeed, be "innocent" of that charge. Even if, however, he is convicted of manslaughter, he will still be "innocent" of his current murder charge.

There, you have it!

See ya ,
Milt

reply to post by DJW001

why use that ambiguous word, rather than the less emotionally charged "not guilty?"

If you knew how to use a dictionary, you would understand that the term "not guity", and the word "innocent", are both VERY "ambiguous" unless they are specifically applied, with the proper definition, to a specific act, or a specific state of being. You might, also, understand that "emotionally charged" is only more of your fiction.

Is it a rhetorical device intended to mislead?

Your use of the word "innocent", is indeed, "a rhetorical device intended to mislead"! I'm sure you know that, though.

See ya ,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused

As per your approval, I shall apply the following, legal definition of "innocent", to all three of your incorrect statements:

Innocent typically refers to a finding that a criminal defendant is not guilty of the charges, but may also refer to a finding that a civil defendant isn't liable for the accusations of the plaintiff, such as being found not negligent in a personal injury case. It is synonymous with acquit, which means to find a defendant in a criminal case not guilty.

"OJ Simpson is innocent because he was found "not guilty" in a court of law.

That is an incorrect statement:
OJ Simpson was only found to be "innocent" of the two counts murder, brought forth in criminal court.

How does that differ from an a priori assertion of Zimmerman's innocence? The court has not yet tried the case, and yet you feel convinced enough of his "innocence" to proclaim FREE ZIMMERMAN!

"Adolf Hitler is innocent because he was never formally charged with anything."

That statement is incorrect for two reasons:
1) Adolf Hitler WAS "formally charged" on TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS, and was found to be guilty both times.

The only instance I can think of was for the charge of treason in the Beer Hall Putsch, for which he was formally pardoned. If there is one thing we can agree on, it is that neither of us wants to debate whether or not the Bavarian Senate had the power to pardon someone convicted by the Federal government under the constitution of the Weimar Republic, much less whether a pardon confers innocence whether explicitly stated or not. The purpose of the example was to point out the ambiguity of the statement when made without proper context.

2) If one is "never formally charged with anything", the above quoted definition of "innocent" does not apply to that individual.

Is the above definition the only one you use? When someone says "Little Mary is as innocent as a lamb" do you automatically respond: "Don't be silly. Mary has never been charged with anything, much less any lambs?"

"Richard Nixon is innocent because he was never impeached."

That statement is, also, incorrect for two reasons:
1) According to the Articles of Impeachment, regarding Mr. Nixon, he was found to be guilty of Obstruction of Justice, Abuse of Power, and Contempt of Congress. Therefore, he was not "innocent" of those charges.

2) Mr. Nixon was "never impeached" because he avoided that process by resigning from office. However, that does not make him "innocent", of the above mentioned charges.

Really? I thought that guilt or "innocence" was something that could only be determined by a legal process... or are you acknowledging that the words have highly context bound technical meanings with broad connotations in informal use?

As for Mr. Zimmerman:
If Mr. Zimmerman is acquitted, or found to be not guilty, of the charge he now faces, he will, indeed, be "innocent" of that charge. Even if, however, he is convicted of manslaughter, he will still be "innocent" of his current murder charge.

The corollary of this loosely phrased statement is that if he is found guilty of the charge he now faces, he will not be "innocent" of the charge... even if Trayvon really was using deadly force and it was indeed a legitimate case of self defense.