George Zimmerman 🔫
Forums › General Discussion › George Zimmerman 🔫-
Justice means considering all the evidence, including evidence supporting a defendant's right to self defense.
-
You're wrong about the burden of proof being solely on the prosecutors in this case. Self defense is an affirmative defense, as in GZ affirmed that he killed TM, but he had his reasons. Affirmative defenses' burden of proof is on the defendant to prove his allegations either by the preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence, as opposed to ordinary defenses, for which the prosecutor has the burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
That's the difference between your opinion and mine. I think he had intent when he got out of the car to chase these "punks that always get away" with his gun on his side. He had no right. And you'd feel the same if this were your kid. Or would you just be "eh, my kid probably shouldn't have been walking down the street and should totally have resisted his inane animal instinct to fight or flight. Sucks for him. "Justice means considering all the evidence, including evidence supporting a defendant's right to self defense.
-
How often is an affirmative defense for homicide accepted on it's face with no charges and no trial, as you have asserted should have happened here? Seems pretty extraordinary to suggest that on your part.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
Your right about the affirmative defense, however the preponderance of the evidence is still a much lower legal standard than beyond a reasonable doubt.You're wrong about the burden of proof being solely on the prosecutors in this case. Self defense is an affirmative defense, as in GZ affirmed that he killed TM, but he had his reasons. Affirmative defenses' burden of proof is on the defendant to prove his allegations either by the preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence, as opposed to ordinary defenses, for which the prosecutor has the burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
I would not say they are accepted on their face, rather they are accepted after an objective review of the evidence.How often is an affirmative defense for homicide accepted on it's face with no charges and no trial, as you have asserted should have happened here? Seems pretty extraordinary to suggest that on your part.
I don't know the answer, but give me a while I look, I think I know where to find those type of stats.
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
You make assumptions, just you accuse GZ of doing. Your assumptions are no more or less valid than his.ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
That's the difference between your opinion and mine. I think he had intent when he got out of the car to chase these "punks that always get away" with his gun on his side. He had no right. And you'd feel the same if this were your kid. Or would you just be "eh, my kid probably shouldn't have been walking down the street and should totally have resisted his inane animal instinct to fight or flight. Sucks for him. "Justice means considering all the evidence, including evidence supporting a defendant's right to self defense.
-
Nor are your assumptions since you were no more involved than me. You aren't the end all be all expert. Don't crown yourself to quickly.
The way I see it is you don't consider the psychology of things. Only black and white. Crime is never black and white and social science is very much apart of the process. The things he said leading up to him chasing after TM is very much a part of the entire case. However, (not that you said this) the things TM did say...the week before hold no relevance as so many hate mongers are pushing. The incident started the minute he saw Trayvon and called the police the first time, not as you suggested when Trayvon confronted him. Maybe, you think that's idealistic. But I think if our law was more preventative these things wouldn't be happening as much. Our "rights" infringe on "others rights" and that's not the intent of our democracy.
-
But he saved a family from a car crash!
-
What do you mean by, you think our laws should be more preventative?
-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
A more preventative law was the self defense laws before SYG. Stricter guidelines with who can patrol a neighbourhood with a firearm. Being reactionary is why we imprison the most prisoners in the world...albeit they are all drug criminals rather than rapist and murderers.What do you mean by, you think our laws should be more preventative?
But really I meant more than that. And it's such a large subject that I don't know if we should move that direction. To be short, we need to step up with the rest of the first world countries. They are all superior than us when it comes to prevention which includes superior education, superior preventative health care and superior gun laws. All of them, including our favourite place, Israel. All of which are the social reasons for why they have markedly less crime.
-
I wasn't trying to change the subject. That sentence just made me curious.
I dislike stand your ground laws, at least outside one's own home, and much prefer the traditional self defense laws that call for retreat when one safely can.
I don't agree about the gun laws, and I think our health care is second to none, but I agree we need to do much better in education.
-
I feel like the jury made the right choice 👍
-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
According to the World Health Organization, the United States spent more on health care per capita ($8,608), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (17.9%), than any other nation in 2011. The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries. Yeah, second to none.I wasn't trying to change the subject. That sentence just made me curious.
I dislike stand your ground laws, at least outside one's own home, and much prefer the traditional self defense laws that call for retreat when one safely can.
I don't agree about the gun laws, and I think our health care is second to none, but I agree we need to do much better in education.
-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
Why dislike stand your ground laws? Do you believe people don't deserve to defend themselves if they are having their head being bashed in on the cement?I wasn't trying to change the subject. That sentence just made me curious.
I dislike stand your ground laws, at least outside one's own home, and much prefer the traditional self defense laws that call for retreat when one safely can.
I don't agree about the gun laws, and I think our health care is second to none, but I agree we need to do much better in education.
-
ᏕᎯℭℜᎥ₣ᎥℭᎥᎯℒ wrote:
That falls under general self defense statutes, not stand your ground.ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
Why dislike stand your ground laws? Do you believe people don't deserve to defend themselves if they are having their head being bashed in on the cement?I wasn't trying to change the subject. That sentence just made me curious.
I dislike stand your ground laws, at least outside one's own home, and much prefer the traditional self defense laws that call for retreat when one safely can.
I don't agree about the gun laws, and I think our health care is second to none, but I agree we need to do much better in education.
-
See there. That's what the true conversation is about for me. How can this not happen again? I completely agree with your take on SYG.
The gun laws, you don't have to agree. It's statistical fact that there is less crime with the gun laws in all these other countries like England, Israel, Canada and Australia. I own a gun myself, but only because everyone else does. I believe in the second amendment but not the modern interpretation of "well regulated militia".
And to add to fnord. Our health care is second to none for those that can pay for it, maybe. Not for collective and certainly not for the 129 million people with pre-existing conditions. We pay so much more because we have very little preventative health care. Another example of reactionary spending.
-
I hear George zimmerman's dad is a judge. FYI
-
I concede there is less gun crime in other developed countries, where there are more restrictive gun laws. However, it is difficult to compare overall crime rates between different countries. Each countty has different definitions for crimes, different self reporting rates, and different reporting rates and policies for their law enforcement agencies. All that makes it difficult to truly accurately compare separate countries crime rates.
-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
Yes, I know all of this. There's also a lot we do know. Particularly across the UN.I concede there is less gun crime in other developed countries, where there are more restrictive gun laws. However, it is difficult to compare overall crime rates between different countries. Each countty has different definitions for crimes, different self reporting rates, and different reporting rates and policies for their law enforcement agencies. All that makes it difficult to truly accurately compare separate countries crime rates.
-
I really enjoyed the debate with Fnord, Addi, and Ragnar. But had a good chuckle about the few peanut gallery comments in the end here lol.
-
You can't use the "they don't follow the law" argument. Murderers still kill people, despite the laws aginst killing people being in place. That argument is a fallacy.
-
Yucko, I can order dirty guns from Joe Blow over the border, probably a little harder to cross that border than into Chicago, but still happens everyday. Just like terrorists are being supplied with weapons from your government. Street gangs are supplying cartels with weapons. Is this the culture you are talking about? Shameful really.
-
💀༄ẙṳʗҡʘ༄💀 wrote:
But using that logic, we shouldn't make laws against murder because the murderers wouldn't obey them. I like guns, I just don't like that argument.☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:
You just proved me right. Criminals don't follow laws. It would be a false argument if it were untrue.You can't use the "they don't follow the law" argument. Murderers still kill people, despite the laws aginst killing people being in place. That argument is a fallacy.
-
Addi-
You almost sound reasonable until you say things like, "the unregulated free market," in reference to our nation.There are literally thousands of regulations governing our industry, businesses, health care facilities, farms, ranches, schools, universities, and virtually every facet of American life.
These regulations are enforced by agencies like OSHA, the FDA, The USDA, the DOT, the FAA, DHS, DOJ, The Department of Treasury, Department of Education, to name only a few of the federal regulatory agencies.
Not that regulation is bad, but your statement is far from accurate.
-
That's all people care bout now is power no matter the cost they want it soon we gonna be in another war and more life's wasted over power it's not worth all the life's that will be cut short .
-
@Rag
Who said we didn't have infrastructure? That's not the market, God willing it won't come to it all becoming privatized. Too bad we factor monopoly in the farming system. I'm sure Monsanto needs all that welfare.
Just because the agencies exist doesn't mean they are not weakened drastically from what they used to be. Things don't disappear over night but they certainly are evaporating. By the way there a many different categories of regulations. Obviously I'm talking about business regulations.
There's no longer a level playing field. We no longer regulate monopolies or trade. We need to encouraging competition rather than stifling it like we do now. Not only that, but the companies that have the monopolies are enacting the regulations through various channels. Like ALEC for example...
-
Maybe you are right though, we don't have an unregulated free market, we have a market that's regulated in a way that's anti-capitalistic. When you are acting as your own referees its not going to end well. We used to regulate in the interest of the people, now we regulate in the interest of the corporation. Reagonomics right? Top down. Unsustainable.
Also, there's rarely criminal charges for corporations. They just get fines and slaps on the wrists. Corporations are people? Yet they aren't held to the law like people. We don't give them any incentive to change their behavior, because there is rarely ever consequence to corporatist action. Them's the breaks though when you let money take over politics.
You see, again you view the world on paper. That's not real life. Not if you are actually paying attention to the details.
Everything I say is not black and white, nor is our system. -
I can name Cargill, BASF, Syngenta, and Bayer crop science as competitors to Monsanto off the top of my head. Not much of a monopoly.
-
Monsanto controls more market share than its next two competitors combined in the seed market as of last year. They have patents on all their genetically modified seeds. Aka patents on life! Hopefully I don't have to explain to you what that means. Take the soybean seed market...they own 90-95% of it. This single company supplies nearly all genetically modified traits now so commonly used in those crops, which it licenses to its rivals for sale in their own seeds. And then we are looking at price fixing because there are so few companies in control. Why would you think even six is okay? It should be 1000's. Don't you think it's dangerous for food security that one company controls so much of the seed? Imagine if they failed...
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC