Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • George Zimmerman
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • …
  • 96
George Zimmerman ; Combined Threads
Tweet Topic Started: Apr 11 2012, 01:36 PM (8,561 Views)
Mr Gray Apr 17 2012, 07:05 PM Post #151
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brum, eel, here is an example of a situation very similar to what I have been saying. A man who never fired a shot is charged with murder because he instigated the crime which caused the intended victim to shoot another person.

[utube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UgTlhY8Eqo[/utube]
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Apr 17 2012, 07:19 PM Post #152
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_428641.html
But because the grand jury determined that Stewart was firing in self-defense, he cannot be charged with either killing. In an appeal of a similar case in Easton, Northampton County, the state Supreme Court ruled that someone acting to save his life "may inadvertently injure a bystander" and cannot be held criminally liable for that.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2717144368924288452&q=Smith+v.+State,+419+S.E.2d+74&hl=en&as_sdt=2,15&as_vis=1
"If, in consequence of an assault upon himself which he did not provoke, the accused shot at his assailant, but missed him and the shot killed a bystander, no guilt would attach to him if the assault upon him was such as would have justified him in killing his assailant
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Apr 17 2012, 07:31 PM Post #153
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Apr 17 2012, 07:05 PM
brum, eel, here is an example of a situation very similar to what I have been saying. A man who never fired a shot is charged with murder because he instigated the crime which caused the intended victim to shoot another person.

[utube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UgTlhY8Eqo[/utube]
Interesting -- do you know the verdict on that charge? IMO, unless there is a specific law on the book stating that a person is responsible for a shooting during self defense during a crime they committed, then I don't see how he could be found guilty.

An interesting twist here, though, is that in this case it was not an innocent bystander that was shot. It seems strange to me that the robber would get charged for murder based on the clerk being a good shot......in my opinion, the charges for the robber should with the gun should be armed robbery plus attempted murder; the shooting of the accomplice should be justifiable self-defense.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Apr 17 2012, 07:45 PM Post #154
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Apr 17 2012, 07:19 PM
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_428641.html
But because the grand jury determined that Stewart was firing in self-defense, he cannot be charged with either killing. In an appeal of a similar case in Easton, Northampton County, the state Supreme Court ruled that someone acting to save his life "may inadvertently injure a bystander" and cannot be held criminally liable for that.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2717144368924288452&q=Smith+v.+State,+419+S.E.2d+74&hl=en&as_sdt=2,15&as_vis=1
"If, in consequence of an assault upon himself which he did not provoke, the accused shot at his assailant, but missed him and the shot killed a bystander, no guilt would attach to him if the assault upon him was such as would have justified him in killing his assailant
So this seems like Pittsburgh and Georgia both have laws not charging someone shooting in self defense. I've seen many states that have the opposite (I've cited Michigan already and saw several others).

I do know of a local case where there was altercation between two individuals in a crowded mall that led to one man physically assaulting the other; the other man then opened fire. Thankfully no one was struck, but the man who fired was charged with reckless negligence.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Apr 17 2012, 08:11 PM Post #155
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Mr Gray
Apr 17 2012, 07:21 AM
there is no way in hell that a person would be charged with reckless use of a firearm if they fired in a proven and legitimate self defense situation and struck another person.
Here is one case where the person was charged. Not convicted, but he was indeed charged.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-supreme-court/1211932.html

On December 12, 1993 Fowlin was present in a nightclub in Easton, Pennsylvania.   He was armed with a handgun.   Three men, two of whom were also armed with handguns, accosted Fowlin in the club, and one of the three sprayed pepper gas in his eyes.   At approximately the same time, a second man drew a handgun.   Fearing that he was about to be killed, Fowlin drew his own handgun and fired repeatedly in the direction of the attackers.1  Although he was nearly blinded by the pepper spray, he killed the assailant who had drawn the gun and wounded one of the others.   He also wounded a bystander.   At the time of the shooting, approximately 200 people were present in the nightclub.

Immediately after the shootings, Fowlin left the nightclub and subsequently turned himself in to Easton police.   Fowlin was charged with various crimes associated with the incident, but the district attorney subsequently withdrew all charges with respect to his attackers on the grounds of justifiable self-defense.   However, the district attorney did not dismiss charges of recklessly endangering another, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2705, and aggravated assault, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1) and (4) with respect to the bystander.


Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Apr 18 2012, 06:32 AM Post #156
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Apr 17 2012, 07:45 PM
Mr Gray
Apr 17 2012, 07:19 PM
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_428641.html
But because the grand jury determined that Stewart was firing in self-defense, he cannot be charged with either killing. In an appeal of a similar case in Easton, Northampton County, the state Supreme Court ruled that someone acting to save his life "may inadvertently injure a bystander" and cannot be held criminally liable for that.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2717144368924288452&q=Smith+v.+State,+419+S.E.2d+74&hl=en&as_sdt=2,15&as_vis=1
"If, in consequence of an assault upon himself which he did not provoke, the accused shot at his assailant, but missed him and the shot killed a bystander, no guilt would attach to him if the assault upon him was such as would have justified him in killing his assailant
So this seems like Pittsburgh and Georgia both have laws not charging someone shooting in self defense. I've seen many states that have the opposite (I've cited Michigan already and saw several others).
I think the ones that you have cited are actually no different (in terms of the law) than the Penn and GA cases that I cited....meaning that self defense or not, you can't fire recklessly. In cases where it is clear that you were in a self defense situation didn't defend yourself with reckless use of a firearm, but a bystander was struck, you would not be held liable for the bystander.

As it relates to the Zimmerman case (which is where you started this from brum), if Zimmerman's story is true and he had fired at Zimmerman in response to having his head slammed against the concrete and a bystander was struck, Zimmerman would not be charged. Based on the video I posted, it is even possible (although not likely) that Martin would be charged.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Apr 18 2012, 06:50 AM Post #157
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Apr 17 2012, 07:31 PM
Mr Gray
Apr 17 2012, 07:05 PM
brum, eel, here is an example of a situation very similar to what I have been saying. A man who never fired a shot is charged with murder because he instigated the crime which caused the intended victim to shoot another person.

[utube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UgTlhY8Eqo[/utube]
Interesting -- do you know the verdict on that charge? IMO, unless there is a specific law on the book stating that a person is responsible for a shooting during self defense during a crime they committed, then I don't see how he could be found guilty.
not sure how it ended up, but the notion isn't as absurd as some would think....there are parallels to other crimes.

take a vehicle example: If you are driving down the highway and a drunk driver crosses over to your lane heading straight at you. You swerve to avoid a head-on collision (and preserve your own life) but end up hitting the car next to you, sending that car into the ditch where the driver dies on impact. The drunk driver would certainly be charged, even though they didn't personally have any contact with the driver who perished.

Would you even consider charging the driver who swerved to save his/her life with the death of the other driver?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Apr 18 2012, 07:00 AM Post #158
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Was going to reply, but darn work is calling.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Apr 18 2012, 07:07 AM Post #159
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Apr 18 2012, 07:00 AM
Was going to reply, but darn work is calling.
time for "computer lab" assignment :D
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Apr 19 2012, 04:57 PM Post #160
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Okay, I'm going to talk ethical rather than legal items IMO.

There is a big difference IMO in the two situations...in terms of swerving a car, there is an imminent danger to yourself of hitting the other car (the one of the innocent bystander) when you swerve.

Let's say that the drunk driver was coming toward you and swerved toward you. Your best option to avoid the collision would be to swerve onto a crowded sidewalk. Is it ethical to do so?

Obviously it's going to be a split section decision and some would swerve toward the sidewalk without thinking about it. The damage to yourself is definitely minimized -- you are much less likely to be injured or die by going onto the sidewalk than hitting the car coming toward you. But I think that if you had time to think it through and the option was to risk damage to yourself by hitting the car head on or potentially killing dozens of people on the sidewalk, I would the ethical thing to do would be to hit the car.

That's where a gun owner user a gun in self defense must take into account the potential amount of damage that would be caused by firing his gun. In the robbery example that you posted, I believe the owner should not have been charged; he was put in a situation where he was returning fire tw o men who were robbing him, one of which had a gun. If a person starts to return gunfire in a crowded mall, where returning fire may allow him to live buy kill multiple innocent bystanders, I do not think it is ethically right to return the gunfire.

We do know that police are pretty much asked to account for every bullet they fire. I don't know why we expect less from those who are not in law enforcement.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Apr 20 2012, 07:43 AM Post #161
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Apr 19 2012, 04:57 PM
Okay, I'm going to talk ethical rather than legal items IMO.

There is a big difference IMO in the two situations...in terms of swerving a car, there is an imminent danger to yourself of hitting the other car (the one of the innocent bystander) when you swerve.

Let's say that the drunk driver was coming toward you and swerved toward you. Your best option to avoid the collision would be to swerve onto a crowded sidewalk. Is it ethical to do so?

Obviously it's going to be a split section decision and some would swerve toward the sidewalk without thinking about it. The damage to yourself is definitely minimized -- you are much less likely to be injured or die by going onto the sidewalk than hitting the car coming toward you. But I think that if you had time to think it through and the option was to risk damage to yourself by hitting the car head on or potentially killing dozens of people on the sidewalk, I would the ethical thing to do would be to hit the car.

That's where a gun owner user a gun in self defense must take into account the potential amount of damage that would be caused by firing his gun. In the robbery example that you posted, I believe the owner should not have been charged; he was put in a situation where he was returning fire tw o men who were robbing him, one of which had a gun. If a person starts to return gunfire in a crowded mall, where returning fire may allow him to live buy kill multiple innocent bystanders, I do not think it is ethically right to return the gunfire.

We do know that police are pretty much asked to account for every bullet they fire. I don't know why we expect less from those who are not in law enforcement.
in your evaluation of the car/sidewalk situation, you are making a comparison to a situation where a person knowingly and intentionally makes a decision to take innocent life in order to save their own. When someone fires a gun at an assailant in self-defense, their intent is only to harm that person, not the innocent bystanders. If the original victim made a conscious decision to fire towards innocent people in the hope that they hit the assailant and avoid their own injury, then that is certainly wrong.

Once again though, as it relates to Zimmerman (which is where this came from), if he was having his head slammed into the concrete, fired at Martin to stop him/save his life and the bullet hit a bystander, that is definitely not the same as making a conscious decision to swerve into bystanders on the sidewalk
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Apr 20 2012, 08:04 AM Post #162
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Wow....this doesn't change all of the circumstances of the case, such as following Martin...etc, but it definitely adds a ton of credibility to Zimmerman's and the eye-witness' accounts of what took place in the actual struggle.

Posted Image


http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-case-exclusive-photo-shows-bloodied-back/story?id=16177849#.T5FccauuZSR
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheBliver Apr 20 2012, 08:24 AM Post #163
Member Avatar
All-Star
Posts:
1,499
Group:
Members
Member
#89
Joined:
February 7, 2008
I'm confused on something, zimmerman said martin was pounding his head into the concrete, but the eyewitness and every other witness said the altercation happened in the grass...how does a man get the back of his head bloodied up in the grass and dirt? We know from the witnesses account that the altercation didn't last very long, and there still isn't any sign of a broken nose, which zimmerman said happened in the altercation also...this case is going to be interesting to follow none the less.
Posted Image

"Keep close to Nature's heart... and break clear away, once in awhile, and climb a mountain or spend a week in the woods. Wash your spirit clean."
John Muir

"Swift or smooth, broad as the Hudson or narrow enough to scrape your gunwales, every river is a world of its own, unique in pattern and personality. Each mile on a river will take you further from home than a hundred miles on a road."
Bob Marshall
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Apr 20 2012, 09:17 AM Post #164
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
I'll refrain from commenting on what this photo actually means since there's really not much detail the wounds.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Apr 20 2012, 09:20 AM Post #165
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
A picture of his bloodied head definitely helps Zimmerman's case. I also want to see the proof that his nose was broken. That should be easy to prove/disprove.
Edited by HoosierLars, Apr 20 2012, 09:29 AM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • …
  • 96

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:56 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy