Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [evol-psych] The Zimmerman case disintegrates

Expand Messages
  • Anna
    Sure, but Zimmerman was not attacked until he went to face Martin.
    Message 1 of 10 , Nov 19, 2012
      <If threatened or attacked, the person is obliged to seek to escape or avoid the attacker.>
       
      Sure, but Zimmerman was not attacked until he went to face Martin. If he stayed in the car, the confrontation would not take place. 
      Zimmerman was on anti-depressant drugs.   A person on SSRI should not be working in stressful situations.
      One of the common symptoms is confusion. A gun plus confusion does not make good match.
      I really think that if Zimmerman wanted to avoid conflict, he could. Martin was unarmed and would not attack a man locked in his car.
       
      The real problem here is that the case became racially motivated. On one hand you have black community screaming bloody murder against white community demanding justice not based on skin color but  facts. I see no way to get impartiality here.
       
      Anna
       
      From: Jock
      Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 9:51 PM
      Subject: Re: [evol-psych] The Zimmerman case disintegrates
       
       

      "But he  he had a gun and took the law into his hands. By all means he is guilty of murder. "
       
      This is not so, Anna, there is no requirement at law, in those circumstances, to stay in tthe car.
       
      If threatened or attacked, the person is obliged to seek to escape or avoid the attacker.
       
      If they cannot do so, they are entitled to use force to defend themselves.
       
      Zimmerman was out of his car when attacked. He would only be obliged to stay in his car if threatened or attacked while in the car, and if staying in the car would avoid the attack.
       
      The murder charge is ridiculous.
    • Jock
      The real problem here is that the case became racially motivated Exactly. The actions of the State Attorney are those of an activist. A lawyer acting
      Message 2 of 10 , Nov 20, 2012
        "The real problem here is that the case became racially motivated"
         
        Exactly.
         
        The actions of the State Attorney are those of an activist.
         
        A lawyer acting properly in her situation would never have initiated the ridiculous murder charge.
      • Julienne
        ... Zimmerman mentioned Trayvon s race on the tape we have all heard, and then went after him. Zimmerman was told NOT to pursue him. Julienne To blame the poor
        Message 3 of 10 , Nov 21, 2012
          At 06:49 PM 11/20/2012, Jock wrote:


          >"The real problem here is that the case became racially motivated"
          >
          >Exactly.
          >
          >The actions of the State Attorney are those of an activist.
          >
          >A lawyer acting properly in her situation would never have initiated
          >the ridiculous murder charge.

          Zimmerman mentioned Trayvon's race on the tape we have all heard, and
          then went after him.

          Zimmerman was told NOT to pursue him.


          Julienne

          To blame the poor for subsisting on welfare has no justice unless we
          are also willing to judge every rich member of society by how
          productive he or she is. Taken individual by individual, it is likely
          that there's more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
          economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.
          -Norman Mailer, author (1923-2007)
        • Dale Cozort
          You probably heard the edited tape that NBC ran several times, which cut out the part where the 911 operator asked Zimmerman about the suspect s race. NBC has
          Message 4 of 10 , Nov 21, 2012
            You probably heard the edited tape that NBC ran several times, which
            cut out the part where the 911 operator asked Zimmerman about the
            'suspect's race. NBC has acknowledged the deceptive edit and sort of
            half apologized, along with firing a person or two over the deceptive
            cuts. This article talks about the edit and aftermath.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/george-zimmerman-nbc-911_n_1939059.html

            That being said, Zimmerman may or may not be guilty of murder, but he
            was certainly guilty of very bad judgement. According to his own
            testimony and one of the calls, Martin definitely approached
            Zimmerman's car, and may or may not have circled it. If some stranger
            did that to me or probably most other people, I/they would take that
            as an indication that getting out of the car was a very bad idea and
            might lead to a confrontation. That's not the way most teenagers
            react to a car that may or may not be following them, and it should
            have raised red flags for Zimmerman that following this kid might lead
            to a confrontation.

            Before you read the rest of this, I want to emphasize that I'm not a
            lawyer and this represents a layman's possibly flawed understanding of
            the law. Also, state laws differ dramatically.

            As to whether the killing was self-defense or murder, a friend of mine
            who has read up on the laws of self-defense explained it this way:
            Your right to self-defense only exists in most states, apparently
            including Florida, when you are or reasonably perceive yourself to be
            in imminent (immediate) danger of death or serious injury. As soon as
            you are or should reasonably perceive that you are no longer in that
            imminent danger, your right to self-defense ends. Let's say that
            Martin reasonably perceived himself to be in danger of death or injury
            from Zimmerman. At that point he would have a right to self-defense,
            but that right is limited to the amount of force reasonably necessary
            to defend one's self, and the burden of reasonableness is and should
            be high. Earlier actions don't negate the right to self-defense in
            most cases. For example: you start a fist fight with someone. They
            pull a gun. You back off and are clearly no longer a threat to them.
            They shoot at you anyway. You get the gun away, and shoot them. That's
            probably still going to be self-defense in most states if you can
            prove the sequence of events.

            If ZImmerman initiated a confrontation with Martin, but that
            confrontation ended with Zimmerman on his back, unable to get away and
            getting pummeled by Martin to the point where he reasonably feared for
            his life, the right to self-defense then shifts back to Zimmerman. I
            want to emphasize that I'm claiming that's what happened. I don't know
            what happened and am reserving judgement until we see a trial, which
            is only reasonable. That's why we have courts instead of lynch mobs
            these days.

            A strong caveat to any self-defense claim: Prosecutors in many
            jurisdictions take a very dim view of self-defense claims when someone
            ends up dead, whatever the local law says. If you kill someone and
            claim self-defense, there is a very good chance you'll get prosecuted
            if there is any shade of grey to the situation, and juries can come up
            with the darnedest verdicts--not to mention the fact that if you want
            to avoid conviction you will pay through the nose for a good lawyer.
            Also, even if you don't get convicted, the person you shot's family
            can come after you with a wrongful death civil lawsuit. There, they
            only have to prove their case by a preponderance of evidence, rather
            than beyond a reasonable doubt, and they can get a judgement for
            everything you own. That's what happened to OJ Simpson after his
            acquittal, though obviously that wasn't a self-defense case.

            Bottom line: If there is any way to avoid getting yourself in a
            situation where you have to shoot someone in a self-defense, take that
            way out. Self-defense that leads to someone dying is a life-altering
            event for the survivor, as ZImmerman will find out whether or not he
            is convicted.
          • Julienne
            ... Even if Martin had circled the car, he was unarmed. The sensible thing, as being in the car gave Zimmerman a protective advantage, would have been to hit
            Message 5 of 10 , Nov 22, 2012
              At 01:23 AM 11/22/2012, Dale Cozort wrote:
              >You probably heard the edited tape that NBC ran several times, which
              >cut out the part where the 911 operator asked Zimmerman about the
              >'suspect's race. NBC has acknowledged the deceptive edit and sort of
              >half apologized, along with firing a person or two over the deceptive
              >cuts. This article talks about the edit and aftermath.
              >
              >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/george-zimmerman-nbc-911_n_1939059.html
              >
              >That being said, Zimmerman may or may not be guilty of murder, but he
              >was certainly guilty of very bad judgement. According to his own
              >testimony and one of the calls, Martin definitely approached
              >Zimmerman's car, and may or may not have circled it. If some stranger
              >did that to me or probably most other people, I/they would take that
              >as an indication that getting out of the car was a very bad idea and
              >might lead to a confrontation. That's not the way most teenagers
              >react to a car that may or may not be following them, and it should
              >have raised red flags for Zimmerman that following this kid might lead
              >to a confrontation.


              Even if Martin had circled the car, he was unarmed. The sensible thing,
              as being in the car gave Zimmerman a protective advantage, would have
              been to hit the gas and get out of there - give it over to the police,
              who had surely been alerted by now by 911.

              Zimmerman's actions make no sense unless, having a gun himself, he was
              out for blood.

              It would seem he was playing a hero fantasy in his own mind, and not
              properly connected with reality. In his mind he might have thought
              that confronting his prey, Martin, would just intimidate Martin into
              giving up, whatever that might have meant in this case. However, if
              he did get out of the car and pursue Martin with a gun, Martin might
              have fought back for his life. In that case, it seems to me that
              Martin would have had self defense on his side - even if he got the
              gun away from Zimmerman. He might have been too scared and
              adrenalin-driven after Zimmerman's attack to be able to hink
              carefully about his options.


              Julienne



              To blame the poor for subsisting on welfare has no justice unless we
              are also willing to judge every rich member of society by how
              productive he or she is. Taken individual by individual, it is likely
              that there's more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
              economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.
              -Norman Mailer, author (1923-2007)
            • clarence_sonny_williams
              Julienne, I m not a lawyer, but if you were the prosecuting attorney and trying to introduce a thought of what was going on inside Zimmerman s head ( he was
              Message 6 of 10 , Nov 22, 2012
                Julienne,

                I'm not a lawyer, but if you were the prosecuting attorney and trying to
                introduce a thought of what was going on inside Zimmerman's head ("he
                was not scared, but bloodthirsty"), I'd jump up and object. Supposing
                what is in someone's head, which contradicts their own testimony, is
                worse than hearsay evidence. Moreover, there are very well-defined
                legal principles regarding what "the normal individual would or would
                not be expected to do."

                The prosecution blew it big time in bringing murder charges. That's an
                outrage. Zimmerman should have been charged with negligence resulting
                in death, as we should not allow untrained neighborhood patrols to carry
                guns. Evidence from all the other neighbors who patrolled would reveal
                that none of them carried a gun...and considered it irresponsible.

                --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Julienne <julienne@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > At 01:23 AM 11/22/2012, Dale Cozort wrote:
                > >You probably heard the edited tape that NBC ran several times, which
                > >cut out the part where the 911 operator asked Zimmerman about the
                > >'suspect's race. NBC has acknowledged the deceptive edit and sort of
                > >half apologized, along with firing a person or two over the deceptive
                > >cuts. This article talks about the edit and aftermath.
                > >
                >
                >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/george-zimmerman-nbc-911_n_193\
                9059.html
                > >
                > >That being said, Zimmerman may or may not be guilty of murder, but he
                > >was certainly guilty of very bad judgement. According to his own
                > >testimony and one of the calls, Martin definitely approached
                > >Zimmerman's car, and may or may not have circled it. If some stranger
                > >did that to me or probably most other people, I/they would take that
                > >as an indication that getting out of the car was a very bad idea and
                > >might lead to a confrontation. That's not the way most teenagers
                > >react to a car that may or may not be following them, and it should
                > >have raised red flags for Zimmerman that following this kid might
                lead
                > >to a confrontation.
                >
                >
                > Even if Martin had circled the car, he was unarmed. The sensible
                thing,
                > as being in the car gave Zimmerman a protective advantage, would have
                > been to hit the gas and get out of there - give it over to the police,
                > who had surely been alerted by now by 911.
                >
                > Zimmerman's actions make no sense unless, having a gun himself, he was
                > out for blood.
                >
                > It would seem he was playing a hero fantasy in his own mind, and not
                > properly connected with reality. In his mind he might have thought
                > that confronting his prey, Martin, would just intimidate Martin into
                > giving up, whatever that might have meant in this case. However, if
                > he did get out of the car and pursue Martin with a gun, Martin might
                > have fought back for his life. In that case, it seems to me that
                > Martin would have had self defense on his side - even if he got the
                > gun away from Zimmerman. He might have been too scared and
                > adrenalin-driven after Zimmerman's attack to be able to hink
                > carefully about his options.
                >
                >
                > Julienne
                >
                >
                >
                > To blame the poor for subsisting on welfare has no justice unless we
                > are also willing to judge every rich member of society by how
                > productive he or she is. Taken individual by individual, it is likely
                > that there's more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
                > economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.
                > -Norman Mailer, author (1923-2007)
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.