07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 101102103104105 ...
tools
  1. dchawk81's Avatar
    Maybe they're afraid because they know it can launch a projectile at a high enough rate of speed to tear flesh.

    Fairclough was referring to the same attacks you were.
    06-01-2013 11:32 AM
  2. Fairclough's Avatar
    I was actually referring to the "attack on rights", its not necessarily the fact that people are scared of firearms, there is a solid belief if you eliminate them altogether massacres (we had our own that brought our laws in) are reduced significantly. As for the comment on WW1 10% of the population went to fight "From a population of fewer than five million, 416,809 men enlisted, of which over 60,000 were killed and 156,000 wounded, gassed, or taken prisoner." as there was an attack on our north coast line. Which results in just less than 2% of the citizens dying. For world war two 40,500 died with 0.6% of the population dying - provoked mainly due to an attack on Sydney. Not to mention most wars the US enters in we are required to with New Zealand under our treaties and alliances. Which also prevents us from really having solid treaties with Asia (which has been offered).Wars entered with the States include the Vietnam, Korean & Middle East. If you even get the time read about "Gallipoli and the Anzacs" its basically a military catastrophe where they landed at the wrong beach thinking it was Gallipoli - under the british generals they weren't allowed the retreat and knowingly they all went into for slaughter - the area was known for the beech being all stained blood red as they were turreted down from the cliff's before they got onto the beach. The remaining troops did find a sneaky way to retreat after a while. The war actually built a good relationship with the turk's funny enough as they both kinda realised they were just humans who would both refuse to give up to protect their own families.

    Infact my signature is in reference to a war in France, were the germans took over a city and our troops went to attack a force 10x larger and won... but in the progress destroyed half the infrastructure and out of guilt for the damage they cause they went back after the war to rebuild schools.

    As for freeing other countries, the most recent one if we don't include the middle east, would be very close to home our closest neighbour Papua New Guinea - broke out in civil with the indonesians and our government took over the country and gave it back to the PNG's. In fact the main marketing to the public for the reasoning of buying the super hornets (in a joint development with the US) was that it could fly over there in 2 minutes and be undetected.

    My country for its short history has an extensive war history, from a lift out in my old english classroom it showed that for most the years of our country's existence we have been in some shape or form in a war. In short - We do like to protect our rights, but there is some things we value over others. That being the removal of guns on the street we value over the ability for a teenage boy to have a gun thinking his "dardy". I much prefer our military, our Special Army Services, our Tactical Response Group to have guns there our citizens. People can learn how to use guns if they wanted to, when my sister was in the air force - they taught her how to turn her rifle into a grenade launcher. As for the so could potential corruption of the government, the defense ministers child went to the same sport training I did and school - they are very down to Earth, rational people, who anyone would respect - to be honest I wish he was Prime Minister.

    Gun enthusiasts aren't portrayed negatively here, they are allowed guns if they follow the requirements! These requirements are just made to prevent teenages who think their tough holding fire arms. In simple the requirements here are, Apply, show evidences why you need it e.g Farmer or Enthusiast, show evidence that your gun is secure e.g in a lock up or held are firearms range and show your use it e.g Go to the range. My family friends got their hand guns taken away for not going to the range but not shotguns as they are less concilable. For him it was easy to get back- he just went to the range 11 times. They are a bit tougher on them as they are really close to the city (3km).

    Gun law's aren't to attack the enthusiast, but to prohibit those who shouldn't have arms.
    jdbii and TomsAndroid like this.
    06-01-2013 09:10 PM
  3. HNNNNNGHHH's Avatar
    Well, you know what they say, Progress IS the opposite of Congress!

    Posted via Android Central App
    06-01-2013 10:13 PM
  4. jdbii's Avatar
    I was actually referring to the "attack on rights", its not necessarily the fact that people are scared of firearms, there is a solid belief if you eliminate them altogether massacres (we had our own that brought our laws in) are reduced significantly. As for the comment on WW1 10% of the population went to fight "From a population of fewer than five million, 416,809 men enlisted, of which over 60,000 were killed and 156,000 wounded, gassed, or taken prisoner." as there was an attack on our north coast line. Which results in just less than 2% of the citizens dying. For world war two 40,500 died with 0.6% of the population dying - provoked mainly due to an attack on Sydney. Not to mention most wars the US enters in we are required to with New Zealand under our treaties and alliances. Which also prevents us from really having solid treaties with Asia (which has been offered).Wars entered with the States include the Vietnam, Korean & Middle East. If you even get the time read about "Gallipoli and the Anzacs" its basically a military catastrophe where they landed at the wrong beach thinking it was Gallipoli - under the british generals they weren't allowed the retreat and knowingly they all went into for slaughter - the area was known for the beech being all stained blood red as they were turreted down from the cliff's before they got onto the beach. The remaining troops did find a sneaky way to retreat after a while. The war actually built a good relationship with the turk's funny enough as they both kinda realised they were just humans who would both refuse to give up to protect their own families.

    Infact my signature is in reference to a war in France, were the germans took over a city and our troops went to attack a force 10x larger and won... but in the progress destroyed half the infrastructure and out of guilt for the damage they cause they went back after the war to rebuild schools.

    Sort of off topic but I thought that was a really interesting post. I didn't know about the attacks on Australia in First World War, nor the attack on Sydney in the Second World War. The latter must have been shelling from a Japanese sub? The only attack I knew about on Australia's mainland during the either World Wars was the Japanese bombing Darwin in early 1942, but just a quick wikipedia search shows that there were 100 air raids against Australia in 1942-43. We know Gallopoli well in the states in large part to the 1981 movie Gallipoli. Interesting that it improved relations between the Turks and Australians. I guess bonds can be forged in fire. I did know that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, credited with founding Republic of Turkey and promoted secularism, was a young officer on the Ottoman side. Any good books or movies about the military engagement between the Germans and Australians regarding the reference to your signature?
    06-02-2013 01:21 PM
  5. Fairclough's Avatar
    I don't really read war books, I should but I prefer childrens books - however there is an actual book (N'oublions Jamais L'Australie - Allan Blankfield, Robin S. Corfield - Google Books) about my signature.Although my signature and title of the book is in reference to a piece of writing across the building which was rebuilt - so I am not sure whether its about the war or the school, but i presume the war. Sydney was attacked by Japanese Sub, Darwin is on our north coast - no one visits Darwin - there isn't much to see. Most of our actual fights were on the water, if I remember correctly there was a smart one were they placed fake vessels for the japs to bomb then once they raided the vessels they raided the planes which were out of ammo. Like you said bonds can be forged in fire, I guess both sides realized that they are just under command they actually have no hate for each other.

    War always interesting stories and unexpected outcomes.
    jdbii likes this.
    06-02-2013 08:44 PM
  6. llamabreath's Avatar
    In anticipation of the verdict, please discuss here what you feel it should be and then continue after it's read, whether you're surprised at it, disappointed, satisfied etc etc.

    The usual rules apply.

    msndrstood likes this.
    07-12-2013 05:05 PM
  7. neonworm's Avatar
    Guilty.

    Posted via Android Central App
    07-12-2013 05:09 PM
  8. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Based on what I know, not guilty..

    Of course if he is acquitted I fully expect federal charges to follow within days of the verdict.
    palandri likes this.
    07-12-2013 05:13 PM
  9. Aquila's Avatar
    I don't think he's guilty of capital murder necessarily, but were I prosecuting I'd at least get a negligent homicide or lesser included manslaughter, depending on Florida's laws. Not guilty isn't an option, I just don't think they can prove intent beyond ignorance and negligence.
    nancybout likes this.
    07-12-2013 05:14 PM
  10. Aquila's Avatar
    I don't think he entered the scenario with the intent to kill, but I don't know. I do think that once a fight broke out, if he legitimately believed his life to be in danger he has a right to defend himself. Whether or not he did is a matter of debate obviously. The medical expert said he had no reason to think he's in danger, he claims he was... how do we know what was in his mind? Either way, Murder I is hard to tag onto this one, Murder II is still difficult and is dependent on the distinction between malice versus negligence.
    07-12-2013 05:18 PM
  11. Live2ride883's Avatar
    I don't think he's guilty of capital murder necessarily, but were I prosecuting I'd at least get a negligent homicide or lesser included manslaughter, depending on Florida's laws. Not guilty isn't an option, I just don't think they can prove intent beyond ignorance and negligence.

    How is not guilty not an option???
    Aquila likes this.
    07-12-2013 05:29 PM
  12. Aquila's Avatar
    How is not guilty not an option???
    It really depends on how they frame it in jury instructions. He's not pleading "not guilty" as in, I didn't kill him. He's pleading self defense, which means he's admitting to the deed but attempting to justify his intent. That limits the options to the jury, either they have to agree that his life was in danger and he had no reasonable alternative or they have to choose between either defining the shooting as an unexpected unfortunate result of Zimmerman's negligence or they have to agree that he went into the situation with the intent of starting a fight. In the latter, that's premeditation and in the former it's negligent homicide.

    Typically "self defense" defenses are very hard to succeed with in any case, especially with muddled details about who accosted who in which way, etc. The successful defense will usually incorporate a defendant who was minding their own business when assaulted and/or a situation for which there was no escape route. Florida (and some other states) do have the "stand your ground" laws, to mitigate the need to find an escape route, however it's inapplicable in this case an the defense is not pursuing that line of reasoning (though they are implying it without explicitly using it).

    Given the circumstances from testimony thus far, it seems that Zimmerman has a history of attempting to assume law enforcement responsibilities, and attempted to do so again despite instructions to the contrary. This renders the, "no other recourse" option moot unless he can convince a jury that Martin was actively breaking the law or a fugitive from justice, that requires citizen involvement for warrant service by law enforcement, etc. As this was not the case by anyone's assertion, we're stuck on the dual issues of, "was Zimmerman assaulted while minding his own business" and, "was his life in danger". If the jury agrees to "yes" on both of those questions, then he is clearly not guilty. But so far testimony as indicated a resounding "no" to both questions, which leaves them with a choice between manslaughter, negligent homicide or murder in either the 1st or 2nd degree.

    There are two analogy scenarios for the jury to contend with:

    1) Little old lady walking down the street, attacked by Al Capone and his gang, shoots and kills one, flees to safety and calls the police. Replace little old lady with Zimmerman and that's a successful self defense claim pretty much anywhere, very low chance of acquittal even with those facts.
    2) Two people get into a fight at a ball game, it starts going poorly for one, he pulls out a knife and stabs the other one. Regardless of who started it, even with a self defense assertion, this has almost no chance of being successful in trial.

    So far the testimony is painting a picture resembling the second scenario much closer than the first.
    msndrstood and SpiralBorg like this.
    07-12-2013 05:47 PM
  13. Aquila's Avatar
    How is not guilty not an option???
    Let me clarify that... based on the testimony so far, with the context of probability of self defense being successful in general, I don't see any inroads to "not guilty" that are reasonable. The jury can obviously do whatever they want, there could be more information that's no public and/or still forthcoming that changes things and/or the judge could give instructions in a way to where conviction is very difficult. Right now my opinion is only in the context of general trials and the specifics of this case so far.
    07-12-2013 06:02 PM
  14. Live2ride883's Avatar
    In my initial post where I stated not guilty I was implying that I believe he is not guilty of the crimes he has been charged with. Not that he didn't kill Mr. Martin.
    07-12-2013 06:06 PM
  15. Aquila's Avatar
    Also, I'm not arguing the ethics questions of, "did Zimmerman do anything wrong?" or "do I feel Zimmerman deserves to go to prison?" ... I'm arguing about how these things contend with courtrooms in the current system.
    07-12-2013 06:06 PM
  16. Aquila's Avatar
    In my initial post where I stated not guilty I was implying that I believe he is not guilty of the crimes he has been charged with. Not that he didn't kill Mr. Martin.
    Do you mean you don't think a jury will convict or that you don't think there is evidence of wrongdoing? Legal justice doesn't always coincide with right/wrong, etc.
    07-12-2013 06:07 PM
  17. Live2ride883's Avatar
    In my initial post where I stated not guilty I was implying that I believe he is not guilty of the crimes he has been charged with. Not that he didn't kill Mr. Martin.

    I went to edit this and accidentally hit the delete post button.

    Do your previous comments take Florida's stand your ground law into account?
    07-12-2013 06:11 PM
  18. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Do you mean you don't think a jury will convict or that you don't think there is evidence of wrongdoing? Legal justice doesn't always coincide with right/wrong, etc.
    I don't think the prosecution presented a case that removes reasonable doubt, and I don't think the jury will or should convict.
    palandri and Aquila like this.
    07-12-2013 06:13 PM
  19. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Based on what I know, not guilty..

    Of course if he is acquitted I fully expect federal charges to follow within days of the verdict.
    I dunno, that may be considered double jeopardy and not allowed depending on the charges. As for the trial at hand, I haven't followed it enough to make an opinion either way.
    07-12-2013 06:32 PM
  20. Live2ride883's Avatar
    I dunno, that may be considered double jeopardy and not allowed depending on the charges. As for the trial at hand, I haven't followed it enough to make an opinion either way.
    There is precedence for the feds to step in and charge people that have been found not guilty or have been acquitted of crimes in court to then be charged in federal court with the violating the civil rights of the victim.

    Bush and Reagan both did this.
    One case was against the LA Cops that beat Rodney King, sorry but I can't think of the other right now.

    -----------

    More information on the federal govt bringing federal charges after an acquittal in similar cases.
    They could go after him for the crime of violating Trayvon Martins civil rights. There is a lot of unfortunate precedent for this.

    As Ive noted on this site, thats what happened, after April 29, 1992, when four police officers were acquitted by a Simi Valley, California jury in the beating of repeat convicted felon Rodney King, who resisted arrest. Then-President George H.W. Bush, upset over the race riots in South Central Los Angeles, spurred by the verdict, decided to give into the rioters, just like a Stockholm Syndrome afflicted hostage gives into and sympathizes with his captors. And the police officers, already acquitted by a jury of their peers, faced federal charges. Two of the four police officers, Stacey Koon and Laurence Powell, were convicted and sentenced to 30 months in prison.

    And its not the first time this kind of thing happened. Theres also the Vincent Chin case.

    On June 23, 1982, two drunk men, one of them a supervisor at an auto plant (and the other his stepson), spotted Chin at a Detroit strip club, Fancy Pants. They mistook him for Japanese (as his surname indicates, he was Chinese), and held him responsible for American autoworkers losing their jobs, as the flood of cheap Japanese cars that came into America in the early 80s led to a big down period in the American auto industry. And they beat Chin to death, after he left the strip club, and they paid someone to find him. The two men, Ronald Ebens and stepson Michael Nitz, were charged with second degree murder but convicted of manslaughter, pursuant to a plea deal. They were sentenced to three years of probation and served no jail time.

    But after outrage by the Asian American community, the Reagan Administration pursued federal charges against the two men through the Justice Department. Both were charged with violating Chins civil rights. Nitz was acquitted, but Ebens was found guilty and sentenced to 25 years in prison. That conviction and sentence were overturned after the Court of Appeals found that Reagan Justice Department officials improperly coached a witness. When Ebens was retried in Ohio, he was acquitted.

    Link:Obama Administration Considering Fed Prosecution if Zimmerman Acquitted – Double Jeopardy
    07-12-2013 06:39 PM
  21. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Gun Geo Marker app tries to locate homes, businesses of gun owners

    This app allows users to input location information on anyone they feel is an unsafe gun owner. Let's assume for a second that I either do not own any guns or someone puts my information in for whatever reason. My house or business has just been marked as a target for criminals to hit. This is worse than the map printed in NY awhile back.

    Read more: Gun Geo Marker app tries to locate homes, businesses of gun owners | Fox News
    07-12-2013 07:18 PM
  22. Aquila's Avatar
    I don't think the prosecution presented a case that removes reasonable doubt, and I don't think the jury will or should convict.
    The burden of proof is slightly different in an affirmative defense, in that it is shifted primarily on the defense to prove the circumstances warranted the actions taken. Based on the evidence presented so far and the history of affirmative murder defenses, I'd lay the odds at about 60% for a jury deadlock, 30% for a conviction of one or more charges, including lesser offenses, and 10% for an outright acquittal.
    Live2ride883 likes this.
    07-12-2013 07:23 PM
  23. jdbii's Avatar
    Within the context of the legal proceeding, "guilty" or "not guilty" is only relevant to the charges he is being prosecuted for. He is being prosecuted for second-degree murder which means in addition to the intent of killing his victim he also had to have malice (or something like that) as part of his mind-set prior to the act of killing. That is an incredibly high burden for the state to prove. How do you prove malice beyond a reasonable doubt? The state's case is based on the call where Zimmerman called him a fu**ing punk and got out of his car when he was advised by the 911 dispatcher not to as well as other flippant comments by Zimmerman. The state did ask to include the lesser offense of manslaughter, something that he was not charged with at the commencement of the trial, and that in itself is an implicit (some would consider explicit) admission by the state that their case unraveled and that they over-charged him.

    I think the state over-charged him and that they didn't meet their burden. He clearly without a doubt in my mind will be found "not guilty" for second-degree murder. I'll wager anybody 100 to 1 odds on that prediction. Whether or not he gets convicted with manslaughter is anybody's guess. This is a tight call, but I think the prosecution presented such a poor case that I also think he will be found not guilty of manslaughter. But again, as to the manslaughter charge, this is close to 50-50 and could go either way. If acquitted (found not guilty on both second-degree murder and manslaughter I do not expect him to be prosecuted in Federal Court as happened with Rodney King. There is just not enough evidence. With Rodney King there was a whole video of a posse of police officers beating him mercilessly.
    07-12-2013 08:40 PM
  24. palandri's Avatar
    Never really paid attention to it. I saw some pictures of an 11 or 12 year old kid that Zimmerman shot so I thought he was guilty.

    When the trial started, I discovered the young Martin photos were bogus. Zimmerman called 911, if Martin was concerned about Zimmerman, he had a phone and should have called 911, instead of calling his girlfriend about it and using a racial term for Zimmerman. There's no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman was attacked, beaten up and cried out for help numerous times. Zimmerman felt his life was threatened.

    No doubt in my mind that Zimmerman is not guilty.
    Live2ride883 likes this.
    07-12-2013 08:42 PM
  25. jdbii's Avatar
    The burden of proof is slightly different in an affirmative defense, in that it is shifted primarily on the defense to prove the circumstances warranted the actions taken.
    I am not sure if that is correct. I don't know enough about Florida law and criminal law but the state always has the burden to prove the charges. In order to raise self-defense all one has to do is reasonably believe their life was in mortal danger. I don't think it is that high of a burden, and the state still has the burden to disprove it.
    07-12-2013 08:51 PM
4,617 ... 101102103104105 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD