Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Matthitjah

Zimmerman sues NBC

65 posts in this topic

An accident that takes someones life is still murder in a situation like this. Doesnt matter if it was intended or not.

No actually it's not. Not if it was in self defense.

True, but then self-defense is not an accident. But like I said, I don't believe he was defending himself.

Explain how self-defense is not an accident, please.

You said it is an accident. If you had said in some cases, then I would agree. In some cases a person must choose between their life or the other persons, and this would make killing the person intentional. Or is it your view that you can not intentionally kill a person in self defense.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the legal definition of murder

murder

n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

Yes and that definition doesn't fit the actions of the woman in the daycare center based on YOUR description of the event nor does it include the taking of life in self-defense.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An accident that takes someones life is still murder in a situation like this. Doesnt matter if it was intended or not.

No actually it's not. Not if it was in self defense.

True, but then self-defense is not an accident. But like I said, I don't believe he was defending himself.

Explain how self-defense is not an accident, please.

You said it is an accident. If you had said in some cases, then I would agree. In some cases a person must choose between their life or the other persons, and this would make killing the person intentional. Or is it your view that you can not intentionally kill a person in self defense.

Oh' you could absolutely unintentionally kill someone in self defense.

Suppose you attack me with a weapon and I overpower you and choke you out with the hope of stopping you from getting back up and attacking me again. However, I use too much force and break your neck.

It sounds to me like you are saying that all killing is murder and that is not the case at all.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the legal definition of murder

murder

n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

Yes and that definition doesn't fit the actions of the woman in the daycare center based on YOUR description of the event nor does it include the taking of life in self-defense.

wreckless concern for human life. She left 3 infants alone in her home that ended up getting caught on fire. That is wreckless concern for human life. The story is available just need to google it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds to me like you are saying that all killing is murder and that is not the case at all.

Nope not what I was saying at all.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

question for everyone...

If I start an altercation and then end up on the losing end of it and use deadly force to stop it, is that self-defense?

It is if your life is in danger.

It's like if you start a screaming match with someone, never intending for it to go any further than that, and they pull out a knife and attack you, it is self-defense if you shoot and kill them because you believed you were in danger of being seriously hurt or murdered.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

question for everyone...

If I start an altercation and then end up on the losing end of it and use deadly force to stop it, is that self-defense?

It is if your life is in danger.

It's like if you start a screaming match with someone, never intending for it to go any further than that, and they pull out a knife and attack you, it is self-defense if you shoot and kill them because you believed you were in danger of being seriously hurt or murdered.

So you are saying if you walk up and hit someone, they start kicking your butt, you can shoot them. LOL....that is outrageous.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

question for everyone...

If I start an altercation and then end up on the losing end of it and use deadly force to stop it, is that self-defense?

It is if your life is in danger.

It's like if you start a screaming match with someone, never intending for it to go any further than that, and they pull out a knife and attack you, it is self-defense if you shoot and kill them because you believed you were in danger of being seriously hurt or murdered.

So you are saying if you walk up and hit someone, they start kicking your butt, you can shoot them. LOL....that is outrageous.

Well, no. There are certain degrees. The example I gave was valid. Many a verbal argument has escalated into a situation where deadly force was necessary as self-defense. Even if the person doing the killing started the argument.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

question for everyone...

If I start an altercation and then end up on the losing end of it and use deadly force to stop it, is that self-defense?

You're making a huge assumption that an alteraction was started or was even actively being looked for in this instance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue isn't whether or not Mr. Zimmerman acted in an improper manner. The issue is that he was slandered and libeled by a major media corporation and is suing them for damages, which he is well within his rights to do. Now, should he be acquitted or exonerated in the manslaughter charge, it will be much easier for him to win a civil lawsuit against NBC. The fact that they aired an altered audio transcript of his 911 call and left parts out to make him look like he was a racist/racial profiling, is why he should get a settlement.

Whatever happened between him and Trayvon Martin that night, is between him and the court system. That issue is being addressed.

The Civil Lawsuit is a separate and unrelated incident and should be adjudicated in that manner. The lawsuit is about slander and libel, of which Mr. Zimmerman has a legitimate grievance against NBC.

Any effort to make this lawsuit about Trayvon Martin and Mr. Zimmerman's actions that night is irresponsible and any lawyer that attempts to make this about the manslaughter is being judiciously negligent.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the legal definition of murder

murder

n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

Yes and that definition doesn't fit the actions of the woman in the daycare center based on YOUR description of the event nor does it include the taking of life in self-defense.

wreckless concern for human life. She left 3 infants alone in her home that ended up getting caught on fire. That is wreckless concern for human life. The story is available just need to google it.

What city and state? Do you have a date for it? Evidently, this has happened a lot. So I need more information to narrow it down to the specfic event you talking about.

Unless she set the fire, it is a case of negligence and child endangerment. In the example of reckless concern for human life given above there was the intent of harm included. In this case, unless she either set the fire or intended some kind of harm, it doesn't come up with murder. But please send me more information so I can see this for myself.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the legal definition of murder

murder

n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

Yes and that definition doesn't fit the actions of the woman in the daycare center based on YOUR description of the event nor does it include the taking of life in self-defense.

wreckless concern for human life. She left 3 infants alone in her home that ended up getting caught on fire. That is wreckless concern for human life. The story is available just need to google it.

What city and state? Do you have a date for it? Evidently, this has happened a lot. So I need more information to narrow it down to the specfic event you talking about.

Unless she set the fire, it is a case of negligence and child endangerment. In the example of reckless concern for human life given above there was the intent of harm included. In this case, unless she either set the fire or intended some kind of harm, it doesn't come up with murder. But please send me more information so I can see this for myself.

You really don't like to be wrong do you? Shiloh, If a person shoots a gun in the air and the bullet comes down and kills someone this was reckless concern for human life, and intent of harm is not included in that scenerio. Shiloh in this matter you are wrong.

Here is the story, I also got a bit of info wrong. It was 4 children that died. She has 80 years for one of those children right now.

Story here

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the legal definition of murder

murder

n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

Yes and that definition doesn't fit the actions of the woman in the daycare center based on YOUR description of the event nor does it include the taking of life in self-defense.

wreckless concern for human life. She left 3 infants alone in her home that ended up getting caught on fire. That is wreckless concern for human life. The story is available just need to google it.

What city and state? Do you have a date for it? Evidently, this has happened a lot. So I need more information to narrow it down to the specfic event you talking about.

Unless she set the fire, it is a case of negligence and child endangerment. In the example of reckless concern for human life given above there was the intent of harm included. In this case, unless she either set the fire or intended some kind of harm, it doesn't come up with murder. But please send me more information so I can see this for myself.

You really don't like to be wrong do you? Shiloh, If a person shoots a gun in the air and the bullet comes down and kills someone this was reckless concern for human life, and intent of harm is not included in that scenerio. Shiloh in this matter you are wrong.

Here is the story, I also got a bit of info wrong. It was 4 children that died. She has 80 years for one of those children right now.

Story here

He's not wrong in any case thus far to include your own example;

The child was among four kids who died after Tata left a group of children alone in a Houston home with a pan of oil cooking on a hot stove.

She was in fact reckless by leaving a pan of oil on a hot stove. Had a child merely spilled it and been burned she would have been guilty of negligence, abandonement, and child abuse. However, a fire started and someone died due to her wanton reckless negligence. She is responsible for the death of the child uner her care and therefore she is guilty of murder.

Please explain how this applies to Martins death and the assault on Mr. Zimmerman.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not wrong in any case thus far to include your own example;

The child was among four kids who died after Tata left a group of children alone in a Houston home with a pan of oil cooking on a hot stove.

She was in fact reckless by leaving a pan of oil on a hot stove. Had a child merely spilled it and been burned she would have been guilty of negligence, abandonement, and child abuse. However, a fire started and someone died due to her wanton reckless negligence. She is responsible for the death of the child uner her care and therefore she is guilty of murder.

Please explain how this applies to Martins death and the assault on Mr. Zimmerman.

This is in fact what I have been saying. She didn't intend for a fire to start, so murder can not always be classified as intentional. Shiloh stated that murder was done with intent. Yet, this was not done with intent, but she still charged with and sentenced for murder and in my opinion rightfully.

Well it applies in the fact that earlier I said I believe that Zimmerman murdered Martin. I said he didn't intend to do so, you said something, Shiloh said something after that. Then we discussed what murder was, I made my point about the woman now we are full circle. You don't have to intend to kill someone for it to be murder. What I have presented shows this. You may not want to agree because it is difficult to admit that sometimes you are wrong, but I have proven that you are wrong. Murder does not have to be intentional, this from the legal definition of murder, and giving an example of such. You are welcome to prove other wise. Not just say so.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manslaughter, homicide, suicide, they all mean the same thing, someone is dead as a result of someone's actions. That being said, the topic is the lawsuit against NBC, not Mr. Zimmerman's trial. Does he have a legitimate grievance against NBC, yes, he does. He should sue them for libel and slander. Please try to not distract from the topic of this conversation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0