Zimmerman Verdict

[Nam]

Jaime,

Ever been homeless? I have. Twice. If one doesn't get help from others, they are screwed. If my family (mainly my mother and brother) didn't help me, I most likely be living on the streets. And, even when I was living on the streets (second time, downtown Orlando) I knew people who were homeless but had jobs but they couldn't afford or get the credit, or a bevy of other things, to get a home. When I wasn't homeless and working at a restaurant back in 2006/7 I knew a guy and his family who lived in a motel, and 90% of what he earned went to paying for the one room that they all occupied. He couldn't afford to get another place because all the money he ever got went to keeping a roof over he and his family's heads. He had really bad credit so even if he could find a place he could afford he couldn't get it. He told me he had a house but it was destroyed by a hurricane and he was renting and the owner decided not to rebuild because even with the insurance he had the extra cost would've been too much.

Sometimes what we have is all the assets that we have. We work a lifetime to get it, and when it's taken away, for some of us, we won't ever get it back. You being one of those who can replace what you consider to be trivial things, and those like you but those like me: the poor -- it's basically all we have.

-Nam

[epidemic]

A replacement house? How? Oh, that magical insurance I don't have and can't afford because it costs too much. Try living in a poor man's world, perhaps you'll see more clearly.

Get a new house. Thanks for the laugh.

Oh, please, Nam, get over yourself and start thinking.

I know that it's not as simple as snapping your fingers and wishing for a new house.  But unless you're on your deathbed, there's nothing stopping you from picking up the pieces and beginning again.

I don't even own a house.  I have tens of thousands of dollars in debt (mostly student loans), at least twice my yearly income.  If the house I'm renting (with roommates) had a fire, practically everything I own would be lost.  I live paycheck to paycheck.

But you know what?  If something of mine were stolen or destroyed, I'd deal with it and move on.  And I could eventually replace it.  So could you, if you ever got over that pessimistic attitude of yours.  But if you died, that would be the end of it.

That's why I value my life more than my possessions.  You might disagree, but it wouldn't change the facts - your life is what allows you to get those possessions, and as long as you have it, you can get them back.

I spent 47 years carving out the life I have, 10's of thousands of hours working scrimping saving to put my kids through school.  What is that worth?  Is it not worth the life of a carreer criminal attempting to get what I have for nothing?  Stealing portions of my life ruining my kids future because I can no longer afford to put them through school.  Now I incur massive debt and insecurity in my life all so this little punk can sell it at a cut rate to party with his buddies?

I just do not feel sorry that life has been permanently taken from a thief.  I personally would not take the life over a radio, but I don't mind if you do, it is your life and you put the value on your possessions and how hard you worked to get them.

[jaimehlers]

So when I kill someone it is permanent?  Are you sure ?

Don't waste my time with comments like this.

Umm, that is the point that is why I killed him to make it permanent.   Yes i do see the point, and I do not really feel compelled to grieve the loss of the thief.

When you give your okay to killing other people over trivial offenses, you have no room to complain when you are killed over a trivial offense.  And this isn't about grief, it's about basic human decency.

You also keep saying the "perceived" thief.  Dude you better be more sure that it is not just a perception before you shoot them or you are going away for a long time.

If you shoot them anyway, then you're probably going to be locked up for a long time, at least in most states.

Again this has been the law of the land for some time...  Can you show me the pattern where this is becoming a vigilanty nation with the bodies of innocent people thought to be thieves piled like cordwood at the side of the road?

No, it has not been the law of the land.  It is the law in Texas at least (and possibly others, but not any I could find), but Texas is not the entire country.  Get it straight before you try to argue about it.

The Texas law permits the use of deadly force to recover or protect property.  And it was used to acquit a man for killing a Craigslist escort.  The reason?  Because he thought he was paying for sex, and when she refused to have sex with him, he shot her to get his money back.  Even though what he actually paid for was an escort service, not prostitution (sex for money).  Prostitution is illegal in Texas.

In other words, the man paid for a Craigslist escort, tried to demand that she have sex with him (which is not legal), shot her to "recover his money", and then was acquitted by a jury.  The criminal got off scot-free because he had good lawyers and a jury which bought their argument, and the victim was paralyzed and eventually died.  Where's the justice in that?

The defense's argument, by the way, was that the escort was a prostitute, her driver (who she went to give the money to) was her pimp, and that they were scheming to steal from him by not giving him the sex he "paid for", even though sex for pay is illegal in Texas.

So, is your life only worth $150?  Because that's apparently what that woman's life was worth to that man.

[jaimehlers]

Ever been homeless? I have. Twice. If one doesn't get help from others, they are screwed. If my family (mainly my mother and brother) didn't help me, I most likely be living on the streets. And, even when I was living on the streets (second time, downtown Orlando) I knew people who were homeless but had jobs but they couldn't afford or get the credit, or a bevy of other things, to get a home. When I wasn't homeless and working at a restaurant back in 2006/7 I knew a guy and his family who lived in a motel, and 90% of what he earned went to paying for the one room that they all occupied. He couldn't afford to get another place because all the money he ever got went to keeping a roof over he and his family's heads. He had really bad credit so even if he could find a place he could afford he couldn't get it. He told me he had a house but it was destroyed by a hurricane and he was renting and the owner decided not to rebuild because even with the insurance he had the extra cost would've been too much.

Sometimes what we have is all the assets that we have. We work a lifetime to get it, and when it's taken away, for some of us, we won't ever get it back. You being one of those who can replace what you consider to be trivial things, and those like you but those like me: the poor -- it's basically all we have.

Actually, most of the difference here is attitude.  I have a generally optimistic attitude, so if misfortune happens, I pick myself up and move on.  I am not substantially better off than you are, although I've not been homeless or anything like that.  I just don't let the crap that life rains down on me stick.

[jaimehlers]

I spent 47 years carving out the life I have, 10's of thousands of hours working scrimping saving to put my kids through school.  What is that worth?  Is it not worth the life of a carreer criminal attempting to get what I have for nothing?  Stealing portions of my life ruining my kids future because I can no longer afford to put them through school.  Now I incur massive debt and insecurity in my life all so this little punk can sell it at a cut rate to party with his buddies?

It is not worth anyone's life.  I am not saying that the thief deserves to get your stuff, of course.  But to me, killing someone is far worse than stealing a bit of property.

I just do not feel sorry that life has been permanently taken from a thief.  I personally would not take the life over a radio, but I don't mind if you do, it is your life and you put the value on your possessions and how hard you worked to get them.

Well, if you get yourself thrown in prison because you thought your property was worth the life of a thief who was running away from your house with a $50 piece of jewelry or something along those lines, don't expect me to feel the slightest bit of pity for you.  Because you'll absolutely deserve that prison sentence.

Here's a thought - maybe you should think about what happens if you do something like that, and how much worse it will be for your kids if you end up in prison because of this attitude that your stuff is worth more than a person's life.

[LoriPinkAngel]

I am seeing everyone's point.  I use the term I sense because I may or may not be correct.  This is my opinion.

jaimehlers  - I sense that you value life.  You lean toward optimism.  You see possessions as replaceable.  You trust the justice system to
                     handle the crimimals.

Nam-  I sense you just live your life.  Day by day.  People call you a pessimist because you point out the negative realities.  You are not
           really a pessimist, you just tell it like it is.

epidemic -  I sense you are a realist.  You don't entirely trust the system.  You are not about to open a can of whupass on any criminal 
                  perceived or otherwise but you won't harshly judge someone who does.

Correct me if I'm wrong.                             

[nogodsforme]

Stealing is wrong. Killing is also wrong, and by most people, considered to be far worse than stealing. That is why there is the death penalty or life in prison for murder and not for stealing, no matter how valuable the thing stolen.

And that is the way it should be. Life is never replaceable. Physical objects generally are.

Now, those people who think it is reasonable or just to kill thieves who take a car or a tv set should apply that same principle to the wealthy business people who ruin millions of lives with the stroke of a pen, take old people's pensions and homes away, lay off thousands of workers, sell products they know will kill people, all to make a bit more profit.

Then we might have some common ground.

[LoriPinkAngel]

Now, those people who think it is reasonable or just to kill thieves who take a car or a tv set should apply that same principle to the wealthy business people who ruin millions of lives with the stroke of a pen, take old people's pensions and homes away, lay off thousands of workers, sell products they know will kill people, all to make a bit more profit.

As far as I'm concerned the death penalty is letting any creep off too easy.  I think losing your freedom is worse than losing your life.  Especially the rich jerks.  They should rot in prison in an itchy jumpsuit with someone else telling them what to do every minute of the day for the rest of their lives.

[Nam]

Jaime,

I had a long rant, my phone crashed, then I got back on and rewrote it. I just deleted it. Why? Because people like you, and many others here, just don't get it. Hopefully you never will.

-Nam

[Anfauglir]

I also think the "I thought he was a thief" statement is prejudicial.  No you don't shoot someone for thinking they are a thief.  In texas you may shoot someone WHO IS a thief.

Interesting.  So you are saying that this law will NOT protect you if you shoot someone and had solid grounds for thinking they were a thief - but that (presumably) if you shot someone with only the    haziest suspicion they were a thief, you WOULD be protected?

In other words, that the law only protects the shooter if the person they shot does, in fact, turn out to be a thief?  I want to ensure I've got that clear before I carry on.

[Chronos]

So when I kill someone it is permanent?  Are you sure ?

Don't waste my time with comments like this.

That's what Stephen King thought until he found a particular pet cemetery with magical features.

[Nam]

Just read in the news that Zimmerman is being held by authorities over a gun issue involving a battery against his wife.

Will he use the same defense? It worked well the first time?

(Can't link, on a phone)

-Nam

[nogodsforme]

What a surprise-- Zim. is involved in another violent incident. Just like OJ, bad can't stop being bad. It's almost like they got off when they were actually guilty, and have to keep on acting up until they are punished.

[One Above All]

I found a link on GameFAQs for what Nam mentioned.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-custody-domestic-incident-involving-gun/story?id=20203329

[Nick]

I think it was his wife and father in law.  He threatened them both with a gun.  Just be glad they were not coming home with tea and Skiddles.  A man has got to be able to "stand his ground" against his wife.  I'm sure that is in the bible somewhere.

[jaimehlers]

This is the same woman who was found guilty of perjury for claiming that they were broke when they actually had over a hundred thousand dollars in donations, so take it with a grain of salt.

[Nick]

She probably rat holed the money and he can't get to any of it.

[Quesi]

No one knows better than his wife what he is capable of.  When he came after her and her dad with a gun, she was genuinely scared. 

He has used that gun before. 

[Nick]

Like a dog that gets in the chicken coop and kills chickens.  Never the same after the taste of blood.

[Anfauglir]

No one knows better than his wife what he is capable of.  When he came after her and her dad with a gun, she was genuinely scared. 

He has used that gun before.

Indeedy.  As I said a few days back:

With the "I shot his 'cos I thought he was stealing", there is a greater chance it will happen again, because he has a defence for his actions.  It means that - potentially - he can shoot someone, then claim 'I thought he was a thief' as defence.  And will likely be in a position to do it again.

Moreover, that defence makes it possible for others to kill at random, and use the same defence; or to fully belief they are justified, and kill.  And that makes life MORE dangerous for me and my family as you are increasing the chance that people will shoot for a perceived minor transgression.

So I would agree that accepting that people can legitimately kill people for stealing is more dangerous than people who kill at random.  The latter figure is unlikely to chance up or down.  The former figure can fluctuate, based on our responses to it.

[naemhni]

It appears that the new Zimmerman story is false.

[Anfauglir]

In that case, I never said what I said I said!   

[epidemic]

I also think the "I thought he was a thief" statement is prejudicial.  No you don't shoot someone for thinking they are a thief.  In texas you may shoot someone WHO IS a thief.

Interesting.  So you are saying that this law will NOT protect you if you shoot someone and had solid grounds for thinking they were a thief - but that (presumably) if you shot someone with only the    haziest suspicion they were a thief, you WOULD be protected?

In other words, that the law only protects the shooter if the person they shot does, in fact, turn out to be a thief?  I want to ensure I've got that clear before I carry on.

no that is about the opposite of what i said (or meant to say)  As i re-read this I still don't see how you get that out of my statment.

I was commenting on previous posts where there is a constant drone of "You think they are a thief"  I believe that the law does not protect you for shooting someone you simply suspect of theft. 

It only protects you if the person is known to be a theif. 

I don't see how you could conclude my position as anything else???

You better be dam sure you are shooting a guilty person.




to the people who support the property is more important than life argument,  why do armored car companies have armed personnel.  It is only property, if someone attempts to steal it you should simply turn it over and odds are that you wont be killed.  Especially if we make a standard practice of not resisting.  A 3,000,000 armored car robbery from xyz bank is probably akin to 30 dollar radio theft is to me.

[sarcasm]  I propose we disarm armored car personnel and make a general statement to the press that we will not ever use deadly force to protect cash shipments.  This will insure that no thiefs are killed robbing them of their right to life??????[/sarcasm]

[Anfauglir]

I also think the "I thought he was a thief" statement is prejudicial.  No you don't shoot someone for thinking they are a thief.  In texas you may shoot someone WHO IS a thief.

Interesting.  So you are saying that this law will NOT protect you if you shoot someone and had solid grounds for thinking they were a thief - but that (presumably) if you shot someone with only the    haziest suspicion they were a thief, you WOULD be protected?

In other words, that the law only protects the shooter if the person they shot does, in fact, turn out to be a thief?  I want to ensure I've got that clear before I carry on.

no that is about the opposite of what i said (or meant to say)  As i re-read this I still don't see how you get that out of my statment.

I was commenting on previous posts where there is a constant drone of "You think they are a thief"  I believe that the law does not protect you for shooting someone you simply suspect of theft. 

It only protects you if the person is known to be a theif. 

I don't see how you could conclude my position as anything else???

You better be dam sure you are shooting a guilty person.

Actually, I just re-read what I wrote, and on first glance I thought "damn, I DID get it wrong".  But then I read it again, and realised that I'd left out what I was thinking at the time.  Here is what I intended to say, with the previously untyped thoughts here inserted in italics)

"So you are saying that this law will NOT protect you if you shoot someone and had solid grounds for thinking they were a thief but it turns our they were not
but that (presumably) if you shot someone with only the haziest suspicion they were a thief, you WOULD be protected provided it turns out they actually were?

In other words, that the law only protects the shooter if the person they shot does, in fact, turn out to be a thief no matter how much they believed it to be the case?  That what you thought at the time is completely irrelevant, all that matters is the "occupation" of the victim? "

Which I believe does tally with what you said - that " You better be dam sure you are shooting a guilty person".  We did actually agree on what you said the law said, I just wanted to confirm.

Now, I have to go back and recall what my next point was going to be!

[Anfauglir]

Okay....I think my point was going to be this.

Ultimately, what this law is saying is that capital punishment for theft is not only acceptable, but may be carried out by any person in the vicinity of the crime, before that crime can be established in a court.

The fact that punishment - and capital punishment, at that - can be meted out before the trial seems somewhat bizarre to me.  It makes me wonder what the next crime is that will fall into that category?

[Azdgari]

The fact that punishment - and capital punishment, at that - can be meted out before the trial seems somewhat bizarre to me.  It makes me wonder what the next crime is that will fall into that category?

Participating in an unsanctioned protest march?

[epidemic]

Okay....I think my point was going to be this.

Ultimately, what this law is saying is that capital punishment for theft is not only acceptable, but may be carried out by any person in the vicinity of the crime, before that crime can be established in a court.

The fact that punishment - and capital punishment, at that - can be meted out before the trial seems somewhat bizarre to me.  It makes me wonder what the next crime is that will fall into that category?

Well first off I feel capital punishment is something society through government deals out, a private citizen does not deal out capital punishment but rather responds with force in cases a transgression against them.  As stated before I don't personally feel I would shoot you for running away with my stereo.  My main issue is that I simply would not jail someone for defending their stuff with deadly force from a thief.

If I see a guy running away with my stereo ?

In your opinion what should my option be?:

1) Just call police!

2) may I pursue him

3) Can I demand my stuff back with harshly worded request?

4) Can I physically detain him?

5) If he restists can I use force?

6) If he attempts to injure me can I injure him back?

7) May I brandish my weapon and inform the thief of my intention to drop him?

After fair warning may I shoot him in keeping with my word?

9) May I silently draw my weapon and drop him like a deer in the woods?


what is the next law that will be written for some minor transgression.  I really don't know.  I guess I will render judgement when it is proposed. 

[naemhni]

The fact that punishment - and capital punishment, at that - can be meted out before the trial seems somewhat bizarre to me.

I can understand that, and you're not the first person I've heard express such a sentiment.  Some people express a certain amount of surprise when I myself say that I favor use of deadly force for self-defense (in appropriate situations, of course), but I am opposed to capital punishment.

It seems incongruous, but it's not.  The difference is that capital punishment is, as the term says, punishment -- it is meant as a penalty for an action that has already taken place.  However, using deadly force for self-defense is not capital punishment because it isn't any kind of a punishment at all.  Rather, it is an attempt to prevent someone from taking an action in the first place.  There's a big difference between killing someone to stop him from committing a crime and killing him to punish him for having committed a crime.  One action is punitive, the other is not.

[naemhni]

Although I've studied up on self-defense law a bit, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

If I see a guy running away with my stereo ?

In your opinion what should my option be?:

1) Just call police!

That is an option.

2) may I pursue him

Yes.

3) Can I demand my stuff back with harshly worded request?

Yes.  Although I wouldn't expect results with such an approach.

4) Can I physically detain him?

Yes, this is called a citizen's arrest.

5) If he restists can I use force?

This one I'm not sure about.  I think the answer is yes, but I'd have to investigate a bit.

6) If he attempts to injure me can I injure him back?

Same as number five.

7) may I shoot him as he flees?

Absolutely, totally, and in all other ways, NO.  The circumstances under which use of deadly force is justified are very narrow, and shooting someone who's running away from you doesn't even come close to cutting the mustard.