Karma reasons for concrete message



    Global Moderator

    Posts: 8887
  • Darwins +1119/-27

No, you are being dishonest. And its disappointing. If Martin defended himself against a man stalking him with a loaded pistol he was well within his right to. You asserting that Martin attacked Zimmerman is a cowardly act on your part. Martin was walking home from the store, it was Zimmerman who called the police and stalked the kid putting him in a position to have to defend himself. Youre trying to justify murder. Stop it.
No, he wasn't within his rights, because even if Zimmerman were actually stalking him, that isn't an imminent use of force.  I realize that people can feel threatened if someone is following them around, but that doesn't give them the right to turn around and attack the person following them.  And that's what you're claiming here.

Quote from: The Gawd
Stop being willfully ignorant. Zimmerman stalked the kid and put him in a position to defend himself. Those are the facts we have.
Except that Zimmerman did not stalk Martin.  He followed him on his own initiative until the dispatcher told him not to, at which point he stopped following Martin.  That is not putting him (Martin) in a position to defend himself, because self-defense does not permit you to attack someone merely for following you, no matter what it looks like to the person being followed.  It doesn't matter whether one feels like it's stalking, or even if one feels threatened by it, because it isn't the use of force or even the imminent use of force.  Cause for alarm, sure.  Cause to call the police, most assuredly.  Cause to try to beat up the person following you and claim it was self-defense?  No way.

Quote from: The Gawd
Youre attempting to justify a murder. Just because someone defends themselves successfully against a stalker does not give a stalker free reign to murder the person they were stalking. You are proving to be a person of low morality using this line of reason. Why are you so willing to disregard the kid's right to defend himself? Its very telling about the type of person you are.
You don't have the right to attack someone merely for following you.  Attacking someone in self-defense does not apply merely for following someone around.  So even if your narrative were correct and Zimmerman was actually stalking Martin, Martin did not have any business confronting and attacking him just for that.  Not unless he had reason to believe that Zimmerman was about to attack him.

Quote from: The Gawd
You are proving to be intellectually and personally dishonest. You have here, admitted that the kid was being stalked.
This is untrue.  I specifically contested your declaration that he was being stalked several times in the post you're quoting.  What I said was that Zimmerman followed him, but following someone is not the same thing as stalking them.  Stalking has a specific legal definition which has to be met, and I'm pretty sure that simply following someone, or even chasing them, doesn't meet that definition.

Quote from: The Gawd
However they met up again is just speculation. One thing was clear, Zimmerman was the one doing the following as per his own and Martin's conversations. You trying to assert anything else is an attempt to justify a murder. Stop it.
Okay, I'll grant that we can't be exactly sure what happened after Zimmerman got off the phone with the 911 dispatcher.  But claiming that I'm therefore trying to justify a murder is both wrong and insulting - especially when you say that trying to assert anything else is doing that.

Quote from: The Gawd
Use whatever word you would like in order to justify the murder, I see what you are doing and it is intellectually dishonest. If you want to draw a line of semantics between stalk and follow knowing damn well its the same thing then be my guess, but we know youre being dishonest. You think the kid was thinking, "is this creepy guy following me or stalking me?" Your argument is quite silly.
No, you don't see.  You're too stuck on the idea that you're right and thus someone who disagrees with you about it is wrong.  And you're interpreting everything that's said here through that lens.  I mean, you're actually claiming that if one person follows another, that it's actually stalking and that the person being 'stalked' has the right to attack the 'stalker' to defend themselves, simply because they think they're being stalked and threatened.  And that is patently ridiculous.  There is no way to realistically justify attacking someone just because they're following you, especially if they haven't done anything besides follow you (and call someone on the phone).

Quote from: The Gawd
Okay, you just agreed to what I was saying, but are still trying to disagree. You are intellectually dishonest. Fact is he followed the kid with a loaded pistol, and the kid ended up dead. Whether he has a right to carry a concealed pistol or not doesnt give him the right to kill innocent kids. Again your assertion that it does give him that right is intellectually dishonest.
Presumption of innocence, remember?  You can't simply say, "Zimmerman had a loaded gun, Martin wasn't doing anything wrong, therefore Zimmerman committed murder".  That presumes that Zimmerman was guilty.  The mere fact that he had a loaded gun does not remove his presumption of innocence.  You have to actually prove that Zimmerman committed murder beyond a reasonable doubt, you can't simply infer it as you've been doing.  Also, your statement that I'm asserting that Zimmerman had the right to kill innocent kids is another untruth.  I never said any such thing, nor would I.  From the context of the rest of your post, this accusation appears to be based on your dichotomy that someone is either on your side, or they're on the other side.  As you call it, the side of justice and the side of murder.  Well, it isn't quite that cut and dried.

Quote from: The Gawd
Where did I say Zimmerman was committing a crime. You are being intellectually dishonest.
When you say that Zimmerman committed murder, you're saying that he committed a crime, because murder is a crime.  If you didn't mean it that way, then how did you mean it?  And if you don't think he committed a crime, then why are we having this discussion?  I mean, what was the point of this statement?  You've made no bones about the fact that you think Zimmerman should have gone to prison.  Well, they don't put people in prison unless they're convicted of a crime serious enough to warrant a prison sentence.

Quote from: The Gawd
As captain of his neighborhood watch, his duty is to make sure kids like Trayvon get home safe.
This is an oversimplification of what a neighborhood watch actually does (and, in fact, the responsibilities of a neighborhood watch vary greatly even from city to city, let alone state to state).  But now I think I'm starting to understand why you're reacting as you are.

Quote from: The Gawd
Instead he killed Trayvon, failing miserably at the ONE THING HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO. He, as you said, made a stupid choice, his stupid choice resulted in a kid being shot and killed by his hand. The rest is you practicing credulity. I guess you also believe George saved that family too. Give me a break, use your brain and stop being intellectually dishonest.
You really need to stop with the insults and accusations.  It's not helping your case at all, and it's making it unnecessarily difficult for me to respond civilly to you.  The first thing you need to do is understand that accusing me of intellectual dishonesty (not to mention everything else) is not going to fly unless you can show real instances of it.  And you're not.  Not only are you taking what I say out of context, a lot of times you're actually accusing me of things that are not true and not supported by anything I said.  Such as your repeated accusation that I'm trying to "justify Martin's murder", or your statement that I was asserting that Zimmerman had the right to kill innocent kids.

Quote from: The Gawd
Another case of being intellectually dishonest. Is this something you practice at? So look how dumb your argument is; Martin has to wait until Zimmerman is shooting at him or he's trapped in order to defend himself.
That isn't what I said.  This is another instance of you misrepresenting what I say in order to pass me off as intellectually dishonest.  I said that his duty was to escape - and that attacking someone who isn't attacking you is not self-defense.

Quote from: The Gawd
Any smart person (which you are proving not to be)
This is totally uncalled for.  If you cannot leave out the insults, then you have no business being involved in this discussion to begin with.

Quote from: The Gawd
knows that at that point its too late. I cant even believe you would suggest such stupidity. READ THE DAMN LAW THEN APOLOGIZE FOR YOUR NONSENSE http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-law-self-defense-use-of-force.html
You need to read that article yourself before you start trying to lecture me about it.  From the very article you linked:

"Under Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law), a person is justified in the use of non-deadly force in self-defense where the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force."  I don't think anyone can possibly define being followed as an "imminent use of unlawful force".  Now, it's true that there's no legal duty to retreat, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.  I hope you can agree that if Martin had retreated instead of attacking, that he would probably still be alive today.  Which is why I'm saying that he made a stupid decision.

Quote from: The Gawd
Trayvon Martin had the right to defend himself. Period. You are being intellectually and otherwise dishonest suggesting that he didnt and you should search within yourself to determine why youre doing it. Its an ugly side of you.
What he did not have the right to do was attack because Zimmerman was following him for a time.  If Zimmerman had attacked him, or if there had been reasonable cause to believe that such an attack was imminent, then it would have been a different story.  But under the circumstances, I don't think anyone can show that that's the case - and thus the reasonable doubt standard holds.

As far as your comment about this so-called "ugly side" of me, that's all predicated on your belief that I'm being intellectually dishonest.  However, you're consistently making that accusation based on misrepresentations of what I'm saying and things that weren't true to begin with.  And that undercuts your argument rather thoroughly.

Quote from: The Gawd
Youre being intellectually dishonest again. I dont care what youre tired of, I'm tired of "people" vilifying this kid because they have some insecurities about young black males that allows them to accept murders like these as alright.
And what makes you think that I am one of those people?  I really do not appreciate being treated like that, especially when I've actually criticized those viewpoints - in this very thread, no less - for being factually wrong.  What it makes me think is that you're not really taking the time to read what I'm saying; you're just thinking that I'm another person trying to pin the blame on Trayvon Martin, and responding accordingly.

Quote from: The Gawd
The fact that you cant even understand that whether or not Zimmerman did it was not on trial. Thats a known fact.
And when did I ever say anything that suggested that this was in doubt?  This is what I'm talking about - you're responding to what you think I'm writing rather than what I am writing, and thus you're leveling accusations against me that aren't supported by anything I've actually been saying.

Quote from: The Gawd
What was on trial was whether he was justified in his murder. You apparently are of the crowd that thinks it is okay to stalk and murder young black kids. I am of the crowd that thinks if you stalk and kill ANYONE (not in the act of a crime) you have committed a crime and deserve to be in jail.
This is a clear demonstration that you aren't thinking clearly here, otherwise you wouldn't be presenting this as a dichotomy.  There are more positions in this situation than "it's okay to stalk and murder young black kids" and "if you stalk and kill anyone (not in the act of a crime) you have committed a crime and deserve to be in jail".  For example, "it was a stupid pointless tragedy, both of them made stupid choices, and Martin died as a result", which is my position.  The fact that you apparently think it's one or the other suggests you are not thinking rationally about the subject.

Quote from: The Gawd
Even if it was due to you making bad decisions and didnt originally have the intentions of killing, you still killed an innocent person and deserve to be locked up. Anything else and you are attempting to justify a murder.
And just what do you think "justifiable homicide" is?  There are times when the act of killing someone can be legally or morally justified.  Like, say, if someone is straddling you, hitting you in the face repeatedly, and causing your head to hit a concrete sidewalk.  Can you honestly say that if someone were doing that to you, and you shot and killed them (or killed them in some other way), that you committed a crime and deserved to go to prison?

Quote from: The Gawd
No. Again, you are being intellectually dishonest. Zimmerman admitted to stalking and killing Martin. I am not blaming the victim here, the victim is dead. I am on the side of justice, you are regretfully on the side of murder...and attempting to justify it and its sickening.
No, he didn't admit to stalking Martin.  I don't know why you keep insisting that he did.  Following someone is not the same thing as stalking them, and even if there were, it doesn't give the legal justification to attack someone in self-defense for doing it because it doesn't represent an imminent use of force.  Yes, he did kill Martin - after Martin started attacking him.  And under Florida law - note that this is the same page you linked earlier - the use of deadly force is justified if a person believes that it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to themselves or another.  It is not just to prevent someone from committing a crime, as you seem to think it is.

I can accept that you think you're on the side of justice, but this isn't a dichotomy where either someone is on your side, or they're on the side of murder.  You also don't have carte blanche in terms of your behavior here regardless of whether you're right or not.  Frankly, your behavior in this post has been completely uncalled for, not to mention very provocative, and I'm very tired of having untrue accusations leveled at me simply because you think someone is either on your side or the "side of murder".
Changed Change Reason Date
The Gawd being an all-around idiot, and not reading the law July 27, 2013, 12:40:52 PM
wright for civility and refusing to fall into the dichotomy trap July 27, 2013, 02:03:20 AM