whywontgodhealamputees.com

Community Zone => Chatter => Topic started by: LoriPinkAngel on July 13, 2013, 11:10:06 PM

Title: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 13, 2013, 11:10:06 PM
http://www.alternet.org/breaking-george-zimmerman-acquitted-trayvon-martin-case#overlay=admin/content/front-page-editions

Any thoughts?
Pissed me off on my birthday.
Posted the following on facebook:

Tears in my eyes. A young man's life gone because of one ignorant idiot. I heard the definition of manslaughter that they gave to that jury and it doesn't seem that the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But the real, honest, common sense truth we all know is GZ had no business getting out of his vehicle. I think a large percentage of teens would have confronted him, maybe even kicked his ass. If he stayed in his car where he belonged no one would be dead. I am heartbroken that he is not being held accountable.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Astreja on July 13, 2013, 11:59:00 PM
But the real, honest, common sense truth we all know is GZ had no business getting out of his vehicle. I think a large percentage of teens would have confronted him, maybe even kicked his ass. If he stayed in his car where he belonged no one would be dead. I am heartbroken that he is not being held accountable.

That's essentially it -- If Zimmerman had not followed Martin, Martin would be alive.  If Zimmerman had stayed in his car, Martin would be alive.  He chose to act in a way that caused a death and I expected to see a manslaughter verdict at the very least.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nam on July 14, 2013, 12:01:18 AM
If Martin was white, and Zimmerman was black I bet he would've been charged with 2nd degree murder. But I may be wrong.

-Nam
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: William on July 14, 2013, 12:07:59 AM
Zimmerman is a good Catholic boy too - probably start getting job offers from "gated communities" to train their neighbourhood watch volunteers  &)
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: magicmiles on July 14, 2013, 12:39:52 AM
Be interested to hear what reason Z gave for being outside his vehicle. Has this been reported?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nam on July 14, 2013, 12:45:16 AM
He had to pee.

;)

-Nam
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: ParkingPlaces on July 14, 2013, 12:48:21 AM
Sure is nice that we don't have to take responsibility for anything any more. All we have to say is that we were suspicious because of our prejudices, so we did whatever we did and shouldn't get in trouble. Hey, just because someone ended up dead doesn't mean that our errors were bad or anything.

We need a new crime: Guilty of being so stupid that someone ends up dead. Or guilty of being so paranoid that someone ends up dead. We could call it "First degree fearslaughter ".

In the meantime, I'm gonna figure out who I can kill while being suspicious. That'll be the new fad now, and I wanna get in on it.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 14, 2013, 01:29:31 AM
But the real, honest, common sense truth we all know is GZ had no business getting out of his vehicle. I think a large percentage of teens would have confronted him, maybe even kicked his ass. If he stayed in his car where he belonged no one would be dead. I am heartbroken that he is not being held accountable.

That's essentially it -- If Zimmerman had not followed Martin, Martin would be alive.  If Zimmerman had stayed in his car, Martin would be alive.  He chose to act in a way that caused a death and I expected to see a manslaughter verdict at the very least.

The definition of manslaughter they were given was very similar to self defense - when he fired the gun he had to have reasonable expectation that his life was in danger.  No one proved Trayvon was not kicking his ass at that point.  I think if "Man II" had been on the table they could have gotten a conviction.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 14, 2013, 01:33:10 AM

In the meantime, I'm gonna figure out who I can kill while being suspicious. That'll be the new fad now, and I wanna get in on it.

Some dark skinned kids keep cutting through my backyard & making my dog yap.  I fear they may have deadly Skittles.  Now that I know that it is legal to shoot black children I may have to take action.   :police:   :'(
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Timo on July 14, 2013, 04:52:41 AM
I think that this is an especially sad day for any of us with young black men and boys in our lives.  This is a sad day for those of us that love them.  For those of us that have been them.  That are them.

I can't help but think about every time my mother told me to be careful.  And talking to her last night, it broke my heart a little to hear her say those words again.  I just hope that I can hold it together next time I have to tell one of these young, beautiful black children that they need to be careful.

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 14, 2013, 05:51:55 AM
Quote
That you, on your own, decided George Zimmerman's guilt or innocence based on your sense of whether or not he killed Trayvon Martin is fine. It is your opinion. But when those six women, exhausted and perhaps frustrated, emerge from their sequestration to announce their verdict, remember that your disagreement is worth little to nothing. You didn't see the case they did. And the case they saw was the only one that matters.

Full op-ed piece:
http://news.yahoo.com/zimmerman-jury-better-able-judge-fate-162313256.html
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: One Above All on July 14, 2013, 07:45:00 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-george-zimmerman-not-guilty-20130713,0,2561757.story

What are your opinions?

Found on AF.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: magicmiles on July 14, 2013, 07:54:41 AM
Duplicate thread OAA:

whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25192.msg562958/topicseen.html#msg562958
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: One Above All on July 14, 2013, 07:56:03 AM
I noticed that a few minutes after posting this thread, but now there's nothing I can do about it. Sorry.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: magicmiles on July 14, 2013, 08:03:20 AM
I doubt the forum will self destruct.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: One Above All on July 14, 2013, 08:08:50 AM
I doubt the forum will self destruct.

That's what they said when I tried to enter a church, back when I was Lucifer.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 14, 2013, 08:33:26 AM
What is your opinion?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: One Above All on July 14, 2013, 08:39:04 AM
What is your opinion?


From what I understand, Mr. Zimmerman followed Trayvon, against the advice of the police (911), because he thought Trayvon looked "suspicious". This, in itself, shows how bigoted he was. He then proceeded to shoot the kid.
IMO he should have been sent to jail, as any other person would/should have.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 14, 2013, 08:44:08 AM
Quote
That you, on your own, decided George Zimmerman's guilt or innocence based on your sense of whether or not he killed Trayvon Martin is fine. It is your opinion. But when those six women, exhausted and perhaps frustrated, emerge from their sequestration to announce their verdict, remember that your disagreement is worth little to nothing. You didn't see the case they did. And the case they saw was the only one that matters.

Full op-ed piece:
http://news.yahoo.com/zimmerman-jury-better-able-judge-fate-162313256.html

I was most dismayed that the defense was allowed to use that video "illustration" in the closing that was not allowed as evidence.  It clearly portrayed Trayvon as the aggressor.  But it was fiction.  It was only one man's story with no proof and very inflammatory and I think it convicted Trayvon of his own death.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nick on July 14, 2013, 09:21:20 AM
I guess it is on to TV interviews and the big book deals.  Murder does pay off.  And it can't be because of race.  Remember, the Supreme Court said race was over.  That is why we no longer needed the Voting Rights Act.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: ParkingPlaces on July 14, 2013, 09:29:23 AM
I've thought about this some more. I still conclude:

Zimmerman was wrong about his suspicions.
He was wrong to call 911.
He was wrong to follow the kid.
He was wrong to get out of his car and confront the kid.
He was wrong to kill Trayvon.

And, if Trayvon had instead been white and named Trevor, Zimmerman would be spending the rest of his life in jail.

We still have a lot of work to do on this prejudice thing. And a lot of work to do on fear. Until those two things can be eliminated, we will continue to have tragedies such as this one. And continue to have a divided nation where half are shocked and hurt about the verdict, and the other half elated (I don't know the percentages but it closer to half than a 99/1 split).

In the meantime, our incompetence as a society and as individuals will continue to kill on a regular basis. And our incompetence as prosecutors and jurors,  and our plethora of sensation-based "journalists", will accurately reflect the state of our country.

The only thing Trayvon was guilty of was being born several hundred years too soon. He missed slavery, but not 2012.



Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 14, 2013, 09:52:55 AM
I guess it is on to TV interviews and the big book deals.  Murder does pay off.  And it can't be because of race.  Remember, the Supreme Court said race was over.  That is why we no longer needed the Voting Rights Act.

Am I way off in saying this isn't all about race?  This is somewhat about men and their penises?!?  A little man wants to show how big his is and persue a boy that he finds suspicious.  A teenaged boy wants to show how big his is when confronted by a "creepy ass cracker."  A District Attorney  wants to show how big his is by bringing charges bigger than he can prove. The Defense Attorney showed how big his was making the victim look like a perp. Nobody wins.  A boy is Dead.  A mother is forever heartbroken.  A man has blood on his hands.  A legal system is tainted.  A nation is divided.  Six women  had to make a heart wrenching decision.  Because some men wanted to show their dicks.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: shnozzola on July 14, 2013, 10:27:26 AM
My wife followed the trial closely - she is watching TV and ranting as I type.  As a member of the jury, with only what I have followed, I would have chose manslaughter charges, although I agree with the wisdom against "an eye for an eye."

After hearing that George told the police dispatcher that he was watching a quote - fucking coon - unquote, that would have sealed my vote as a juror.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nick on July 14, 2013, 11:47:39 AM
Well, he will have the pleasure of watching over his back for the rest of his life.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Willie on July 14, 2013, 12:18:01 PM
Some things to keep in mind.

1. A "not guilty" verdict is not a positive declaration that one did not commit a crime. It only means that the jury believed that there was a reasonable doubt. "He probably did it" is not adequate grounds for a conviction. This aspect of our legal system is a very important principle, though it comes at the cost that sometimes the guilty will go unpunished.

2. We, members of the general public, were not in that courtroom hearing the entirety of every witness testimony, every tidbit of evidence, and every legal argument for the whole duration of this case. What we heard were just whatever tidbits someone thought worthy to highlight on various news and opinion shows and websites, and that choice is as likely to be driven by ratings potential as by informational value. What we heard was lots and lots of opinion, both informed and otherwise, both rational and emotional (but mostly emotional, from both sides). What we heard was endless speculation, most with little or no supporting evidence. The reality is that we are in no position to have even the slightest credibility for rendering a judgement. Can any of you say with certainty that you would not have reached the same decision if you had been a member of that jury?

3. Zimmerman did a lot of things wrong, but being an idiot and an asshole is not, in itself, a crime. Nor should it be the basis of judging one guilty. The charges that had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt were murder or manslaughter, not racism, profiling, stupidity, machismo, having some kind of inferiority complex, or just general douche-baggery.

4. Racial bias in other cases is irrelevant. It may be true that many cases are judged wrongly due to racism, but only if racism can be shown to have biased the judge or jury in this case does it have any relevance to this case.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: ParkingPlaces on July 14, 2013, 12:27:06 PM
My wife followed the trial closely - she is watching TV and ranting as I type.  As a member of the jury, with only what I have followed, I would have chose manslaughter charges, although I agree with the wisdom against "an eye for an eye."

After hearing that George told the police dispatcher that he was watching a quote - fucking coon - unquote, that would have sealed my vote as a juror.

Does this mean you are prejudiced against prejudice? I am. That would get us both shot in about 20 states.

And Willie, you are probably right about the legal details, but that only means that our legal system is somewhat lacking in certain areas. How shocking.

The man made bad choices, based on his preconceived notions and prejudices and fantasies of power tripping, and someone else died. If our legal system can't handle that, it needs to voluntarily step down.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nick on July 14, 2013, 01:53:02 PM
Any bets on how long it will take him to thank God when he does speak?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Ambassador Pony on July 14, 2013, 03:38:41 PM
I had been watching this from the outside, and I have a few thoughts:

1) I see the same story / drama play out on American TV over and over again.
2) I can see how Zimmerman is not guilty under the existing law.
2b) If you (not you you, I mean the country "you") want guns and "stand your ground" laws, then you have to accept that this was all legal.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: JeffPT on July 14, 2013, 04:34:10 PM
Quote
That you, on your own, decided George Zimmerman's guilt or innocence based on your sense of whether or not he killed Trayvon Martin is fine. It is your opinion. But when those six women, exhausted and perhaps frustrated, emerge from their sequestration to announce their verdict, remember that your disagreement is worth little to nothing. You didn't see the case they did. And the case they saw was the only one that matters.

This is my feeling too. I didn't pay close attention to the case, but if the jurors sat through the whole thing and decided he wasn't guilty, who are we to think otherwise? Why do some people think they are better qualified to decide innocence or guilt with far less information than the jury had?  It doesn't matter how it looks from our limited, media-fed position; the people with the facts saw it the way they did.

This paragraph is a bit misleading though, I think.  It looked to me that nobody was trying to figure out whether GZ killed TM.  That seemed the given. They were trying to decide self defense versus murder. Or did I miss something?



Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 14, 2013, 06:01:03 PM
This is my feeling too. I didn't pay close attention to the case, but if the jurors sat through the whole thing and decided he wasn't guilty, who are we to think otherwise? Why do some people think they are better qualified to decide innocence or guilt with far less information than the jury had?  It doesn't matter how it looks from our limited, media-fed position; the people with the facts saw it the way they did.

It isn't just that, it's also the other way around: there are quite a few things that the public at large generally knew about but that the members of the jury didn't, because the judge excluded them from evidence.  Same thing happened with the OJ Simpson case, and in fact, in all likelihood, it happens with any case that carries any significant degree of public interest.

Quote
This paragraph is a bit misleading though, I think.  It looked to me that nobody was trying to figure out whether GZ killed TM.  That seemed the given. They were trying to decide self defense versus murder. Or did I miss something?

No, you didn't miss anything.  I just think that that part was badly worded.  No, it was never in question as to whether Zimmerman killed Martin.  He did.  The question was whether it was justified or not.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on July 14, 2013, 09:00:38 PM
As a female, I have felt intimidated and threatened many, many times in my life by random men walking near me after dark. Sometimes the men even say things that make me feel more afraid. I wonder how long it would take to repeal "stand your ground" laws if women and girls all over the country, based on their feelings,  began shooting men and boys on sight. >:(
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 14, 2013, 09:22:23 PM
As a female, I have felt intimidated and threatened many, many times in my life by random men walking near me after dark. Sometimes the men even say things that make me feel more afraid. I wonder how long it would take to repeal "stand your ground" laws if women and girls all over the country, based on their feelings,  began shooting men and boys on sight. >:(

It should be justified as they are armed with deadly fists and penises.

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 15, 2013, 06:01:41 AM
As a female, I have felt intimidated and threatened many, many times in my life by random men walking near me after dark. Sometimes the men even say things that make me feel more afraid. I wonder how long it would take to repeal "stand your ground" laws if women and girls all over the country, based on their feelings,  began shooting men and boys on sight. >:(

What is your understanding of what a "Stand Your Ground" law actually is?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: relativetruth on July 15, 2013, 07:18:18 AM

3. Zimmerman did a lot of things wrong, but being an idiot and an asshole is not, in itself, a crime. Nor should it be the basis of judging one guilty. The charges that had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt were murder or manslaughter, not racism, profiling, stupidity, machismo, having some kind of inferiority complex, or just general douche-baggery.


Tactically the defense were correct in not calling Zimmerman to the stand.
To see him squirming under prosecution questing would have definitely swayed the jury the other way.

I think that the jury was not prejudiced in any way but they still came up with the wrong verdict (In my opinion).

How did that happen?

In my opinion six jurors are too few to decide a case of this magnitude.
The state presented NO physical evidence to absolutely (within reasonable doubt) disprove Zimmerman's case.

Maybe this case may highlight race issues, in the USA, enough for real changes to go through congress.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: stuffin on July 15, 2013, 08:46:06 AM
It should be justified as they are armed with deadly fists and penises.

You got that right,

My penis is extra deadly.


 ;D

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: screwtape on July 15, 2013, 10:28:42 AM
good op-ed by Ta-Nehisi Coates.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/on-the-killing-of-trayvon-martin-by-george-zimmerman/277773/

It was a very difficult case to prove and unlikely to find him guilty. 

I think if you ignore everything that lead up to the fight, Zimmerman was acting in self defense.  However, context is everything.  He intentionally put himself in that situation, knowing he had a gun, despite what the police instructed him to do.  And because of that, an innocent kid is dead.  I think he is morally responsible for that.  I am not shocked that he was not held legally responsible. 

Martin should have called the police himself to report a creep in an SUV stalking him.  I understand why a black male teen would not trust the police to handle it.  But he might be alive had he done so.

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: epidemic on July 15, 2013, 10:37:43 AM
What is your opinion?


From what I understand, Mr. Zimmerman followed Trayvon, against the advice of the police (911), because he thought Trayvon looked "suspicious". This, in itself, shows how bigoted he was. He then proceeded to shoot the kid.
IMO he should have been sent to jail, as any other person would/should have.

Actually that is not exactly in evidence.   Zimmerman definitely followed treyvon (completely legal) after following him aroung behind the buildings the police suggested that Zimmerman did not "need to do that" there was no order for him to cease pursuit.  However Zimmerman did tell the dispatcher that he would comply.  His breathing returned to normal and he continued to walk around behind the building while talking to the officer.  He told the 911 operator at the time that he would meet police and that he did not know the exact address of where he was at that moment. 

This case really all boils down to who started the physical altercation.  Did GZ grab Treyvon or punch him?  I doubt it because Zimmerman was a bouncer and likely would have injured TM however beyond the gunshot TM had only injuries to his fists.  Zimmermans injuries appear to be that of someone completely taken off guard as he claims.  At the very least zimmermans story jives with the evidence.  Why do you think zimmerman was clearly the aggressor.

Zimmerman injuries Broken nose,  lacerations to back of the head.


GZ got out of his car competely legal
TM ran completely legal
TM hid ? competely legal
GZ or TM began a physical altercation This is the first illegal activity on either part but we don't know who it was.
TM or GZ sreamed (indicating submission with TM on top my guess is that GZ screams like a bitch when pinned to the ground :) the person in the dominent position does not usualy scream IMO)
GZ responded to what a reasonable man would consider a life threatening or great bodily harm situation.

Who began the altercation???  I can only guess but to me it looks like GZ was taken off guard by TM.  Did that begin with Zimmerman shoving him or grabbing him?  I don't know there is 0 evidence of this.

To me what we have is a tragedy where two people made choices that when combined resulted in a life threating situation. 

TM told his girlfriend that he refused to run. (to me that indicates to me a mindset where he may be pissed and is gonna be a man standing his ground)

This case should never have gone to trial.  We now know why the grand jury was not somoned it never would have made it past Grand Jury muster.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: epidemic on July 15, 2013, 10:47:01 AM
As a female, I have felt intimidated and threatened many, many times in my life by random men walking near me after dark. Sometimes the men even say things that make me feel more afraid. I wonder how long it would take to repeal "stand your ground" laws if women and girls all over the country, based on their feelings,  began shooting men and boys on sight. >:(

Stand your ground was never a part of this case. 

Not only was it not tried.   It also does not apply at all.  Zimmerman was not in a postion to stand his ground.  He was on the ground under a superior aggressor who was beating him senseless(some would say possibly causing him great bodily harm). 

This whole case hinges on who started the fight.  Following someone does not count.  Had a gun never been drawn TM would probably be in jail because he was beating someone for following him.  That would be a weak self defense case.  Now all bets are off if GZ grabbed him, or hit him but facts of the case are thin there.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Truth OT on July 15, 2013, 11:48:52 AM
My approach from the jump was to wait and gather as much info as possible before drawing any conclusions. Along the way though, there was so much talk as bits and pieces of info were released that my thoughts shifted from "I can't believe they aren't gonna charge this man" to "they may not need to charge him as this is at best a civil suit" to "he needs to be punished" and then finally to "justice was served and I can't find any fault in George Zimmerman based on the evidence we have to go on."
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: ParkingPlaces on July 15, 2013, 11:51:03 AM
As a female, I have felt intimidated and threatened many, many times in my life by random men walking near me after dark. Sometimes the men even say things that make me feel more afraid. I wonder how long it would take to repeal "stand your ground" laws if women and girls all over the country, based on their feelings,  began shooting men and boys on sight. >:(

Stand your ground was never a part of this case. 

Not only was it not tried.   It also does not apply at all.  Zimmerman was not in a postion to stand his ground.  He was on the ground under a superior aggressor who was beating him senseless(some would say possibly causing him great bodily harm). 

This whole case hinges on who started the fight.  Following someone does not count.  Had a gun never been drawn TM would probably be in jail because he was beating someone for following him.  That would be a weak self defense case.  Now all bets are off if GZ grabbed him, or hit him but facts of the case are thin there.

While I sort of understand the reasons for the jury's verdict, given the information they had, but I have to ask you this. If I followed you just because you were the wrong color, and called the police and told them I was following a suspicious person using a perceived racist remark (assuming the two of us were different races) and I tried stopping you and you, suddenly threatened, jumped me in what you saw as self defense and I shot you, you wouldn't mind?

Something has to change in our legal system so that a suspicious person like Zimmerman, who may have called him a "fucking coon", (though Zimmerman said what he actually said was "fucking cold") but that apparently caused Trayvon to go after him, and that was that. Zimmerman did say to the dispatcher a little earlier that "fucking punks" like that "always get away".

He was also told by the 911 operator not to follow Trayvon. But he did. He wasn't breaking any law, but he was demonstrating no judgment, maturity or decency. Not something to be proud of, even if he didn't also shoot the kid.

Keep in mind that Trayvon had committed no crime, and nobody but Zimmerman was suspicious of him.

There is no way to call what happened right. Unless it's okay for me to shoot you whenever I please. Because by my standards, you sound mighty suspicious.

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Truth OT on July 15, 2013, 11:53:56 AM
  Had a gun never been drawn TM would probably be in jail because he was beating someone for following him.  That would be a weak self defense case.  Now all bets are off if GZ grabbed him, or hit him but facts of the case are thin there.

I doubt that very seriously assuming Trayvon would have gotton a fair shake from the cops that arrived, (but that's a whole other story). From Zimmerman's own words, Trayvon punched him in the nose AFTER seeing Zimmerman reach towards his pockets. Trayvon may very well have felt that Zimmerman was reaching for a weapon and then reacted in self defense by striking Zimmerman to protect himself from a strange man with a weapon. 
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: ParkingPlaces on July 15, 2013, 12:07:19 PM
  Had a gun never been drawn TM would probably be in jail because he was beating someone for following him.  That would be a weak self defense case.  Now all bets are off if GZ grabbed him, or hit him but facts of the case are thin there.

I doubt that very seriously assuming Trayvon would have gotton a fair shake from the cops that arrived, (but that's a whole other story). From Zimmerman's own words, Trayvon punched him in the nose AFTER seeing Zimmerman reach towards his pockets. Trayvon may very well have felt that Zimmerman was reaching for a weapon and then reacted in self defense by striking Zimmerman to protect himself from a strange man with a weapon.

Which, by the way, is how cops get out of going to jail for shooting unarmed citizens. All they have to say is that they "thought" the dead person was reaching for a gun. If that is what Trayvon thought was happening, then he was acting in acceptable self defense, just as cops do regularly.

Oh, unless having double standards is important. Then Trayvon was violating those, for sure, and he certainly had to die.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 15, 2013, 12:15:17 PM
Which, by the way, is how cops get out of going to jail for shooting unarmed citizens. All they have to say is that they "thought" the dead person was reaching for a gun. If that is what Trayvon thought was happening, then he was acting in acceptable self defense, just as cops do regularly.

Oh, unless having double standards is important. Then Trayvon was violating those, for sure, and he certainly had to die.

Yes, you're right, there is a double-standard, and it's a very pronounced one.  If Zimmerman had been a cop, it's unlikely that charges would have even been filed.  Law enforcement officers are afforded much broader discretion when it comes to killing people (and many other matters as well, for that matter).
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Truth OT on July 15, 2013, 12:29:23 PM
I have to ask you this. If I followed you just because you were the wrong color, and called the police and told them I was following a suspicious person using a perceived racist remark (assuming the two of us were different races) and I tried stopping you and you, suddenly threatened, jumped me in what you saw as self defense and I shot you, you wouldn't mind?

According to the police report and the info that was given in court, the scenario above isn't what exactly happened. Zimmerman told police he found Trayvon suspicious because he allegedly saw him standing in front of a residence on a rainy night looking around. Zimmerman found that to be odd behavior so he called a non emergency line to report what he saw. He drove past Trayvon and parked further up the road at a community club house and according to the story. While parked there he claimed that Trayvon approached and circled his truck checking him out, then proceeded to run/skip out of sight between buildings. All this happened while Zims was on the phone with the dispatcher. At this point Zims said he drove down a street to see if he could see where Trayvon went in order to report his whereabouts to the dispatcher. He apparently saw him, parted his truck again, then proceeded to follow Trayvon with the intent of being able to intentify where he was to the officers that were on the way. He then says that he lost sight of him and that is then the dispatcher asked was he following Trayvon and said not to. Zimmerman said "okay", hung up, and proceeded to where he was to rendevous with the officers. On the way to the rendevous point, he says he unknowingly passed Trayvon who was hiding in the bushes and at that point Trayvon (who probably felt threatened), hopped out and asked Zims "what's your f'in problem?" Zimmerman says he said he didn't have a problem and proceeded to reach for his phone in his pocket so he could call the po-po. Upon seeing Zims reaching for something, Trayvon is said to have punched Zims in the nose and a fight that Trayvon quickly got the better of ensued. According to Zims, after finding himself beneath Trayvon with his head being banged against the cement, he tried to scoot onto the grass. In the procees his jacket came up revealing his gun and according to him, Trayvon noticed it and went for it but Zims got to it first and fired the fately shot that ended a young man's life prematurely.

If that is in fact what happened, I find no fault in the behavior of either person. The situation escalated into a "bomb first" scenario and if it's my life or your life, I'ma bomb first. Both parties apparently felt they were being threatened and they acted accordingly.

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Truth OT on July 15, 2013, 12:39:54 PM
Yes, you're right, there is a double-standard, and it's a very pronounced one.  If Zimmerman had been a cop, it's unlikely that charges would have even been filed.  Law enforcement officers are afforded much broader discretion when it comes to killing people (and many other matters as well, for that matter).

Based on the evidence that came forth, I can see why the initial ruling was not to file charges on Zims. They had nothing upon which to convict him legally, so filing charges would be a waste of time and money.

(off topic a bit but..)
For me, the double standard is evidenced based on race as well as social and/or economic status. If the scenario were the same with the exceptions being Zimmerman was a black guy and Treyvon was a young white boy, history shows us that the likelihood that Zimmerman would have been arrested and charged would be greatly increased. That conviction, that belief, is what leads to the outrage being exhibited in minority communities over this case. It appears to us that the justice system plays favorites and does right (to an extent) to the Zimmerman's of the world while giving a damn and failing the Trayvon Martins and Marissa Alexanders of the world consistantly. In the eyes of most folks I run into the perception that their is unending discrimination is the reality people of live with and are frustrated with having accepted.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nick on July 15, 2013, 03:41:51 PM
Zippy is going to get his gun back.  Bet his application for the police academy is filled out and waiting for a stamp.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: magicmiles on July 15, 2013, 04:07:48 PM
You know, reading through this thread I see the same sort of "tar them all with the same brush" mentality regarding police as that objected to about black youth.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on July 15, 2013, 05:00:23 PM
Police officers do not have an easy job. They often have to make life and death decisions, always with too little information. That is why I am nervous about everyone and his dog carrying a gun. Average people are not trained in how to make life and death decisions with access to firearms. Just look at the "gun fail" threads to see how often people screw up with guns and shoot each other by mistake.

Even police sometimes make mistakes, though they are trained.  (Remember the police in NY who fired at a suspect on a crowded street and missed him although he was a few feet away? Passersby were hit by ricocheting bullets.)

Why the hell would Zimmerman think he could police his neighborhood? He did not even need to be outside his house, following anyone. What did he really think he was going to accomplish? Trayvon was not breaking any laws--unless it really is a crime to walk around while black. Z. seemed to be stalking him for no good reason. I don't think he meant to kill that kid, but he did have a loaded gun on his person. And the kid was not armed. It seems to me that Z. was looking for a confrontation. I think he miscalculated how scared Trayvon was and how hard he would fight when threatened.

If there had been no gun involved, there might still have been a fight, but it is far less likely that one person would be dead.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: ParkingPlaces on July 15, 2013, 05:49:17 PM
You know, reading through this thread I see the same sort of "tar them all with the same brush" mentality regarding police as that objected to about black youth.

You are of course right, magic, but we seem to be having a long string of cop-related overzealousness. And while, like all other reports of bad things, many of us ignore that in total there are not many reports of police abuse, those reports that do surface often times absolutely suck.

In a recent case, police investigators knew that drugs were being shipped through a UPS center, with false addresses that an insider would steal rather than delivering. Yet they decided to raid the house of one of the false addresses. The house was that of a highly respected major in a small town, and they broke in, shot his dogs, arrested him and made a huge mess. They never apologized, they never explained why they thought they had to do that, they never got permission from the town itself to do the raid, or otherwise did anything right. And they are getting off scott free. The general feeling in America since 9/11 has been one of dwindling freedoms and the need to duck. Toss in also dwindling economic opportunity and generic abuse from the some of the richer folks on the block (note that I did not say all) and we are more likely than not to strike out at someone. And police who shoot innocents become an easy target. Which we at times generalize to mean all police rather than just those that were guilty.

Our bad. But there are others who are doing bad too. It will not be fixed by the victims and potential victims merely stating their concerns in a less generic way. Actually, it probably won't be solved. We don't have any mechanisms for doing things right in this country.

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: magicmiles on July 15, 2013, 06:11:23 PM
You know, reading through this thread I see the same sort of "tar them all with the same brush" mentality regarding police as that objected to about black youth.

You are of course right, magic

I am so sick of reading that on WWGHA...
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: magicmiles on July 15, 2013, 06:14:23 PM
And fair comment PP. I wasn't having a dig, just wanted to mention it. I can totally understand how it happens.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Odin on July 15, 2013, 07:50:13 PM
I wonder how long it would take to repeal "stand your ground" laws if women and girls all over the country, based on their feelings,  began shooting men and boys on sight. >:(

Do you think you would be charged with a crime if one of those men had jumped on you, started banging your head onto the concrete, and you had drawn a gun and killed him?

I really doubt it, but I could be wrong.

In my concealed carry course, we were taught the law in my state:

Verbal abuse can be met with verbal retaliation.  Pushing can be met with pushing back.  Fisticuffs can be met with fisticuffs.  Deadly force can be met with deadly force.

If one of the men had jumped on you and started to apply what I considered to be deadly force, by law, as a bystander, I could draw a gun and kill him.  Would you rather me keep my distance and plead, "Please don't hurt her?"

Odin, Armed King of the Gods
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Graybeard on July 15, 2013, 07:55:52 PM
Quote from: pian

Full op-ed piece:
http://news.yahoo.com/zimmerman-jury-better-able-judge-fate-162313256.html
[/quote
Well-written. Case closed. Nothing to debate here. Please move along.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nick on July 15, 2013, 08:35:41 PM
From now on those with the guns rule.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Quesi on July 15, 2013, 10:09:06 PM
I learned something today that I didn't know.  And I'm really mad I didn't know it.

Much mockery was made of the testimony by Rachel Jeantel, who was on the phone with Trayvon while he was being stalked.  She was not articulate enough.  And no one understood what she was saying. 

But the one thing we all heard about was that Trayvon had told her he was being followed by a CREEPY ASS CRACKER.  Much was made about this!  Trayvon wasn't innocent!  Cracker?  Cracker?  He was the racist. 

But really.  No one was listening to Rachel.  She didn't quote Trayvon as saying he was being followed by a creepy-ass cracker.   She said quoted him as saying he was being followed by a creepy ass-cracker.   Apparently, ass cracker, or butt cracker, is one who performs anal sex. 

Everyone heard the word cracker.  AH HA!!!  See Trayvon must be the racist!  And no one heard what she said next.  She said that Trayvon knew he was being stalked, and thought that he was going to be sexually assaulted. 

 http://youtu.be/x78artldN2Y

Everyone was having so much fun mocking her, that they were not even listening to her. [1]

This kid, in the last moments of his life, knew he was being stalked, and thought he was going to be raped. 

And the prosecution didn't pick up on it.  And the media didn't pick up on it.  And everyone heard the word cracker, and no one heard anything else. 

Now, if this point had been brought up, perhaps it might have explained the boo boo on Zimmerman's nose. 

How terrifying the last minutes of this kid's life must have been. 
 1. And if anyone on this forum listens to this piece and mocks her, I will give you negative karma - which I don't do very often
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 15, 2013, 11:21:35 PM
I know we do get sound bytes for ratings sake but I really hurt for that girl when the defense was cross examining her.  They appeared to be going out of their way to belittle her and make her look stupid.  The snide questions about whether she spoke English in Kindergarten, whether she could read cursive.  Grilling her about her statements.  I don't know about anybody else but I don't remember verbatim conversations I had last week, let alone last February.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: magicmiles on July 15, 2013, 11:31:13 PM
Quesi, I'll have to wait till I get home to listen to the video. But I have to tell you, my immediate reaction is why the hell would Martin think Zimmerman was going to rape him? Seems like a strange suspicion to have.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 15, 2013, 11:52:23 PM
Just caught an interview of Rachel Jeantel with Piers Morgan.  She is far more articulate with a patient interviewer.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 16, 2013, 05:56:57 AM
As a female, I have felt intimidated and threatened many, many times in my life by random men walking near me after dark. Sometimes the men even say things that make me feel more afraid. I wonder how long it would take to repeal "stand your ground" laws if women and girls all over the country, based on their feelings,  began shooting men and boys on sight. >:(

What is your understanding of what a "Stand Your Ground" law actually is?

Bump... NGFM, please get to this when you have a moment.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Quesi on July 16, 2013, 06:25:32 AM
Quesi, I'll have to wait till I get home to listen to the video. But I have to tell you, my immediate reaction is why the hell would Martin think Zimmerman was going to rape him? Seems like a strange suspicion to have.

You know MM, maybe he didn't fully embrace the fact that he was a scary, suspicious looking person who deserved to have his every movement scrutinized. 

Maybe he saw a "creepy" man who was clearly stalking him, and he was trying to figure out why. 

Maybe he didn't say to himself, "well, I'm a scary looking black kid in a hoodie, and the guy who is following me is probably just a good guy who justifiably wants to keep the neighborhood safe from people who look like me." 

Maybe those thoughts didn't occur to him. 

He knew he was being stalked.  Observed.  Followed.  He was alone and vulnerable on a dark, rainy night.  Why?  Why? Why would a grown man in a car be stalking him?  Not to rob him.  He was a high school kid, and he didn't have anything that would be of value to an adult man in a car. 

Why do creepy adult men follow kids on dark nights?

My daughter knows there are "bad guys" out there, and that she should never go near a car or van if someone says they have candy to share or kittens to show her, and that she is NEVER to walk away with someone she doesn't know, even if they ask for help looking for lost puppies or anything like that.  She knows if someone is following her, she should shout "Why are you following me?  I don't know you!"  She knows that there are some "bad guys" who might try to do bad things.  She told me once, she thinks the bad guys might capture her and come to our home and take away "Pinkie" her beloved pink stuffed dog, and then he would be gone forever.  She can't imagine anything worse than that.   But she is a full decade younger than Trayvon was when he died, and a decade ago, Trayvon probably had more innocent ideas of what "bad guys" do when they "catch" you. 

But what do the "bad guys" of everyone's nightmares do when they catch you? 

Listen to her testimony.  She is not strategically creating an argument to be used by the prosecution.  She is struggling to remember the words in the blur of that horrible night.  She struggles over the words, but once they finish badgering her about her pronunciation and making her say the phrase over and over again, she becomes very clear about what the words meant. 

He might be a rapist.  And no one heard that.  No one latched onto that. 
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 16, 2013, 07:08:20 AM
Listen to her testimony.

I did.  Or I tried to.  Someone appears to have edited the audio whenever she said the word "cracker", which is obviously rather problematic.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Quesi on July 16, 2013, 07:25:27 AM
Listen to her testimony.

I did.  Or I tried to.  Someone appears to have edited the audio whenever she said the word "cracker", which is obviously rather problematic.

It is a Fox News video.  They did not want to subject their viewers to the offensive racial slur "cracker."  But they had no problem with the word "ass." 

Of course, if they understood the phrase to be ass-cracker, (as in one who goes for the crack in the ass) they might have edited it differently. 

Now if she was quoting him as making a racial slur, why did she suddenly start talking about rape?  That does not make sense.  It seems like a non-sequitur. 

But if she was saying creepy ass-cracker, rather than creepy-ass cracker, her next sentence makes sense. 
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: epidemic on July 16, 2013, 08:19:29 AM
I learned something today that I didn't know.  And I'm really mad I didn't know it.

Much mockery was made of the testimony by Rachel Jeantel, who was on the phone with Trayvon while he was being stalked.  She was not articulate enough.  And no one understood what she was saying. 

But the one thing we all heard about was that Trayvon had told her he was being followed by a CREEPY ASS CRACKER.  Much was made about this!  Trayvon wasn't innocent!  Cracker?  Cracker?  He was the racist. 

But really.  No one was listening to Rachel.  She didn't quote Trayvon as saying he was being followed by a creepy-ass cracker.   She said quoted him as saying he was being followed by a creepy ass-cracker.   Apparently, ass cracker, or butt cracker, is one who performs anal sex. 

Everyone heard the word cracker.  AH HA!!!  See Trayvon must be the racist!  And no one heard what she said next.  She said that Trayvon knew he was being stalked, and thought that he was going to be sexually assaulted. 

 http://youtu.be/x78artldN2Y

Everyone was having so much fun mocking her, that they were not even listening to her. [1]

This kid, in the last moments of his life, knew he was being stalked, and thought he was going to be raped. 

And the prosecution didn't pick up on it.  And the media didn't pick up on it.  And everyone heard the word cracker, and no one heard anything else. 

Now, if this point had been brought up, perhaps it might have explained the boo boo on Zimmerman's nose. 

How terrifying the last minutes of this kid's life must have been.
 1. And if anyone on this forum listens to this piece and mocks her, I will give you negative karma - which I don't do very often

I guess that is one possible read.  Another read is that he called him a creapy ass cracker and meant Cracker in the sense we all thought.  Is there a lot of male rapes in the area.   Is the news reporting on the serial "creepy Ass-Cracker" case?  I don't know how common the term ass-cracker is among Trayvons generation but I have never heard it and never heard it used to defend his statements until now.  So of the hundreds of threads I have read on the net not once did I stumble on this.

Treyvon was not in mortal danger until he attacked and attempted to murder zimmerman.   Zimmerman was in real danger because someone was bouncing his head off concrete a real and present, not imagined danger.  Calling a broken nose a booboo does not remove the fact that his brain was being bounced against the skull in such a way as death or serious bodily harm is a very real possibility.   Did george have to wait until he was unconscious to pull his gun,  perhaps a skull fracture or 2 would have been acceptable?

I still vote for tragedy not criminal. 

Let me bang your head against the concrete and tell me how you feel about the situation?  If you had a knife, gun or other would you use it to stop me? If not when would you choose to use deadly force?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: William on July 16, 2013, 08:54:03 AM
Treyvon was not in mortal danger until he attacked and attempted to murder zimmerman.

Wow, so Treyvon is not permitted to defend himself when in fear but Zimmerman is?  :o
Which of the two was peaceful and minding his own business before this confrontation?

Murder was the wrong charge.  But somebody was indeed culpable and it wasn't Treyvon.

I've been in a situation not completely different to this.  I had the gun and the (actual) robber, who I first confronted inside my house, who then escaped out of window at the back of the house, was running down my driveway alongside the house to meet up with a getaway car out front when I intersected him in the front garden.  I didn't shoot at any stage - not inside my house or outside.  I only threatened him with the gun - that was enough to diffuse the situation. 

But if I were itching to get a shot off I could have blotted him right there and then.  See the difference?  And I actually knew for certain he was up to no good - not just suspicion - he'd been right inside my house and was already wearing one of my jackets he'd taken.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 16, 2013, 09:18:16 AM
I just love how everyone on the Internet seems to instantly acquire a law degree whenever a case like this comes out...

Wow, so Treyvon is not permitted to defend himself when in fear but Zimmerman is?  :o

No one at all is permitted to "defend himself when in fear".  To use force in self-defense, you must among other things reasonably believe that you are in imminent danger of death or serious injury.  Simply being afraid of someone isn't even close to being a sufficient standard.

Quote
I've been in a situation not completely different to this.  I had the gun and the (actual) robber, who I first confronted inside my house, who then escaped out of window at the back of the house, was running down my driveway alongside the house to meet up with a getaway car out front when I intersected him in the front garden.  I didn't shoot at any stage - not inside my house or outside.  I only threatened him with the gun - that was enough to diffuse the situation.

And you acted properly, for which you are definitely to be commended, but your situation was quite a bit different.  For one thing, it is quite clear who the aggressor was in your situation.  It is debatable, at best, whether Zimmerman was the aggressor, or whether he was even acting in a manner that could be considered aggressive.  For another thing, your home intruder had the opportunity to flee, which Zimmerman did not.

Quote
But if I were itching to get a shot off I could have blotted him right there and then.  See the difference?

Yes, very much so.  If you were to shoot someone who was fleeing, you'd be charged with a crime and almost certainly convicted.  You cannot use deadly force on someone who is trying to run away from you.

Quote
And I actually knew for certain he was up to no good - not just suspicion - he'd been right inside my house and was already wearing one of my jackets he'd taken.

And even at that, use of force would not have been automatically justified.  As soon as he turned to run, you no longer had a legal justification for use of force.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: DumpsterFire on July 16, 2013, 09:20:15 AM
But the one thing we all heard about was that Trayvon had told her he was being followed by a CREEPY ASS CRACKER.  Much was made about this!  Trayvon wasn't innocent!  Cracker?  Cracker?  He was the racist. 

But really.  No one was listening to Rachel.  She didn't quote Trayvon as saying he was being followed by a creepy-ass cracker.   She said quoted him as saying he was being followed by a creepy ass-cracker.   Apparently, ass cracker, or butt cracker, is one who performs anal sex. 

Everyone heard the word cracker.  AH HA!!!  See Trayvon must be the racist!  And no one heard what she said next.  She said that Trayvon knew he was being stalked, and thought that he was going to be sexually assaulted. 

So it is better to be a homophobe than a racist?

Also, in the video you posted it is difficult to determine the context/phrasing of the term "creepy ass cracker" because every time the witness says all three words together the audio is muted out on the "cracker" part.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: William on July 16, 2013, 09:52:13 AM
No one at all is permitted to "defend himself when in fear".  To use force in self-defense, you must among other things reasonably believe that you are in imminent danger of death or serious injury.  Simply being afraid of someone isn't even close to being a sufficient standard.

PD, I love your posts  :)   But do you really think Treyvon would have kept coming if he saw a gun?  If he was warned to back off?
I think that is far-fetched - it would take severe intoxication or a death wish to attack someone pointing a gun at you.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 16, 2013, 10:01:35 AM
PD, I love your posts  :)

Back at you!  *g*

Quote
But do you really think Treyvon would have kept coming if he saw a gun?  If he was warned to back off?

It has been known to happen, but in all likelihood, no, he would have fled.

Quote
I think that is far-fetched - it would take severe intoxication or a death wish to attack someone pointing a gun at you.

Yes, it is rare, but even so, I'm not sure what your point is?  Zimmerman's gun was concealed, as is required by Florida law, so Martin would not have taken its presence into account before confronting Zimmerman.  The gun was not disclosed until Zimmerman was already on the ground with Martin on top of him, and even then, it was only because the scuffle caused Zimmerman's clothing to shift, revealing the gun.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Quesi on July 16, 2013, 10:07:00 AM

Treyvon was not in mortal danger until he attacked and attempted to murder zimmerman. 

No.  Trayvon was not in mortal danger until Zimmerman ignored the instructions given to him by the emergency response personnel,[1] and got out of the car with a gun and pursued Trayvon. 


Zimmerman was in real danger because someone was bouncing his head off concrete a real and present, not imagined danger.  Calling a broken nose a booboo does not remove the fact that his brain was being bounced against the skull in such a way as death or serious bodily harm is a very real possibility.   Did george have to wait until he was unconscious to pull his gun,  perhaps a skull fracture or 2 would have been acceptable? 

George must be a really tough, resilient guy to have sustained such a brutal beating, only to have the injuries heal before the EMS even got there!

According to the EMS, "Pt has abrasion to his forehead, + bleeding and tenderness to his nose and a small laceration to the back of his head." 

The treatment he received when the EMS arrived consisted of cleaning the wounds, and handing him back to the police.  No medication.  No xrays.  No concerns about a potential concussion.  It doesn't even sound like they gave him ice, which is what I do when my daughter gets a bump on her nose or head. 

(http://i1131.photobucket.com/albums/m551/keepemhonest2/ZimmermanEMTReport_zps0629d8e2.jpg)


I still vote for tragedy not criminal. 

Let me bang your head against the concrete and tell me how you feel about the situation?  If you had a knife, gun or other would you use it to stop me? If not when would you choose to use deadly force?

May I turn the question around?  If I were stalking you, and you knew it -  you told your friend on the phone that you were being stalked, and I then jumped out of the car brandishing a gun, might you have taken a swing at me?   
 1. and ignored the training he either received or should have received as part of becoming a member of the volunteer neighborhood watch team
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: screwtape on July 16, 2013, 10:13:20 AM
Just look at the "gun fail" threads to see how often people screw up with guns and shoot each other by mistake.

Many of them are cops or other so-called "gun experts". 

Even police sometimes make mistakes, though they are trained.  (Remember the police in NY who fired at a suspect on a crowded street and missed him although he was a few feet away? Passersby were hit by ricocheting bullets.)

I think there is a link in the gun fail thread that showed NY cops only hit their intended target about 37% of the time.  That means they miss 63%.  And they are one of the best PDs in that regard.  That's why 9 people were wounded when they shot up that crazy guy last year.  The crazy guy didn't fire a shot.

A lot of the time police are not trained as much as they should be.   They are trained in combat, but not how to recognize when, say, someone is having a stroke.  Or how to tell the difference between an agressive dog and a friendly one (cops pretty much shoot every dog they see during arrests, because they can).[1] 

The police are getting completely out of hand in this country.

 1. http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_me_i_was_reading_a_book_the_new_warrior_cop_is_out_of_control/ (http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_me_i_was_reading_a_book_the_new_warrior_cop_is_out_of_control/)
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Quesi on July 16, 2013, 10:28:03 AM

Yes, it is rare, but even so, I'm not sure what your point is?  Zimmerman's gun was concealed, as is required by Florida law, so Martin would not have taken its presence into account before confronting Zimmerman.  The gun was not disclosed until Zimmerman was already on the ground with Martin on top of him, and even then, it was only because the scuffle caused Zimmerman's clothing to shift, revealing the gun.

I'm not sure that is true.  Zimmerman said that he had his gun holstered, on his back, above his buttocks, under a shirt and a jacket.  And that he was on his back, with Trayvon sitting on top of him, trying to get the gun, and that somehow, George managed to get it first?   

Quite a few folks have done an analysis of how likely it was that this scenario would be even possible.  Here is one.  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/02/1220703/-The-Zimmerman-Draw

It seems pretty clear that George was lying either about the gun being holstered, or about Trayvon being on top.  Or about both. 



Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 16, 2013, 10:37:08 AM
Many of them are cops or other so-called "gun experts".

Most cops actually aren't (as it appears you already know).  Most people are under the impression that police officers spend countless hours practicing and performing all sorts of drills and everything with their guns and that they are supremely well-trained in gun usage, about as far above Mere Mortal Man in this regard as an F-22 pilot is above an RC helicopter hobbyist.  In fact, law enforcement officers for the most part don't get much firearm training at all.  Even the LAPD, which has one of the highest training requirements of any agency in the nation, requires only about seventy hours of training before clearing a cop to carry a gun on duty.

A related problem is that police departments are becoming increasingly reluctant to hire officers who enjoy shooting.  While that's understandable in some ways, there's also the fact that, for the most part, people only become skilled at activities they enjoy, which has obvious implications for law enforcement hiring practices.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: William on July 16, 2013, 10:40:27 AM
The gun was not disclosed until Zimmerman was already on the ground with Martin on top of him, and even then, it was only because the scuffle caused Zimmerman's clothing to shift, revealing the gun.

The witness accounts about who was on top were conflicting.
http://live.wsj.com/video/zimmerman-trial-who-was-on-top-in-scuffle/E69967DB-EF18-4ED0-8CCC-A8FA63027E96.html#!E69967DB-EF18-4ED0-8CCC-A8FA63027E96

They were probably both on top at various times - which would explain the witness accounts.

But the gun was used to shoot - not to warn.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 16, 2013, 10:59:26 AM
They were probably both on top at various times - which would explain the witness accounts.

In a struggle like that, that does seem likely.  It seems much more likely that we'll never know for sure.

Quote
But the gun was used to shoot - not to warn.

I'm not sure how the law works in Oz, but here in the United States, the distinction between the two is a lot narrower than most people realize.  Among other things, generally speaking, the only time you can brandish a gun as a warning is when it would also be lawful for you to actually fire the gun in self-defense.  Also, firing the gun is considered "using deadly force" regardless of how you actually fire the gun -- for example, in the case of your home intruder, even if you had pointed your gun straight up at the ceiling and fired it, legally, it would be considered "use of deadly force" just as much as it would have been if you had fired directly at the intruder.  (This is why those who have studied self-defense law to any extent at all know that there's no such thing as a "warning shot".)
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Quesi on July 16, 2013, 11:00:30 AM
The gun was not disclosed until Zimmerman was already on the ground with Martin on top of him, and even then, it was only because the scuffle caused Zimmerman's clothing to shift, revealing the gun.

The witness accounts about who was on top were conflicting.
http://live.wsj.com/video/zimmerman-trial-who-was-on-top-in-scuffle/E69967DB-EF18-4ED0-8CCC-A8FA63027E96.html#!E69967DB-EF18-4ED0-8CCC-A8FA63027E96

They were probably both on top at various times - which would explain the witness accounts.

But the gun was used to shoot - not to warn.

Nice.  And at about 55 seconds in, we see the prosecution sitting on the mannequin, with the prosecutor playing Trayvon, and the mannequin as Zimmerman.  And he asks the forensic expert "where would the gun be now?" 

Either the gun was already drawn, or Zimmerman was on top.  There is no way he drew the gun with the kid sitting on him.  It didn't happen. 
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 16, 2013, 11:10:22 AM

But the gun was used to shoot - not to warn.


Although I was in the Army, my initial training on guns came from my Dad.  Coming from the Midwest (Nebraska) in the '70's we all had guns.  I was taught not to point a gun at anyone or anything that I didn't intend to kill.  I was also taught not to bring a gun to any confrontation unless I was prepared to use it.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: William on July 16, 2013, 11:12:39 AM
I'm not sure how the law works in Oz, but here in the United States, the distinction between the two is a lot narrower than most people realize.  Among other things, generally speaking, the only time you can brandish a gun  as a warning is when it would also be lawful for you to actually fire the gun in self-defense.

In that case I concede  :)  But only to the extent that the law is an ass  :blank:
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Tero on July 16, 2013, 11:16:42 AM
An inept neighborhood watch dude. He was not able to figure out who his suspect was, despite the strength of his gun in his pants.

When he got into trouble he started screaming. Play acting in my book, to make it reasonable to pull out the gun.

No gun, no deaths would have occurred.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 16, 2013, 11:20:50 AM
I'm not sure how the law works in Oz, but here in the United States, the distinction between the two is a lot narrower than most people realize.  Among other things, generally speaking, the only time you can brandish a gun  as a warning is when it would also be lawful for you to actually fire the gun in self-defense.

In that case I concede  :)  But only to the extent that the law is an ass  :blank:

It makes sense when you think about it: the only time you can legally threaten to use deadly force is when it would be legal for you to actually use deadly force.  Why would you be allowed to threaten someone's life under circumstances when it would not be lawful to kill him?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Dante on July 16, 2013, 11:40:25 AM
Here's a pretty good opinion piece from our local editor. Tho I don't always agree with his stance, this one makes alot of sense[1].

http://gazette.com/right-wing-gun-nuts-shoudnt-praise-zimmerman/article/1503540 (http://gazette.com/right-wing-gun-nuts-shoudnt-praise-zimmerman/article/1503540)

Quote
Mostly, while carrying concealed, one must actively avoid conflict. Any responsible person with concealed-carry privileges hopes to go through life never having to draw the gun on anything but a target at a range. Wearing the gun means one avoids arguments with a spouse, a neighbor or some belligerent drunk who stumbles from a bar. The gun means the user walks away from conflicts to avoid using it for anything other than stopping an aggressive and harmful attack, on self or others, that cannot be resolved in some better manner.

Zimmerman should have minded his own business on the night of Feb. 26, 2012. A teenager wandering a neighborhood - even one who looks like he might be on drugs - is not a crime.

In a free country, a law-abiding young man should be free to walk in the rain, for no apparent reason, without having to explain himself to anyone - including cops or a self-appointed watchman.

 1. with the possible exception of his opinion on the racial motivation
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Truth OT on July 16, 2013, 11:47:05 AM
No.  Trayvon was not in mortal danger until Zimmerman ignored the instructions given to him by the emergency response personnel,[1] and got out of the car with a gun and pursued Trayvon. 
 1. and ignored the training he either received or should have received as part of becoming a member of the volunteer neighborhood watch team

When did the above happen? According to testimony, what you claim is false and GZ did in fact heed the warning of the dispatcher when the dispatcher said not to follow Trayvon and immediately turned to rendevouz with the officers he had called to the scene.

According to GZ, he got out of his truck not to pursue Trayvon, but because he was asked if he could tell the dispatcher an exact location. The point of him getting out was to go to the front of the building to get an address so he could tell where he saw Trayvon last.

May I turn the question around?  If I were stalking you, and you knew it -  you told your friend on the phone that you were being stalked, and I then jumped out of the car brandishing a gun, might you have taken a swing at me?   

Granted, Trayvon very likely thought he was being stalked, but was justified in that thought. But don't make up stuff Q. GZ did not jump out of his vehicle brandishing a gun according to any evidence. Based on the account, Trayvon after facing off with GZ and seeing GZ reach for something in his pocket. Martin very likely thought GZ was reaching for a weapon and hit GZ in self defense because he felt he was in danger.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Quesi on July 16, 2013, 12:30:25 PM
No.  Trayvon was not in mortal danger until Zimmerman ignored the instructions given to him by the emergency response personnel,[1] and got out of the car with a gun and pursued Trayvon. 
 1. and ignored the training he either received or should have received as part of becoming a member of the volunteer neighborhood watch team

When did the above happen? According to testimony, what you claim is false and GZ did in fact heed the warning of the dispatcher when the dispatcher said not to follow Trayvon and immediately turned to rendevouz with the officers he had called to the scene.

According to GZ, he got out of his truck not to pursue Trayvon, but because he was asked if he could tell the dispatcher an exact location. The point of him getting out was to go to the front of the building to get an address so he could tell where he saw Trayvon last.

Not sure what your sources are, but wikipedia has some pretty good footnotes to the transcripts of the conversation.  It doesn't include the obscenities or the phrase "fucking coon," however.  But you can look that up yourself. 

"This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something."[70] Zimmerman reported that the person had his hand in his waistband and was walking around looking at homes.[71] On the recording, Zimmerman is heard saying, "these assholes, they always get away."[72][73]

About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.
[13]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

May I turn the question around?  If I were stalking you, and you knew it -  you told your friend on the phone that you were being stalked, and I then jumped out of the car brandishing a gun, might you have taken a swing at me?   

Granted, Trayvon very likely thought he was being stalked, but was justified in that thought. But don't make up stuff Q. GZ did not jump out of his vehicle brandishing a gun according to any evidence. Based on the account, Trayvon after facing off with GZ and seeing GZ reach for something in his pocket. Martin very likely thought GZ was reaching for a weapon and hit GZ in self defense because he felt he was in danger.

Look, no one will ever know what really happened.  But as I previously stated, Zimmerman's version, in which Trayvon was on top of him, reaching for his gun, but Zimmerman got it first, that just didn't happen.  There is no way that Zimmerman got the gun out of his back holster, with Trayvon sitting on top of him.  It didn't happen. 

So either Zimmerman had the gun pulled already, or Zimmerman was on top.  Forensic evidence suggests that Trayvon was on top when he was shot.  And that leaves Zimmerman with the gun in his hand before Trayvon was on top of him. 

If you think that I am "making it up," then please look at William's video, at about 55 seconds in. 
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: screwtape on July 16, 2013, 12:40:01 PM
Quote
The gun means the user walks away from conflicts to avoid using it for anything other than stopping an aggressive and harmful attack, on self or others, that cannot be resolved in some better manner.

It is a good sentiment, and I agree with it.  But my understanding of Stand Your Ground is this is not the case where SYG is the law.  Thus, the name of the law.  It is possible I do not understand.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 16, 2013, 01:08:41 PM
Quote
The gun means the user walks away from conflicts to avoid using it for anything other than stopping an aggressive and harmful attack, on self or others, that cannot be resolved in some better manner.

It is a good sentiment, and I agree with it.  But my understanding of Stand Your Ground is this is not the case where SYG is the law.  Thus, the name of the law.  It is possible I do not understand.

Self-defense laws vary by jurisdiction, but in the United States, for the most part, a number of conditions must be present for a legitimate claim of self-defense:

1)  The individual must believe he is in imminent danger of death or serious injury;
2)  That belief must be held for valid reasons;
3)  The amount of force used to prevent the threat of death or injury must not be greater than reasonably necessary to prevent the threat; and
4)  Before using force for self-defense, the individual must first make an attempt to flee from the aggressor if such an attempt is feasible.

There are some other details as well -- for example, if you see a woman getting raped, you're allowed to use force to rescue her; if you're trespassing and the landowner confronts you, you have no claim of self-defense, that kind of thing.  But the above list is the big stuff.

All that "Stand Your Ground" laws do is remove condition number four -- the other three elements remain in place.  To give a more concrete example:  You're walking down the street somewhere, minding your own business, perhaps carrying a gun/baton/pepper spray/whatever, or maybe you're just a skilled martial artist.  You get the idea.  A thug comes up to you and pulls a weapon.

In a state without a Stand Your Ground law, you may not use your gun, baton, or martial arts skills to protect yourself, at least, not yet.  First, you have to try to run away from the guy if there's a reasonable chance of being able to escape, and if you proceed to use of force before attempting to flee, you can be charged with a crime -- typically some form of assault and/or battery, or even homicide if you end up killing the guy.  You may only use force to protect yourself if escape is not feasible, or if you've attempted to escape and failed to do so.

In a state with a Stand Your Ground law, however, you may proceed directly to use of force in self-defense.  (You can still try to run if you want, but you're not legally obliged to.)  It is called a "Stand Your Ground" law simply because it removes the duty to retreat.

Capisce?   8)
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Truth OT on July 16, 2013, 01:19:51 PM
Look, no one will ever know what really happened.  But as I previously stated, Zimmerman's version, in which Trayvon was on top of him, reaching for his gun, but Zimmerman got it first, that just didn't happen.  There is no way that Zimmerman got the gun out of his back holster, with Trayvon sitting on top of him.  It didn't happen. 

So either Zimmerman had the gun pulled already, or Zimmerman was on top.  Forensic evidence suggests that Trayvon was on top when he was shot.  And that leaves Zimmerman with the gun in his hand before Trayvon was on top of him. 

If you think that I am "making it up," then please look at William's video, at about 55 seconds in.

I read the Daily Kos article and what I don't get is why the assumption that GZ had to literally be flat on his back at all times. In the process of trying to scoot to get his head off of the concrete, it is very plausible and quite likely that his was not literally flat on the ground with both buttocks pressed against the grass. As one tries to twist and squirm, the right side one one's ass could come off the ground and be elevated enough to make accessing anything fastened to that area pretty easy.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman already had the gun brandished, none at all. The evidence that we have been given supports what GZ said happened. Are there some holes, perhaps, but we can fill in those blanks with whatever we want to. All we can do is go where what has been revealed leads and despite the fact that Zimmerman could have lied and made up an untrue account, acting as if we know the truth to be something else far more sinister ain't a good look.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Quesi on July 16, 2013, 01:48:27 PM

I read the Daily Kos article and what I don't get is why the assumption that GZ had to literally be flat on his back at all times. In the process of trying to scoot to get his head off of the concrete, it is very plausible and quite likely that his was not literally flat on the ground with both buttocks pressed against the grass. As one tries to twist and squirm, the right side one one's ass could come off the ground and be elevated enough to make accessing anything fastened to that area pretty easy.

Zimmerman says that Trayvon was sitting on top of him.  Unless Trayvon was sitting on his thighs or knees, (which seems pretty unlikely, and is not a scenario that anyone suggested in any of the reenactments)  Trayvon's legs would have blocked his access to the gun.  Did you see the video? 

Either Zimmerman was on top, or the gun was out already.  In either case, Zimmerman was lying.  Given the fact that he was really hyped up, as evidenced by both the content of his words during the 911 call, and his tone, as well as the forensic evidence that suggests that the shot was made while Trayvon was over Zimmerman, I believe that he had the gun out to begin with. 

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Tero on July 16, 2013, 02:35:12 PM
The gun was on his side on the inside of the pants, probably as far back as he could still grab it as he "apprehended" his "suspects." By rolling a bit to one side he could free it.

But he is still an idiot. Too many prospective gun owners are idiots.

Now we estimate 300 000 patriots in Illinois to get concealed permits. So they can dare to take their kids to the movies.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: relativetruth on July 16, 2013, 03:13:25 PM
Trayvon is on top.

Zimmerman gets his gun out.

Trayvon starts screaming.

Zimmerman shoots him anyway!
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Chronos on July 16, 2013, 09:34:33 PM
Zimmerman says that Trayvon was sitting on top of him.  Unless Trayvon was sitting on his thighs or knees, (which seems pretty unlikely, and is not a scenario that anyone suggested in any of the reenactments)  Trayvon's legs would have blocked his access to the gun.  Did you see the video? 

Either Zimmerman was on top, or the gun was out already.  In either case, Zimmerman was lying.  Given the fact that he was really hyped up, as evidenced by both the content of his words during the 911 call, and his tone, as well as the forensic evidence that suggests that the shot was made while Trayvon was over Zimmerman, I believe that he had the gun out to begin with.

This issue was discussed by many analysts because the prosecution never pegged this conflict in the defense's proposed sequence of events. It is quite clear that either Zimmerman pulled out his firearm before he ended up under Martin or Zimmerman was never under Martin. No one has offered a logical, plausible explanation for how the prosecution's sequence of events could be accurate. The prosecution didn't appropriately challenge it. The prosecution generated questions but provided no answers. It was a WTH? moment.

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on July 16, 2013, 09:35:17 PM
As a female, I have felt intimidated and threatened many, many times in my life by random men walking near me after dark. Sometimes the men even say things that make me feel more afraid. I wonder how long it would take to repeal "stand your ground" laws if women and girls all over the country, based on their feelings,  began shooting men and boys on sight. >:(

What is your understanding of what a "Stand Your Ground" law actually is?

Bump... NGFM, please get to this when you have a moment.  Thanks.

I read your 1,2,3,4, and the fact that SYG eliminates #4. That was my understanding, that before this law, you were supposed to try to avoid confrontation before using deadly force. You are not to follow or approach the person you think is a bad guy. You are supposed to get away if at all possible. Physical force was supposed to be the last resort, after all other avenues have been shut off. That is what I was taught in martial arts and self-defense training. But it seems that in this case, Z. was allowed to follow, approach, engage, ie SYG eliminating #4 but for some reason, Trayvon was supposed to avoid confrontation and run away as in the pre SYG 1,2,3,4.

I was also taught that you should NEVER have a loaded gun in your hand, in a self-defense situation, unless you are prepared to kill. And you should not be carrying loaded if you are not prepared to use. Loaded guns are not supposed to be used to "scare" or "threaten" a possible bad guy-- once you engage, you have to be ready to kill or he will take that weapon and kill you.

For similar reasons, there is no point in carrying an unloaded weapon (unless you plan to rob a bank or liquor store and want a reduced charge in case you get caught). Any gun should be treated by everyone as if it is loaded. So, a bad guy seeing your gun will assume it to be loaded, and will act accordingly-- run if sane or try to kill you first if crazy.

Women are always taught to scream and try to get away from a potential bad situation. Problem is, a lot of the time, everyday life is a potential bad situation for  females.  Whenever a woman is alone, esp after dark, she is in a potential bad situation. And most of the time, women are attacked by people they know, at least slightly. By the time she knows for sure that she is in danger, it is probably too late to scream or run anyway.

Thus my earlier statement that women and girls should carry loaded weapons, and maybe even drive around looking for "suspicious males". As soon as things get dicey, shoot to kill.  Your word against the dead guy's. And hope you get Zimmerman's jury. More guys who were guilty of only walking along the street will end up like Trayvon, but hey, we women are tired of being the ones who have to stay off the streets. A lot more innocent dead guys along with the few rapists, but hey, we women are tired of being the ones who have to run and hide. Let men, all men, not just young black men,  be scared to walk the streets at night for a change.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: DVZ3 on July 16, 2013, 09:46:31 PM
Not to belittle this discussion or cause too much of a tangent. Does anyone else find it mildly ironic that even today with eyewitness accounts, 911 phone call evidence all almost in real time etc... Everyone (who was not on the jury) seems to not agree/believe on the exact truth of events that took place but are quick to fill in the gaps as they seem to fit their perspective on things...

It's all very unnerving that we can't do this with stories even today with the communications technology let alone begin to do what this site tries to - communicate that th bible is not meant to tell the story of exact truth and/or events that supposively took place.

I have to be honest, I'm not a fan of the Google glass specs but I'm actually starting to see the value in literally having real time video/audio of other eyewitness account situations in the future. I think the decision of the jury would have been potentially very different had the star prosecution witness poor communication skills removed been removed from the equation.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: magicmiles on July 16, 2013, 10:14:26 PM
Not to belittle this discussion or cause too much of a tangent. Does anyone else find it mildly ironic that even today with eyewitness accounts, 911 phone call evidence all almost in real time etc... Everyone (who was not on the jury) seems to not agree/believe on the exact truth of events that took place but are quick to fill in the gaps as they seem to fit their perspective on things...


That's one of the reasons I find gospel discrepancy arguments less than compelling.

In 100 years no-one will still know the exact details of what occurred with Zimmerman and Martin. But I doubt anyone will use the various discrepancies to try and say Martin was never shot by Zimmerman at all.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: ParkingPlaces on July 16, 2013, 10:59:15 PM
To me, the wrong here is simple.

Right now, in Florida, as confirmed by the results of this trial, I can follow anybody I want, hassle them, and then when they get mad and jump me, I can kill them. And it is okay.

If you are one of those that think this is okay, please explain. I just don't get it. Had Zimmerman not followed and/or confronted Trayvon, nothing would have happened. Trayvon had not committed any crimes, he was merely walking home after going to the store.

Why is his death okay because Zimmerman shot in self defense? Zimmerman should have been at home looking at porn and eating cheetos. And Trayvon should have been eating Skittles shortly when instead he was being carted off to the morgue.

The legality of the killing is bad enough. Saying that since the jury found Zimmerman innocent, no wrong was done, and no changes need to be made, confounds me

I've often wondered what it would be like to be a member of a racial minority group. I take it that when I'm dead I'll know.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on July 16, 2013, 11:08:28 PM
Not to belittle this discussion or cause too much of a tangent. Does anyone else find it mildly ironic that even today with eyewitness accounts, 911 phone call evidence all almost in real time etc... Everyone (who was not on the jury) seems to not agree/believe on the exact truth of events that took place but are quick to fill in the gaps as they seem to fit their perspective on things...


That's one of the reasons I find gospel discrepancy arguments less than compelling.

In 100 years no-one will still know the exact details of what occurred with Zimmerman and Martin. But I doubt anyone will use the various discrepancies to try and say Martin was never shot by Zimmerman at all.

^^^ Maybe it is time to split this off?

Now you are comparing two very different scenarios. In the gospel stories we are instructed to believe that some incredibly important supernatural events occurred: the most important person who ever walked the earth, god in human form, was executed and then rose form the dead!  Never happened before and never repeated since. Big, big news, right?

And, nobody of note wrote about it at the time.  The supposed eyewitness accounts, told in oral form for years before being written down, sound like urban legends. They don't add up. Remember, we have all kinds of boring records of tax payments, the record of the depth of the Nile in different years, census data, property records dating back to ancient Mesopotamia. We even have letters that everyday people of that time wrote in that region that sound like modern emails--"Went shopping in the market. Bought two goats."

But not one contemporary record of the crucifixion and resurrection. No record of the location of the tomb. No record of the other convicts executed at the same time. Nothing. Nada. Not only did Jesus rise from the dead and stroll around greeting his friends. The sky went dark and other people rose from the graveyards, too, right?  Are we supposed to believe that nobody thought any of that was worth writing home about? Nobody?

In everyday human events, of course, people's memories are not perfect. But in a hundred years, maybe even in a thousand years, there will still be tons of contemporary commentary about the Trayvon case and verdict. Because it was big news. And Trayvon, as far as we can tell was not even a nephew of god. Let alone the son of one.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: magicmiles on July 16, 2013, 11:21:52 PM
No real need to split the topic, because I won't get into a full blown discussion on the resurrection. I probably shouldn't have made that little off-topic comment.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: DVZ3 on July 16, 2013, 11:26:19 PM
Had Zimmerman not followed and/or confronted Trayvon, nothing would have happened. Trayvon had not committed any crimes...

While I tend to agree with this statement as I think/hope we all can agree that TM would be alive if he hadn't exited the vehicle I have to ask the following not having been on the jury. I don't think this in and of itself proves GZ is a cold blooded killer or thoughts of violence necessarily - stupid in hinsight knowing how it ended up playing out, yes.

Do we honestly know beyond a reasonable doubt the reasoning behind him getting out of the car and the events after that transpired? I ask because there's claims that GZ may have gotten out of his vehicle to better establish a location and/or address to better communicate TM location to the 911 operator. Is it at all possible the juries verdict "he had good intentions" in trying to communicate to authorities where to find him even when he was to not to pursue?

A concerned citizen with a concealed gun got out of his car to better understand the location whereabouts is not plausible whatsoever - I'm not quite sure...

This is why the events that transpired leading to the confrontation/struggle after he exited the vehicle are so critical to the case in my opinion as I think we're making way too many assumptions/personal bias after he exited the vehicle as to GZ reasoning and rationale even if it wasn't the 'smart' thing to do for both parties at the time.

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: ParkingPlaces on July 17, 2013, 12:00:28 AM
DV, the particulars of this particular case are almost irrelevant to me. Like every other thing that happens on this planet, we will never know exactly what transpired, be it a murder or merely a birthday party where one kid ended up crying.

People are in jail today (and probably most of them rightfully so) because they made the mistake of looking down to change the radio station when they should have been paying more attention to the road and someone died as a result. They made a mistake, and they are paying for it. Zimmerman doesn't have to be a cold blooded killer to have his actions irk me. He killed someone who, up until the moment he decided to fight back, was doing nothing wrong. And while the jury had no trouble getting excuses from Zimmerman, they couldn't hear Trayvon's side of the story for obvious reasons. But again, as per Florida law, I guess that case is over, and little can be settled by discussing its particulars.

By the way, had Trayvon been armed, and had he felt threatened, do you think he would have gotten off scott free for shooting Zimmerman?It isn't impossible, but black males are imprisoned over 250% more often than whites for shooting others under deadly force laws. So I, for one, wouldn't' have bet on an acquittal.

We as a people need to ask how laws that permit the use of force apply when the danger is caused by the person with a gun. We need to ask ourselves where our paranoia comes from. We need to confront out prejudices. We need to make sure that our own fears don't translate directly into the deaths of others. We need to make sure that not all of our headlines come from instances of selfishness and stupidity. And we need to learn how to decide when something is broken so that we can fix it.

None of the above will happen because too many of us have remembered how to shrug our shoulders and turn away.

I don't want either of my boys getting shot because someone else decided they looked suspicious when innocent. I don't want either of my boys getting shot and then have their killer get off scott free because he felt "threatened".

Of course, my boys are smart enough to live outside the US. My boys both live in countries with much stricter gun laws, which shows that they are both smarter than me. That's not actually why they are there, but that fact is a nice byproduct.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 17, 2013, 06:02:33 AM
Right now, in Florida, as confirmed by the results of this trial, I can follow anybody I want, hassle them, and then when they get mad and jump me, I can kill them. And it is okay.

That is not what the law says.

Quote
Saying that since the jury found Zimmerman innocent

Zimmerman was not "found innocent".  No jury in the entire history of the United States, in any criminal trial, ever, has ever "found someone innocent".  He was found "not guilty", which is an entirely different matter.

Quote
We as a people need to ask how laws that permit the use of force apply when the danger is caused by the person with a gun.

That's easy: they don't.  You cannot claim self-defense in situations where you are the aggressor.  The law has never said otherwise.

I think you might want to spend some time learning about the laws regarding use of force in self-defense because it sounds to me like there are some gaps in your knowledge.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Tero on July 17, 2013, 06:10:59 AM
Quote
Why is his death okay because Zimmerman shot in self defense? Zimmerman should have been at home looking at porn and eating cheetos. And Trayvon should have been eating Skittles shortly when instead he was being carted off to the morgue.
Z ran out of cheetos and beer, he was on his way to Target to get more when he saw a teen in a hoodie "acting weird." These assholes always get away!
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Quesi on July 17, 2013, 06:43:48 AM
Right now, in Florida, as confirmed by the results of this trial, I can follow anybody I want, hassle them, and then when they get mad and jump me, I can kill them. And it is okay.

That is not what the law says.


No.  That is not what the law says.  But that is how the law has been applied.

Under Stand your ground, a killer has these rights. 

In the United States, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first.... One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit.       
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law


So, what constitutes a "reasonable belief of an unlawful threat?"  In the Zimmerman case, seeing a young black kid walking in the rain caused the defendant to have a "reasonable belief" that there was an unlawful threat. 

But the prosecution did not even need to invoke "stand your ground."  They managed to convince the journey that the person who had been stalked, became the aggressor.  He had access to a "deadly weapon."  The sidewalk.  And in spite of the fact that the EMS determined that Zimmerman's injuries did not need any treatment beyond cleaning, the prosecution managed to convince the jury that he had a reasonable belief that his life was in danger. 
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 17, 2013, 07:11:43 AM
Right now, in Florida, as confirmed by the results of this trial, I can follow anybody I want, hassle them, and then when they get mad and jump me, I can kill them. And it is okay.

That is not what the law says.


No.  That is not what the law says.  But that is how the law has been applied.

Assuming just for the sake of argument that that is correct, all it would mean is that the law has been applied improperly, nothing more.  What PP was trying to claim was that the Zimmerman verdict has greatly broadened the circumstances under which it is now lawful to take another human being's life in Florida, which is painfully untrue.  By way of comparison, the O.J. Simpson verdict was a gargantuan travesty of justice, but it would be beyond absurd to claim that that verdict meant that premeditated homicide has been legalized in the state of California.  It doesn't mean that.  It only means that the system doesn't always work as it's supposed to, which is hardly a newsflash.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: magicmiles on July 17, 2013, 07:17:15 AM

So, what constitutes a "reasonable belief of an unlawful threat?"  In the Zimmerman case, seeing a young black kid walking in the rain caused the defendant to have a "reasonable belief" that there was an unlawful threat. 

The way its been reported, Zimmerman initially saw Martin as suspicious, not as an unlawful threat. The unlawful threat would only have applied once their was a physical altercation. So I think you're being a touch unfair in that assessment.


But the prosecution did not even need to invoke "stand your ground."  They managed to convince the journey that the person who had been stalked, became the aggressor.  He had access to a "deadly weapon."  The sidewalk.  And in spite of the fact that the EMS determined that Zimmerman's injuries did not need any treatment beyond cleaning, the prosecution managed to convince the jury that he had a reasonable belief that his life was in danger.

I'm sure you mean defence, not prosecution. Probably haven't had your coffee yet  ;)
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 17, 2013, 07:29:21 AM
I read your 1,2,3,4, and the fact that SYG eliminates #4. That was my understanding, that before this law, you were supposed to try to avoid confrontation before using deadly force. You are not to follow or approach the person you think is a bad guy. You are supposed to get away if at all possible. Physical force was supposed to be the last resort, after all other avenues have been shut off. That is what I was taught in martial arts and self-defense training. But it seems that in this case, Z. was allowed to follow, approach, engage, ie SYG eliminating #4 but for some reason, Trayvon was supposed to avoid confrontation and run away as in the pre SYG 1,2,3,4.

As has already been discussed, we'll probably never know for sure exactly what happened, but even assuming that Zimmerman did "follow, approach, and engage", that is not the kind of behavior that an SYG law is meant to protect.  An SYG law is only meant to acknowledge that, if you are attacked, you should not have an obligation to try to run away before using force to defend yourself.  Briefly, an SYG law is meant to extend the Castle Doctrine from one's own home to any location where one has a legal right to be.

Quote
I was also taught that you should NEVER have a loaded gun in your hand, in a self-defense situation, unless you are prepared to kill. And you should not be carrying loaded if you are not prepared to use. Loaded guns are not supposed to be used to "scare" or "threaten" a possible bad guy-- once you engage, you have to be ready to kill or he will take that weapon and kill you.

Yes, this is correct.  Carrying a gun and not being prepared to use it is far, far worse than not carrying a gun at all, for more reasons than one can shake the proverbial stick at.

Quote
For similar reasons, there is no point in carrying an unloaded weapon

Carrying a gun that isn't loaded would also be breathtakingly stupid.  I've actually never head of any cases where anyone has ever done this for any reason, although I'm sure it does happen from time to time.

Quote
(unless you plan to rob a bank or liquor store and want a reduced charge in case you get caught).

That probably wouldn't work; armed robbery is armed robbery.  The prosecution would argue that anyone being robbed at gunpoint would reasonably presuppose that the gun was loaded.  I don't doubt that that's been tried, and I'm not familiar with the case law, but I don't think you'd be able to get away with trying to saw you weren't "really armed" in such a circumstance.

Quote
Women are always taught to scream and try to get away from a potential bad situation. Problem is, a lot of the time, everyday life is a potential bad situation for  females.  Whenever a woman is alone, esp after dark, she is in a potential bad situation. And most of the time, women are attacked by people they know, at least slightly. By the time she knows for sure that she is in danger, it is probably too late to scream or run anyway.

Which doesn't have anything to do with SYG laws.

Quote
Thus my earlier statement that women and girls should carry loaded weapons, and maybe even drive around looking for "suspicious males". As soon as things get dicey, shoot to kill.  Your word against the dead guy's. And hope you get Zimmerman's jury.

Good luck with that.  By the way, here's a fun thing for you to consider: if you ever do end up having to kill someone and you end up being charged with a crime for it, the prosecution is probably going to take this statement that you've made and use it against you in court to argue that you weren't really interested in protecting yourself from harm, but rather that you had a desire to commit a murder and intended to do so using an SYG law to try to get away with it.  Have a nice day.

Quote
More guys who were guilty of only walking along the street will end up like Trayvon, but hey, we women are tired of being the ones who have to stay off the streets. A lot more innocent dead guys along with the few rapists, but hey, we women are tired of being the ones who have to run and hide. Let men, all men, not just young black men,  be scared to walk the streets at night for a change.

Oh, we are, inasmuch as men are twice as likely as women to be victims of violent crime.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: ParkingPlaces on July 17, 2013, 08:54:49 AM
piano, I'm being very generic. Person A followed and hassled person B for no good reason. Person B reacted violently, for whatever reason (and was possibly justified because he felt threatened). Person A killed person B. And while I am guilty of hyperbole, I am also guilty of being bothered that such things are possible to define as acceptable.

The specifics and the law don't even interest me. I don't like that Zimmerman wasn't willing to take responsibility for erroneously killing another human, law or no law. I don't like that the racism in this country distorts both sides of the story. I don't like that I can't trust any of the sources for this story.

But mostly I don't like that someone died who didn't have to because of unnecessary and unacceptable intervention on the part of another person. Nor do I like that anyone can find a way to justify it. But apparently that's just me.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Truth OT on July 17, 2013, 09:08:10 AM
I've often wondered what it would be like to be a member of a racial minority group. I take it that when I'm dead I'll know.

Your life, your norms, your plight, and your point of view is valued less for starters. Additionally, those trusted by and entrust with authority by the majority distrust and are ditrusted by minorities. Culture sows seeds of distrust that manafests in people's perceptions and actions even if the discriminating people aren't hateful or racist, but because there has been an overriding and consistant influence on society's subconscious that tells us that minorities (especially black men) are dangerous and threatening.
The only recourse that has shown to be mildly successful in overcoming the systemic and real discrimination that exists involves the person that is the object of the discrimination to conform to, accept the authority of, and mimic the values, norms, and habits of the majority that breeds the discimination in the first place.

http://www.upworthy.com/know-anyone-that-thinks-racial-profiling-is-exaggerated-watch-this-and-tell-me-when-your-jaw-drops-2

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 17, 2013, 09:13:09 AM
I've often wondered what it would be like to be a member of a racial minority group. I take it that when I'm dead I'll know.

Move to Hawaii.  You'll find out soon enough.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Timtheskeptic on July 17, 2013, 06:02:36 PM
But the one thing we all heard about was that Trayvon had told her he was being followed by a CREEPY ASS CRACKER.  Much was made about this!  Trayvon wasn't innocent!  Cracker?  Cracker?  He was the racist. 

But really.  No one was listening to Rachel.  She didn't quote Trayvon as saying he was being followed by a creepy-ass cracker.   She said quoted him as saying he was being followed by a creepy ass-cracker.   Apparently, ass cracker, or butt cracker, is one who performs anal sex. 

Everyone heard the word cracker.  AH HA!!!  See Trayvon must be the racist!  And no one heard what she said next.  She said that Trayvon knew he was being stalked, and thought that he was going to be sexually assaulted. 

So it is better to be a homophobe than a racist?

Also, in the video you posted it is difficult to determine the context/phrasing of the term "creepy ass cracker" because every time the witness says all three words together the audio is muted out on the "cracker" part.

I wouldn't say that Trayvon might be racist. I mean if you're being stalked by someone, it is unnerving that you just say something out of fear. But i can be wrong. I'm not sure if the words she used was meant to say anything about rape or not. I mean, i think it could be "Creepy ass" like very creepy as hell.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Quesi on July 17, 2013, 06:56:08 PM
I wouldn't say that Trayvon might be racist. I mean if you're being stalked by someone, it is unnerving that you just say something out of fear. But i can be wrong. I'm not sure if the words she used was meant to say anything about rape or not. I mean, i think it could be "Creepy ass" like very creepy as hell.

I don't know if you watched the original video that I posted to the end, but she says it again here on Piers Morgan. 

http://youtu.be/ZZlMg3tgQ7M

And still, no one is talking about it. 
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: magicmiles on July 17, 2013, 06:57:00 PM
(http://i363.photobucket.com/albums/oo79/penno73/r_zps92e658df.jpg)
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: none on July 17, 2013, 06:59:10 PM
Right now, in Florida, as confirmed by the results of this trial, I can follow anybody I want, hassle them, and then when they get mad and jump me, I can kill them. And it is okay.

That is not what the law says.
...
I say yes you can.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html
Quote
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Spit on July 17, 2013, 08:02:44 PM
One guy is still with us is. He is the obvious winner.  :police:
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 17, 2013, 10:58:31 PM
Rachel Jeantel just opened up a whole new can of worms in my head.  In an interview she said George should have just taken his ass whuppin'.  She thinks Trayvon would have just kicked his ass and run away.  Is this really just Popular Kid vs. Fat Kid?  Fat kid, bullied all his life freaks out & shoots Popular kid?  Makes me go hmmm...
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 17, 2013, 11:19:13 PM
Frankly, this whole affair makes me sick.

The simple fact of the matter is that even disregarding the issue of race, Zimmerman was responsible.  He did not need to pursue Martin, let alone confront him.  Indeed, neighborhood watch members are strongly discouraged from pursuing suspected criminals because they're not trained for it.  And because he didn't, a person is dead who did not need to die.  Yes, he's presumed innocent until proven guilty, but if I understand the events of the trial correctly, the defense team did not even attempt to claim that he did not kill Martin.  They tried instead to show that he was justified in doing so - even though he shouldn't have gotten involved beyond calling 911 and alerting the police.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: ParkingPlaces on July 18, 2013, 12:14:22 AM
^^^Agreed.

Now if Zimmerman would come out and make a statement that went something like the following, I would be sort of satisfied, except for the dead guy part:

Quote
"I feel that I shot Trayvon Martin in self defense. However, the tragic series of events that led up to his death were all my fault. I made a series of decisions, and a series mistakes, based on my paranoia and my unfounded suspicions. I partook in aggressive behavior. Since I was armed, I felt a mistaken sense of security. I confronted Tryvon against the advise of the 911 dispatcher. He reacted in a way I did not to anticipate and that I was in no way trained to handle.

I failed to take into consideration the fact that different people react in different ways when confronted, and I also failed to take into consideration that he may have felt threatened by me because he perceived me as an attacker rather than a concerned citizen who was merely suspicious of him. So my aggressiveness, my lack of a professional law enforcement training, my feeling of power because I was armed and my disregard for Trayvon's rights combined to create a situatioin where I felt a need to pull the trigger and he ended up dead.

Though some say that I was within my rights to shoot him because he was hurting me, the threat he responded to was one of my making, and it is not up to any of us to decide in hindsight whether or not he was justified. We have no idea what was going through his head, and it is very easy to see ways in which he would have thought that I was a direct danger. And apparently I was, because he is dead now.

I accept full responsibility for his death. It should not have happened, and the only reason it did was because I did everything wrong."

It won't happen, of course. He's too busy making book deals and signing autographs for Rush Limbaugh and Wayne LaPierre to take the time. But a guy can wish.

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: William on July 18, 2013, 12:27:57 AM
^^ Send that to George please - he can use it next visit to the Confessional!

As long as God knows he's sorry it'll all work out. And everything happens for purpose. It's God's plan, even for Trayvon's parents. Amen
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 18, 2013, 12:35:56 AM
I did some reviewing of the facts of the case (such as a Google Earth map of the area with the approximate locations marked).  From what I can tell, here's what happened.

Martin was walking home from a convenience store with his purchases in his hands.  Zimmerman was driving through the area on a personal errand and saw Martin.  He proceeded to call 911.  The transcript of the call is available on the [wiki]shooting of Trayvon Martin[/wiki] wiki page, but the gist of it is that Martin saw Zimmerman, approached his car, and then ran off (away from the street).  Zimmerman got out of his car when he saw Martin running and followed him, probably to see where he was going, thus the question from the dispatcher about whether he was following Martin.

I don't think Zimmerman was actually chasing Martin - just trying to observe where he went.  However, considering that he went past the first row of townhouses, then down past the first one, it was more than a bit too far to simply observe him.  And given the situation, it's likely that Martin (who was probably having an adrenaline rush) returned to where Zimmerman was and confronted him.  That's when the fight happened.  So, Zimmerman may not have actually instigated the altercation, but he did have something to do with provoking it by getting out of his car and following Martin.

Was it self-defense?  I don't think it was.  Zimmerman shouldn't have gotten out of his car to go after Martin to begin with, and he also shouldn't have stayed in the middle of those two rows of townhouses (especially considering his apparent worry about not knowing where Martin was).  That violated two of the basic principles of self-defense, avoidance and withdrawal.  By getting out of his car and following Martin partway, he upped the stakes for both of them.

Certainly, once Martin had him down and was hitting him, he was pretty limited in what he could do.  But he should not have let himself get in that position to begin with.  He should not have gone after Martin in the first place, and he should have pulled back as soon as he lost sight of Martin.  He should certainly not have stood there with his thumb up his butt chatting with a 911 dispatcher for more than a minute after losing sight of Martin.  And that's why I feel the claim of self-defense was not justified.

Addendum:  I read an interesting blog article (http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-truth-about-violence) that referred to an interesting martial artist making a remarkably stupid decision to walk through Central Park late at night, because he had a black belt in karate.  The parallel to the Zimmerman thing is interesting - he was confronted before he even got 100 yards in and was injected with a hypo by one of his three attackers.  But he made up for it by retreating, as fast as possible, and got out essentially unharmed.  I can't help but wonder what would have happened if Zimmerman had been sensible enough to run once Martin confronted him.  As it stands, he was rather foolish, apparently thinking that his status as the head of the neighborhood watch and the fact that he was armed would be enough.

If Martin had been seriously trying to kill him, he would have been dead, gun or no gun.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 18, 2013, 06:19:47 AM
Now if Zimmerman would come out and make a statement that went something like the following, I would be sort of satisfied, except for the dead guy part:

Even if Zimmerman wanted to make such a statement, it's highly unlikely that his lawyer would ever let him.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: screwtape on July 18, 2013, 07:55:05 AM
Is this really just Popular Kid vs. Fat Kid? 

He wasn't fat then.  He gained about 100 lbs between the shooting and the trial.
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Accused-Trayvon-Martin-killer-George-Zimmerman-4623602.php
http://healthblog.dallasnews.com/2013/06/how-in-the-world-did-george-zimmerman-gain-120-pounds-in-16-months.html/


Also, let's take Zimmerman's side of the story with a large grain of salt.  He's already been shown to be a conniving liar.  I know, that doesn't mean everything he says is a lie.  But if he's willing to lie for money, he's probably willing to lie to stay out of jail.  I find him to be an untrustworthy little shit.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/george_zimmerman_jailhouse_calls_codes_money.php
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/01/prosecutors-say-zimmerman-hid-second-passport-lied-about-money.html  (also, look how skinny he is in this photo)
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/18/12284954-zimmerman-spoke-to-wife-in-code-from-jail-to-hide-assets-prosecutors-allege?lite

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: ParkingPlaces on July 18, 2013, 09:50:57 AM
Now if Zimmerman would come out and make a statement that went something like the following, I would be sort of satisfied, except for the dead guy part:

Even if Zimmerman wanted to make such a statement, it's highly unlikely that his lawyer would ever let him.

You are of course correct. Zimmerman wouldn't do it. And lawyers, with no knowledge of either honesty or the truth, wouldn't even know what he was talking about. So they certainly wouldn't let him say those things.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 18, 2013, 09:57:37 AM
Now if Zimmerman would come out and make a statement that went something like the following, I would be sort of satisfied, except for the dead guy part:

Even if Zimmerman wanted to make such a statement, it's highly unlikely that his lawyer would ever let him.

You are of course correct. Zimmerman wouldn't do it. And lawyers, with no knowledge of either honesty or the truth, wouldn't even know what he was talking about. So they certainly wouldn't let him say those things.

That's not even why I said that.  My point was that, although the criminal aspect of this whole mess is over with, civil matters may still pend, and if Zimmerman were to make a public statement such as the one you envision, it would likely encourage Martin's family to file a wrongful death action against him (if, indeed, they aren't already planning to do so, which may well be the case).  Even the greenest lawyer would know that for Zimmerman to make such a statement could only work to his detriment and never to his benefit.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Truth OT on July 18, 2013, 10:58:57 AM
If what the reenactment shows was what truly happened, then it's hard to find fault in either Zimmerman or Martin for defending himself. (Start at the 2:15 mark.)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2c9_1372546233
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: ParkingPlaces on July 18, 2013, 12:24:49 PM
Now if Zimmerman would come out and make a statement that went something like the following, I would be sort of satisfied, except for the dead guy part:

Even if Zimmerman wanted to make such a statement, it's highly unlikely that his lawyer would ever let him.

You are of course correct. Zimmerman wouldn't do it. And lawyers, with no knowledge of either honesty or the truth, wouldn't even know what he was talking about. So they certainly wouldn't let him say those things.

That's not even why I said that.  My point was that, although the criminal aspect of this whole mess is over with, civil matters may still pend, and if Zimmerman were to make a public statement such as the one you envision, it would likely encourage Martin's family to file a wrongful death action against him (if, indeed, they aren't already planning to do so, which may well be the case).  Even the greenest lawyer would know that for Zimmerman to make such a statement could only work to his detriment and never to his benefit.

piano, I know. Legal matters are far to complex for my mind. Having never had to use a lawyer for anything except one land purchase, my view of the whole system is both distorted and uninformed. And I prefer keeping it that way til they catch me.  :)
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 18, 2013, 12:34:47 PM
piano, I know. Legal matters are far to complex for my mind. Having never had to use a lawyer for anything except one land purchase, my view of the whole system is both distorted and uninformed. And I prefer keeping it that way til they catch me.  :)

I know what you mean.  I've never been married, have no children, never been in a car wreck, never bought a house or anything else like that, so my need for legal advice in life has been minimal.  The closest I ever came was that girl in college who lied to me about me getting her pregnant and tried to extort a wad of cash from me.  If she had actually been pregnant, it would have been a real mess and I definitely would have needed a legal eagle, but since she was lying about the pregnancy, I escaped from the whole situation relatively unscathed.  At least compared to some people I know.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nick on July 18, 2013, 12:39:08 PM
Seems odd.  Zippy started the whole thing by ignoring the 911 operator who told him not to follow the kid.  Zippy was the aggressor but at some point he became the victim and then had the right to defend himself.  You almost need a score card for fights so you can know when it is alright to kill someone.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: screwtape on July 18, 2013, 01:49:56 PM
Whomever happens to be winning at the particular moment you are talking about is the aggressor.  It can be fluid.  Had Martin a gun, and had he survived Zimmerman's initial volley, he could have returned fire in self defense.  At least, that is how it seems to sound to me.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on July 18, 2013, 02:53:20 PM
The whole thing is a mess. And I am afraid that many people in the US will assume that it is now open season on anyone they think is suspicious, like I said in my earlier [facetious, okay, for any future prosecutorial purposes] remarks about women driving around looking for threatening-looking men to confront and shoot.

I remember being paranoid when I was walking my dogs at night right after the incident happened. If  some guy got out of a car and approached me, what the hell was I supposed to think? That they were clearly up to no good and I should take whatever defensive action I could manage.

In such a scenario, it seems like the person who reacts in the most violent way ends up the winner. Even if there was no real threat.  :P
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Truth OT on July 18, 2013, 04:56:12 PM
Zippy started the whole thing by ignoring the 911 operator who told him not to follow the kid.  Zippy was the aggressor but at some point he became the victim and then had the right to defend himself.  You almost need a score card for fights so you can know when it is alright to kill someone.

According to what Zims told the laws, that was not exactly the case. Look at his reenactment with investigators the day following the fatal encounter. The video in the link tells a different story than what has been propagated (start at the 2:15 mark).

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2c9_1372546233
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Tero on July 19, 2013, 06:37:13 AM
Them guns are effective for communicating. Most times the the othe party does not talk back. Fists are not nearly as effective
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 19, 2013, 08:55:11 AM
Them guns are effective for communicating. Most times the the othe party does not talk back. Fists are not nearly as effective
More like effective for shutting down conversations.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: shnozzola on July 19, 2013, 08:13:38 PM
President Obama:

Quote
"You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son.  Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African- American community at least, there's a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it's important to recognize that the African- American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that -- that doesn't go away."



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHBdZWbncXI
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 19, 2013, 08:52:43 PM
and now for something completely different...

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/07/66730-charles-barkley-the-voice-of-reason-on-the-zimmerman-case/
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: William on July 19, 2013, 11:18:36 PM
President Obama:
.....

Great moment of leadership there.
Context is important. Looking for improvements is important.
I'm not even American but I was lifted by what Obama said.

There are even greater contexts where many innocent people end up dead or suffering almost every day - not just regrettable like Trayvon's case - but an ongoing outrage for which we are all somewhat guilty of not doing enough about.  Global poverty. Wars. Refugees. Victims of natural disasters.  It's a long list with massive trail of snuffed out human potential.  It's off topic ... except is it?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 20, 2013, 07:51:45 PM
The gun was on his side on the inside of the pants, probably as far back as he could still grab it as he "apprehended" his "suspects." By rolling a bit to one side he could free it.

But he is still an idiot. Too many prospective gun owners are idiots.

Now we estimate 300 000 patriots in Illinois to get concealed permits. So they can dare to take their kids to the movies.
I am one of them. Now that I know people suspicious of me can stalk and murder me for no reason and get off scott free, I have no choice but to shoot first.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nick on July 20, 2013, 10:08:12 PM
We are lucky to have a man like Obama who can articulate a subject and put a personal tone to it for all to identify with.  The right naturally can't see that point.  Their heads are too far up their ass.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 21, 2013, 03:09:16 AM
Have been thinking about men I have known at the 17 year old stage in their lives and how they may have fared against GZ.  Whether their dress code would have sparked his suspicion.  Whether they were the type to have punched him or said "Hi, how ya doin'?" Whether or not they may have lived through the encounter.  Just food for thought.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on July 21, 2013, 12:32:13 PM
I worked with mentally handicapped kids many moons ago, and there was one who was about 17, a big, strapping, non-verbal white guy with a mental age of 6 years. He would quietly walk up behind you and stand very close, looking over your shoulder to see what it was you were doing, just like a curious first grader.

The first time I turned around and found myself nose to nose with this enormous grown man, I freaked out. After that it became funny because he was so harmless and actually cute.

My heart breaks for people like guy this in a world where any idiot (not just trained police officers) feels that they have the right to demand that innocent, law-abiding individuals conform to their personal codes of appropriate behavior, or risk being shot dead. :'(
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 21, 2013, 02:02:16 PM
One of the things that gets me is the number of people who are trying to argue that Martin was physically imposing.  He was 5'11", roughly 160 pounds; Zimmerman was 5'8", roughly 200 pounds.  It's not impossible that Martin could have knocked Zimmerman down and kept him on the ground, but it is a bit surprising.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nick on July 21, 2013, 02:43:31 PM
Well, you have to realize that the "right" / FOX News has been working to vilify Martin since this thing happened.  He went from a kid going to the store to a thug drug dealer who Zippy did society a favor by getting rid of.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Graybeard on July 21, 2013, 03:01:47 PM
I am quite amazed, although I shouldn’t be, about the fuss. http://www.ijreview.com/2013/07/66730-charles-barkley-the-voice-of-reason-on-the-zimmerman-case/ (Loripinkangel) and http://news.yahoo.com/zimmerman-jury-better-able-judge-fate-162313256.html (pianodwarf) tells ypu all you need to know.

I got as far as “With the grace and dignity with which they [Martin’s family] have dealt with the entire situation” from Obama’s speech, when I shouted to myself, "the point is that they didn’t!" From the start they were not going to accept anything other than a guilty verdict. None of them knew the facts, or if they did, they discarded them.

I saw nothing from the family but “I am a victim” “a white man has shot Trayvon and this is racism”. This is idiocy of the first order. It was compounded by a remark made by the mother before the verdict that God would punish Zimmerman if the court did not.

Certainly, you are never happy when a child/sibling is shot dead but there is a requirement for a trial. Once the trial is over, that is it.

I see reports on the Boston Bomber and how his family think that it is all a conspiracy by the US against Muslims.

What the hell is wrong with people? Someone’s son is the mass murderer, someone’s son is the psychopath, someone’s son is the guy who did it.

And now Obama steps in on the act in a crude and transparent, unworthy attempt to win votes. “I said, this could have been my son.” No he did not! It could not have been “his son” any moiré than it could have been my son. Sons are sons, some are arseholes, some are law abiding – Obama’s and mine are law abiding and not given to attacking people.

Quote
Sanford Police Department (SPD) investigator Chris Serino, for instance, said publicly of Martin, “This child has no criminal record whatsoever.” He called Martin “a good kid, a mild-mannered kid.” The media almost universally sustained this tragically false narrative.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/police-buried-trayvons-criminal-history/#hD7e1v1MxMv1lryJ.99

But then we read,

Quote
“Oh, God, oh, my God, oh, God,” one major reportedly said when first looking at Martin’s data. He realized that Martin had been suspended twice already that school year for offenses that should have gotten him arrested – once for getting caught with a burglary tool and a dozen items of female jewelry, the second time for getting caught with marijuana and a marijuana pipe.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/police-buried-trayvons-criminal-history/#hD7e1v1MxMv1lryJ.99

That report begins:

Quote
Jesse Jackson brought this nonsense home to Sanford during a large April 1, 2012, rally. He implied that Martin had been profiled by his high school for being a black male and suspended for the same reason. “We must stop suspending our children,” Jackson told the crowd.

Al Sharpton had already climbed on the band-wagon and was stirring up divisions.

The fact that there is a discussion is bad. It implies that there might be something in the claims of white racism both in the killing and the verdict, when it is nothing more than a refusal of the family to accept responsibility.

This is the worst sort of pandering to racial troublemaking. If you don’t believe me, change the names to A and B, look at the evidence and tell me that the jury was wrong not to bring in a guilty verdict.

If you’re really bothered that someone hasn't been locked up, keep you eyes on the news, you will find blacks, whites, Asian, etc all being shot and all being sent down for life.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on July 21, 2013, 03:38:42 PM
I don't know why the victim's school record or photos on his phone is all that relevant to what happened that night. He was not the person with a gun. He did not follow or shoot anyone. He might have been defending himself. Yet he is considered by many to be the bad guy!

I have a young relative (age 14) who is now using drugs-- smoking weed.  He has been suspended twice for it. He has been picked up by the police at 4am and brought home. His parents are having nervous breakdowns over this-- they have tried everything sort of chaining him to his bed. They are afraid to leave him unsupervised. They are spending money they don't have on lawyers and counselors. He is behaving very, very stupidly. He is an immature idiot. If he survives, he will probably grow out of it; most people do. (Both of his parents smoked weed at his age...)

He has gone from little sweet kid to big drug-using sweet kid.  He has never to our knowledge stolen anything, been in a fight or done anything more violent than play awful video games. I have never even heard him curse. I have no idea if he has photos of guns or gangsta rappers on his phone. But if he does, that will be used against him if some a$$hole decides to shoot him for being out late and looking suspicious.  :-\
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 21, 2013, 04:38:25 PM
With all due respect, Graybeard, WND is not what I would consider moderate or unbiased.  What it is, is an extremist conservative website which promotes a fundamentalist Christian approach to news (at least according to Rational Wiki - so take that with a grain of salt).  The WND article you quoted is not what I would consider a reliable source for evidence about the Martin-Zimmerman case.  What it is, is a commentary - essentially, an opinion editorial.  Op-eds are not necessarily vetted or fact-checked the same way that actual news articles are.

Regarding Trayvon Martin's school suspensions (what you apparently think should have been his criminal record), the most recent one was for being found carrying a baggie that was believed to contain marijuana residue.  Notably, they did not actually find marijuana - they found a bag that the school officials believed had formerly contained marijuana and a "marijuana pipe" (notably, the quote marks are present in every single news article which mentions it, suggesting that it might not have been confirmed).  And regarding the jewelry and "burglary tool" (a screwdriver), first off, he was suspended for writing graffiti on a locker - school officials found the jewelry and screwdriver in his bag when they searched it.  The police did in fact investigate the jewelry in question and could not tie any of it to any reported thefts.

It's pretty clear that the WND op-ed you cited had already decided Martin was guilty as sin - for burglarizing women's jewelry, for possessing drug paraphernalia - and that he should have been arrested by the police both times, but the actual facts of the case don't support his interpretation of events.  It's questionable whether he could even have been justifiably arrested on drug charges (which doesn't even touch on the whole issue of whether he should have been), but it is for sure and certain that there was no cause for arresting him for theft.  And that makes the rest of the op-ed's argument questionable.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 21, 2013, 06:43:42 PM
I don't know if anyone already said this but bringing up anything in Trayvon's past and saying it was somehow less wrong for Zimmerman to shoot him is similar to saying it is less wrong for a man to stalk and then shoot a woman because she is a prostitute or was dressed provocatively.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Spit on July 21, 2013, 07:36:07 PM
I don't know if anyone already said this but bringing up anything in Trayvon's past and saying it was somehow less wrong for Zimmerman to shoot him is similar to saying it is less wrong for a man to stalk and then shoot a woman because she is a prostitute or was dressed provocatively.
Dumbest post in the history of the internet. Congrats.  :blank:
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 21, 2013, 08:16:20 PM
Dumbest post in the history of the internet. Congrats.  :blank:
I thought it was a pretty good post, myself.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 21, 2013, 08:37:51 PM
Dumbest post in the history of the internet. Congrats.  :blank:
I thought it was a pretty good post, myself.

Considering that my entire life has crumbled before my eyes recently, criticism from someone who refers to himself as "Spit" and who's entire repertoire of posts on this forum makes Wayne and Garth look like geniuses I find this inconsequential.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Spit on July 21, 2013, 08:42:36 PM
Dumbest post in the history of the internet. Congrats.  :blank:
I thought it was a pretty good post, myself.

Considering that my entire life has crumbled before my eyes recently, criticism from someone who refers to himself as "Spit" and who's entire repertoire of posts on this forum makes Wayne and Garth look like geniuses I find this inconsequential.
I'm here for you nonetheless!  ;D
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 21, 2013, 09:00:21 PM
Grey, youre usually on point, but here youre using an idiots rationale.

Lori is 100% correct.

Nothing that he did in his past justifies a grown bafoon stalking him with a loaded pistol and shooting him. Any discussion outside of those facts are an attempt to justify a murder.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Quesi on July 21, 2013, 09:18:24 PM
I don't know if anyone already said this but bringing up anything in Trayvon's past and saying it was somehow less wrong for Zimmerman to shoot him is similar to saying it is less wrong for a man to stalk and then shoot a woman because she is a prostitute or was dressed provocatively.
Dumbest post in the history of the internet. Congrats.  :blank:

I'm wondering if you could elaborate.  In what ways do you think that the two situations are different? 

I do hope you respond and bring something constructive to the discussion.   
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: DumpsterFire on July 21, 2013, 10:51:52 PM
Spit, I too would like to know exactly what about Lori's statement you find to be so ignorant. Also, if you consider that the dumbest thing ever posted on the internet, then you must have just gotten Comcast installed in your cave this morning.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Bereft_of_Faith on July 22, 2013, 02:27:31 AM
I've been keeping away from this whole thing for reasons I'm reluctant to share, but I have a few things to say regarding some of the posts in this thread

It is difficult for me to understand anyone who is trying to bring up the victim's 'past' in order to explain away the murder/manslaughter.  (italicized since that's my personal belief, not the legal determination).

As for part of that past... marijuana?  Jesus Christ!  Really?  Mari-F'in-Jaua?  The only downside to recreational marijuana use is the wrong-headed, head up the ass thinking that made it a criminal activity.  Do me a favor.  Smoke some.  See how many people you want to assault and how much jewelry you want to steal. 

Oh, and jewelry?  Let's say that pot caused TM to routinely go around robbing houses... So he deserves to be shot dead by a... what the hell is Z?  A rent-a-cop?  No?  Z is actually something much more than a rent-a-cop?  I'm Sorry:  Still not an excuse for killing another person.  Oh, he was defending himself?  Has this pussy never gotten a beat down, and was so afraid for his life that he had to use a gun?  Just my opinion, but TM should never have been killed, regardless of his past, whatever the hell it was. 
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: William on July 22, 2013, 02:48:05 AM
Zimmerman could not have known anything about Martin's past. 

The only things he had to go on, the things that activated Zimmerman, were Martin's appearance and the fact that he knew NOTHING about Martin (but assumed a lot).  That's where all the wrong commenced.

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Graybeard on July 22, 2013, 08:34:59 AM
Grey, youre usually on point, but here youre using an idiots rationale.

Lori is 100% correct.

Nothing that he did in his past justifies a grown bafoon stalking him with a loaded pistol and shooting him. Any discussion outside of those facts are an attempt to justify a murder.

I think I should have spent a little more time explaining the significance of
why Trayvon Martin was made out to be as pure as the driven snow;
why Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson set him up as a symbol of racial oppression;
why, before the justice system had taken its course, there were calls for Zimmerman's head;
why the family would accept no other verdict but guilty;
why, when both before and after the justice process has taken its course, there were (and still are) those who are immorally using the incident to further their own ends by causing and perpetuating division.

If you are looking for problems, you need look no further than the armed neighbourhood watch, which was apparently approved and authorised (both to be armed and to challenge subjectively identified suspicious characters) by somebody.

In short, this has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the "I'm anti-social and I'm a victim" attitude meeting "I've got a badge so I'm authority." and neither of them were victim or authority.

(Interesting example by LoriPA that worked out much differently here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25199.msg563349.html#msg563349)

Quote
Nothing that he did in his past justifies a grown bafoon stalking him with a loaded pistol and shooting him. Any discussion outside of those facts are an attempt to justify a murder.

I don't see that as "fact". It seems very emotive and not at all helpful.

Quote
Nothing that he did in his past justifies a grown bafoon stalking him with a loaded pistol and shooting him. Any discussion outside of those facts are an attempt to justify a murder.

There was no murder. You know that. You also know that by making those sort of statements, you too are causing and perpetuating division.

If you want an example of injustice, you need look no further than the beating of Rodney King and what he said: "Can't we all get along?"
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: screwtape on July 22, 2013, 08:50:01 AM
the right wingers freak the flip out over the president's remarks:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/20/1224979/-Saturday-nutpick-a-palooza-Obama-and-Trayvon?showAll=yes

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/19/1225006/-Roundup-Obama-remarks-on-Trayvon-Martin

I can hardly believe people are this stupid/ crazy/ racist.  But they are.
 


I thought his remarks were rather mild and measured.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 22, 2013, 10:18:10 PM
Grey, youre usually on point, but here youre using an idiots rationale.

Lori is 100% correct.

Nothing that he did in his past justifies a grown bafoon stalking him with a loaded pistol and shooting him. Any discussion outside of those facts are an attempt to justify a murder.

I think I should have spent a little more time explaining the significance of
why Trayvon Martin was made out to be as pure as the driven snow;
why Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson set him up as a symbol of racial oppression;
why, before the justice system had taken its course, there were calls for Zimmerman's head;
why the family would accept no other verdict but guilty;
why, when both before and after the justice process has taken its course, there were (and still are) those who are immorally using the incident to further their own ends by causing and perpetuating division.

If you are looking for problems, you need look no further than the armed neighbourhood watch, which was apparently approved and authorised (both to be armed and to challenge subjectively identified suspicious characters) by somebody.

In short, this has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the "I'm anti-social and I'm a victim" attitude meeting "I've got a badge so I'm authority." and neither of them were victim or authority.

(Interesting example by LoriPA that worked out much differently here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25199.msg563349.html#msg563349)

Quote
Nothing that he did in his past justifies a grown bafoon stalking him with a loaded pistol and shooting him. Any discussion outside of those facts are an attempt to justify a murder.

I don't see that as "fact". It seems very emotive and not at all helpful.

Quote
Nothing that he did in his past justifies a grown bafoon stalking him with a loaded pistol and shooting him. Any discussion outside of those facts are an attempt to justify a murder.

There was no murder. You know that. You also know that by making those sort of statements, you too are causing and perpetuating division.

If you want an example of injustice, you need look no further than the beating of Rodney King and what he said: "Can't we all get along?"
Youre not using your brain Grey.
How was Trayvon made to be "pure" as driven snow?
by innocent it simply means he was not in the act of any crime, unless of course walking home with skittles is prohibited.
You wouldnt use such moronic justifications to support the Sandy Hook shooter. Think any of those kids ever stole a cookie from the cookie jar? Well, then the murder is justified, no?

TM is a symbol of racial oppression. Because these morons supporting Zimmerman are supporting A) his profiling of TM, b) justifying his apparent fear of Martin, C) Acting as if TM could not have feared for his own life (as the white guy is not the threat) D) Even after the facts come out painting the dead kid as the guilty party, why? Dont answer on the board, answer with what you know is the truth.

People called for that piece of shits head because he murdered a kid with skittles and iced tea. No excuses are needed as to why.

There is no reasonable verdict other than guilty.

There is a division when you can stalk and shoot a kid armed with skittles and the police dont go as far as to make an arrest. There is a division in the justice system.

I tell you what Grey, come out to Chicago, let me drop you off in a neighborhood, I'll get some armed guys to stalk you around a neighborhood and shoot you in the heart after you feel threatened enough to defend yourself. See if you defend plain outright stupidity after that. Then we can talk about how this is your fault. Use your damn brain.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 22, 2013, 11:26:42 PM
With all due respect, The Gawd, the news coverage of the Zimmerman-Martin incident was not particularly good, and it distorted the facts.  This is evidenced by the tendency a lot of people have to think that Zimmerman got out of his car to hunt Martin down, ignored the 911 dispatcher telling him he didn't need to follow Martin, and then shot him dead because he felt 'threatened'.  I fell for that distortion too until I actually did some research.

My criticism of Graybeard was his use of a WND op-ed as a source for several statements, most notably that Martin should have been arrested long prior to the incident and the school district hushed things up to protect its reputation (which was also repeated in the article).  I am still waiting for him to address that particular point of mine.  But he does have a point about the fact that the reports in the news media got blown way out of proportion to what actually happened, and made Martin look like a victim despite the fact that he wasn't.

In actual point of fact, it would have been entirely possible for Martin to have beaten Zimmerman to death, or to have pulled his gun and shot him in the heat of the moment.  In my opinion, that would not have been self-defense any more than Zimmerman's actions were self-defense - and that's because both of them broke the rules of self-defense.  In short, they are:  you don't go looking for trouble; you withdraw if at all possible; and you try to keep things from becoming violent if you can't withdraw.  Zimmerman went looking for trouble (going after Martin at all) and failed to withdraw when he had the chance.  Martin did the same when he went back to find Zimmerman and he appears to have thrown the first punch to boot.

And no, that does not justify Zimmerman's actions.  When it comes to self-defense, you cannot use someone else's errors to make up for your own.  They both screwed up, and Martin was killed because of his mistakes, while Zimmerman survived.  But it could easily have gone the other way.

EDIT: To put it another way, Martin going back after he'd successfully retreated from Zimmerman and confronting him was where he messed up.  Zimmerman had lost track of him at that point.  Martin could have gone in the residence he was staying at - and Zimmerman wouldn't have known where to go in order to follow him.  Meaning, he would still be alive today.  Instead, he decided to go back and find Zimmerman - I don't know why - and after confronting him, apparently attacked him.

That is not justifiable in my opinion.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on July 22, 2013, 11:58:50 PM
It sounds like Trayvon might have had bad judgment. If he had lost Zim, and then found him again, instead of going home, he was acting like an idiot. I know I would not go looking for a scary guy who had been following me.

Unfortunately, Zim also had bad judgment. As well as a loaded gun. He, after having lost sight of his "suspicious character", could have returned to his car and gone home. Then nobody would have gotten hurt or killed. Again, I would not have gone on looking for a scary guy who had disappeared.

I can't figure out why Zim. was out there with a gun in the first place, unless he was looking for trouble of some kind. Trayvon was out there because he was coming back from the store, not looking for trouble.

When my brother was younger, we worried about him getting beaten up by gang members, or hassled by police. We did not have to worry about him getting shot by armed "law-abiding" citizens back in those days. My 14-year-old dope-smoking miscreant relative also has bad judgment. I hope he never finds himself in the situation Trayvon was in. Because stupid mistakes can get you killed these days. :(
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 23, 2013, 12:38:31 AM
This brings me back to my penis theory...



Am I way off in saying this isn't all about race?  This is somewhat about men and their penises?!?  A little man wants to show how big his is and persue a boy that he finds suspicious.  A teenaged boy wants to show how big his is when confronted by a "creepy ass cracker."  A District Attorney  wants to show how big his is by bringing charges bigger than he can prove. The Defense Attorney showed how big his was making the victim look like a perp. Nobody wins.  A boy is Dead.  A mother is forever heartbroken.  A man has blood on his hands.  A legal system is tainted.  A nation is divided.  Six women  had to make a heart wrenching decision.  Because some men wanted to show their dicks.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Bereft_of_Faith on July 23, 2013, 01:50:17 AM
It could be said that this tragedy is almost inevitable.

For almost my entire life, ordinary citizens had to make do with talk, reason, avoidance, capitulation of some kind, flight or fight.  They didn't have the option of carrying a gun.  I've gotten into fights (when I stupidly chose option 5 above), and have even had my ass kicked a couple of times.  When did we become such a bunch of pants wetting sissies that we needed a gun to protect ourselves? 

Now that people can carry guns, some will be less likely to take any of the options above.  God forbid their actions provoke a fight and they have to get their lip split, lose a tooth, or get a rib taped.  Every confrontation could be 'He could beat me to death therefore I have to shoot him'.

This shit is the slippery slope, the thin edge... Everyone knows it.  What's next?  Dirty looks?  Black people frighten me?  The girl was asian, and knew knug fu and could have killed me with her thumb?

Yes, all of that was silly, but so is thinking that the only way to defend oneself is by using a deadly weapon.

Z should not have been armed.  If he hadn't been armed, he wouldn't have had the stones to go looking for trouble, he wouldn't have found it, and he wouldn't have had to kill a kid to avoid getting his ass beaten.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on July 23, 2013, 10:46:03 AM
Yep. Stupidity has always existed. Stupidity plus a gun is an entirely different story.

I find it interesting that the larger, older, presumably more mature and thoughtful person in the situation (Zim.) is not supposed to try to de-escalate the situation, maybe remove himself and call the police if he really thinks the other guy is dangerous, but is supposed to "stand his ground".

New rules:
You don't bring a gun to a knife fight, but you do bring a gun to a fist fight.  :?

How dangerous could the kid have seemed if Zim. did not feel threatened enough to get in his car and leave? Did Zim. assume that Trayvon would just do whatever he told him to, having no idea who the hell he was and what he was up to? It does look like Zim. thought he was in control of the scenario, until he wasn't.  :(
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Odin on July 23, 2013, 12:08:16 PM
Martin could have gone in the residence he was staying at - and Zimmerman wouldn't have known where to go in order to follow him.  Meaning, he would still be alive today.  Instead, he decided to go back and find Zimmerman - I don't know why - and after confronting him, apparently attacked him.

That is not justifiable in my opinion.

This is a moment of clarity that almost no one else has expressed.  If Z's story is to be believed, then he did lose sight of M.  Any reasonable, rational, innocent teen would have continued to a safe abode rather than confront someone like this. 

Here's another take.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 23, 2013, 12:42:17 PM
With all due respect, The Gawd, the news coverage of the Zimmerman-Martin incident was not particularly good, and it distorted the facts.  This is evidenced by the tendency a lot of people have to think that Zimmerman got out of his car to hunt Martin down, ignored the 911 dispatcher telling him he didn't need to follow Martin, and then shot him dead because he felt 'threatened'.  I fell for that distortion too until I actually did some research.

My criticism of Graybeard was his use of a WND op-ed as a source for several statements, most notably that Martin should have been arrested long prior to the incident and the school district hushed things up to protect its reputation (which was also repeated in the article).  I am still waiting for him to address that particular point of mine.  But he does have a point about the fact that the reports in the news media got blown way out of proportion to what actually happened, and made Martin look like a victim despite the fact that he wasn't.

In actual point of fact, it would have been entirely possible for Martin to have beaten Zimmerman to death, or to have pulled his gun and shot him in the heat of the moment.  In my opinion, that would not have been self-defense any more than Zimmerman's actions were self-defense - and that's because both of them broke the rules of self-defense.  In short, they are:  you don't go looking for trouble; you withdraw if at all possible; and you try to keep things from becoming violent if you can't withdraw.  Zimmerman went looking for trouble (going after Martin at all) and failed to withdraw when he had the chance.  Martin did the same when he went back to find Zimmerman and he appears to have thrown the first punch to boot.

And no, that does not justify Zimmerman's actions.  When it comes to self-defense, you cannot use someone else's errors to make up for your own.  They both screwed up, and Martin was killed because of his mistakes, while Zimmerman survived.  But it could easily have gone the other way.

EDIT: To put it another way, Martin going back after he'd successfully retreated from Zimmerman and confronting him was where he messed up.  Zimmerman had lost track of him at that point.  Martin could have gone in the residence he was staying at - and Zimmerman wouldn't have known where to go in order to follow him.  Meaning, he would still be alive today.  Instead, he decided to go back and find Zimmerman - I don't know why - and after confronting him, apparently attacked him.

That is not justifiable in my opinion.

No. Youre not getting it. We have access to facts and hindsight. That is what court is about.
If there is no George Zimmerman there that night, Trayvon goes home, and there is no story. We need to determine why that is NOT what happened. It didnt happen because Zimmerman was there and followed the kid with a loaded pistol. Trayvon did not go out to the local corner store then decide to follow a white guy and beat him to death. He was forced into a situation where he felt he had to defend himself, and in hindsight he WAS CORRECT, only thing is he failed because he did not have the pistol, the guy looking for trouble had the pistol.

Remember, we have the hindsight. When a kid who wasnt doing anything deserving to be killed, gets killed, there is a crime. Anything else is an attempt to justify it. The only question is why would anyone want to justify it?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 23, 2013, 01:14:57 PM
That Afterburner clip is little more than an attempt to demonize Trayvon Martin.  For one thing, it repeats the "burglary tool" and "stolen jewelry" accusations made against Trayvon Martin, on top of the 'disbelieving' statement that the Dade County school officials listed it as found property rather than stolen property.  It took less than an hour for me to find out that the "burglary tool" was...a flathead screwdriver (probably a small one).  As for the "stolen jewelry", it is notable that these same Dade County school officials did in fact check with the local police department, which found that none of the jewelry matched any reported stolen.

Additionally, it also makes the additional (unsupported) claim that the school officials did not report it as stolen property because they wanted to keep black crime rates in the school district low.  No, they did not report it as stolen property because they did not know whether it was stolen at the time, so they forwarded the relevant information to the police, who checked it against police reports of stolen property and did not find a single match.

But it doesn't stop there.  It also repeats another claim about the candy and fruit juice that Trayvon went to purchase - that they were components of a codeine-based mixture called "lean" in some circles (it's actually called [wiki]purple drank[/wiki]).  Which, in fact, they are[1].  But so what?  Even if he did purchase them for that reason, neither the Skittles nor the fruit drink are illegal to purchase.  If he had bought a different kind of candy, or a different kind of drink, no doubt someone would have made similar claims about him.  And in any case, it really doesn't have anything to do with the incident itself - except as an explanation for why he went to the 7-11 in the first place.

I find it rather difficult to believe that this, and the above false statement about stolen jewelry, are anything but an attempt to demonize - or perhaps start up a media lynching, to use Wittle's own words - Trayvon Martin.  And that reeks of hypocrisy, considering that he complained about Zimmerman being the target of a similar media lynching before presenting any of this.

To put it very bluntly, both Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman fucked up here.  And I am no more willing to tolerate or turn a blind eye to attempts to paint Trayvon Martin as being a vicious criminal any more than I am willing to do the same to attempts to paint George Zimmerman as a vigilante stalker.
 1. as are Sprite, Mountain Dew, and Jolly Ranchers, to name a few
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 23, 2013, 01:32:15 PM
No. Youre not getting it.
You are quite mistaken here.  I would suggest you spend a little less time declaring that other people don't get it, and a little more time reviewing the actual facts of the case.

Quote from: The Gawd
We have access to facts and hindsight. That is what court is about.
And notably, Zimmerman was already tried by a court.

Quote from: The Gawd
If there is no George Zimmerman there that night, Trayvon goes home, and there is no story. We need to determine why that is NOT what happened. It didnt happen because Zimmerman was there and followed the kid with a loaded pistol. Trayvon did not go out to the local corner store then decide to follow a white guy and beat him to death. He was forced into a situation where he felt he had to defend himself, and in hindsight he WAS CORRECT, only thing is he failed because he did not have the pistol, the guy looking for trouble had the pistol.
No, Trayvon Martin was not forced into a situation where he had to defend himself.  He was followed for roughly 150-200 feet by Zimmerman, and then Zimmerman stopped following him when told to by the dispatcher.  Martin went back and confronted Zimmerman after that.  He did not need to go back; he was essentially free and clear at that point.

Quote from: The Gawd
Remember, we have the hindsight. When a kid who wasnt doing anything deserving to be killed, gets killed, there is a crime. Anything else is an attempt to justify it. The only question is why would anyone want to justify it?
Up until he decided to go back to where Zimmerman was, he had done nothing wrong.  But when he did that, he abandoned any right to claim self-defense - because he sought to confront Zimmerman after successfully retreating.  Furthermore, as far as anyone can tell, Martin attacked Zimmerman after confronting him.  Given that Zimmerman was wounded in the face and on the back of the head, while Martin apparently wasn't (aside from the gunshot wound), I don't think Zimmerman actually attacked him other than that.

This is not an attempt to justify Trayvon's death.  I am saying that both of them messed up here.  That no more justifies Zimmerman shooting Martin than it justifies Martin attacking Zimmerman.  It was a stupid, pointless tragedy that never needed to happen.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Truth OT on July 23, 2013, 01:40:27 PM
No. Youre not getting it. We have access to facts and hindsight. That is what court is about.
If there is no George Zimmerman there that night, Trayvon goes home, and there is no story. We need to determine why that is NOT what happened. It didnt happen because Zimmerman was there and followed the kid with a loaded pistol. Trayvon did not go out to the local corner store then decide to follow a white guy and beat him to death. He was forced into a situation where he felt he had to defend himself, and in hindsight he WAS CORRECT, only thing is he failed because he did not have the pistol, the guy looking for trouble had the pistol.

Remember, we have the hindsight. When a kid who wasnt doing anything deserving to be killed, gets killed, there is a crime. Anything else is an attempt to justify it. The only question is why would anyone want to justify it?

Why justify it, you ask. Because with the help of hindsight and a glimpse of the situation that unfolded (assuming the info we have is true), then Zimmerman would appear to have fired his pistol in self defense. It is really as simple as that whether we like it or not. If Zims was geeting his head banged into the cement and his gun was revealed causinf Trayvon to see it and reach for it, then at that point it became a "bomb first" scenario. And if it's my life or your life, Ima bomb first.

Trayvon was doing nothing that merited Zimmerman following or using a weapon on him initially. Once the confrontation got physical and Zimmerman found himself in a situation where his life was endangered, AT THAT POINT using his weapon was justified. To say it was not is something I fail to understand in the slightest.

--------
The bigger issue to me that of what can be done in order to make being a young black male more safe. We need to figure out why it is that this segment of our society is a segment that is feared and found to be suspicious on a regular basis. We need to figure out what we can do as a society to uplift these so-called at risk youths and embrace them with open arms with actions that scream out to them that they are one of us as opposed to being outsiders in our minds as well as their own.
For the life of me, I'd love to understand what it was about Trayvon that made Zimmerman feel that calling the law on him was necessary. Additionally, I'd like for us to be able to make strides as a society to where young black and brown males like Trayvon will not only think to call the law, but will believe that doing so will be beneficial for him. It's unfortunate, but many minority males believe that the law and law enforcement is out to bother them and hinder them from exercising their freedom to enjoy themselves (and to a degree that feeling is justified).

We gotta stop making Zims a scapegoat for a bigger issue.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 23, 2013, 01:52:16 PM
No. Youre not getting it. We have access to facts and hindsight. That is what court is about.
If there is no George Zimmerman there that night, Trayvon goes home, and there is no story. We need to determine why that is NOT what happened. It didnt happen because Zimmerman was there and followed the kid with a loaded pistol. Trayvon did not go out to the local corner store then decide to follow a white guy and beat him to death. He was forced into a situation where he felt he had to defend himself, and in hindsight he WAS CORRECT, only thing is he failed because he did not have the pistol, the guy looking for trouble had the pistol.

Remember, we have the hindsight. When a kid who wasnt doing anything deserving to be killed, gets killed, there is a crime. Anything else is an attempt to justify it. The only question is why would anyone want to justify it?

Why justify it, you ask. Because with the help of hindsight and a glimpse of the situation that unfolded (assuming the info we have is true), then Zimmerman would appear to have fired his pistol in self defense. It is really as simple as that whether we like it or not. If Zims was geeting his head banged into the cement and his gun was revealed causinf Trayvon to see it and reach for it, then at that point it became a "bomb first" scenario. And if it's my life or your life, Ima bomb first.

Trayvon was doing nothing that merited Zimmerman following or using a weapon on him initially. Once the confrontation got physical and Zimmerman found himself in a situation where his life was endangered, AT THAT POINT using his weapon was justified. To say it was not is something I fail to understand in the slightest.

--------
The bigger issue to me that of what can be done in order to make being a young black male more safe. We need to figure out why it is that this segment of our society is a segment that is feared and found to be suspicious on a regular basis. We need to figure out what we can do as a society to uplift these so-called at risk youths and embrace them with open arms with actions that scream out to them that they are one of us as opposed to being outsiders in our minds as well as their own.
For the life of me, I'd love to understand what it was about Trayvon that made Zimmerman feel that calling the law on him was necessary. Additionally, I'd like for us to be able to make strides as a society to where young black and brown males like Trayvon will not only think to call the law, but will believe that doing so will be beneficial for him. It's unfortunate, but many minority males believe that the law and law enforcement is out to bother them and hinder them from exercising their freedom to enjoy themselves (and to a degree that feeling is justified).

We gotta stop making Zims a scapegoat for a bigger issue.
I see youre buying into self defense after stalking, argument.

Zimmerman is not a scapegoat, and there is a bigger issue. The issue is that they just created case law that makes it legal to stalk and shoot unarmed people when you feel threatened. I was always anti-gun; I literally just sent in my FOID application because I now know there are people that feel uncomfortable with my existence (which I always knew), but now can legally shoot and kill me because of it. Like you said, "Bomb first" right? And when I have one, I will teach my son to "Bomb first" and I likely will teach my daughter to "Bomb first" and have them armed legally ASAP, and also armed with an understanding of how to make things seem like self defense if they mess up and murder an unarmed kid with candy.

What other choice do I have?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Truth OT on July 23, 2013, 02:13:50 PM
I see youre buying into self defense after stalking, argument.

Based on the evidence that has been presented, I don't see how one could come to a different conclusion.

Zimmerman is not a scapegoat, and there is a bigger issue. The issue is that they just created case law that makes it legal to stalk and shoot unarmed people when you feel threatened. I was always anti-gun; I literally just sent in my FOID application because I now know there are people that feel uncomfortable with my existence (which I always knew), but now can legally shoot and kill me because of it. Like you said, "Bomb first" right? And when I have one, I will teach my son to "Bomb first" and I likely will teach my daughter to "Bomb first" and have them armed legally ASAP, and also armed with an understanding of how to make things seem like self defense if they mess up and murder an unarmed kid with candy.

What other choice do I have?

The whole thing about being able to use deadly force when one FEELS threatened is overstated. The law does NOT set such a precident. One must be able to prove that they not only felt threatened, but that they actually were in a threatening situation that allowed for/mandated the use of deadly force to protect oneself from becoming a victim themselves.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 23, 2013, 02:34:08 PM
What other choice do I have?
Well, for one thing, you could stop reading so much into the verdict here.

I'm reminded of someone who took Obama's speech (the one he gave a few days ago) and construed it to mean that Obama was declaring that black people should be disenfranchised.  What you're saying isn't quite as bad as that, but you are essentially jumping to the conclusion that the verdict here gives people the right to kill other people, as long as they make it look like it was self-defense first.  It doesn't.

Deadly force is only warranted when you're in deadly danger.  I don't know about you, but if I were trapped on the ground, with someone straddling me and punching me in the face, smacking the back of my head into concrete, I would probably think my life was in danger, and react accordingly.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 23, 2013, 03:24:02 PM
What other choice do I have?
Well, for one thing, you could stop reading so much into the verdict here.

I'm reminded of someone who took Obama's speech (the one he gave a few days ago) and construed it to mean that Obama was declaring that black people should be disenfranchised.  What you're saying isn't quite as bad as that, but you are essentially jumping to the conclusion that the verdict here gives people the right to kill other people, as long as they make it look like it was self-defense first.  It doesn't.

Deadly force is only warranted when you're in deadly danger.  I don't know about you, but if I were trapped on the ground, with someone straddling me and punching me in the face, smacking the back of my head into concrete, I would probably think my life was in danger, and react accordingly.

Youre showing an inability to put yourself into the shoes of one Trayvon Martin, but finding it all too easy to put yourself into the shoes of George Zimmerman. This is where yours and others tremendous failure is coming in.

Youre being stalked by a man with a gun at night. A creepy man with a gun. What do you do and why? Youre ignoring why you are being straddled and beaten. I guess I am a different person than you as well. I was always taught there are natural consequences to my actions. If I did something that caused me to get my ass whipped, I took my ass whipping, like a man, even when I was a boy. But I was also taught not to do things that may cause me to get my ass whipped. I was also taught to defend myself.

I cant realistically magically put myself into George's shoes, because I wouldnt stalk a kid, I wouldnt stalk a kid with a loaded pistol, thus the kid wouldnt feel the need to defend himself against me. And I wouldnt have to come up with any cookoo stories about how I stalked a kid and shot him in self defense. The only way you can defend these actions is if you see Trayvon as a threat AND are unwilling to see George as a threat.

And the verdict absolutely does give people the right to put themselves into situations where others are justified in defending themselves, then murder them in cold blood.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 23, 2013, 03:29:32 PM
I see youre buying into self defense after stalking, argument.

Based on the evidence that has been presented, I don't see how one could come to a different conclusion.

Zimmerman is not a scapegoat, and there is a bigger issue. The issue is that they just created case law that makes it legal to stalk and shoot unarmed people when you feel threatened. I was always anti-gun; I literally just sent in my FOID application because I now know there are people that feel uncomfortable with my existence (which I always knew), but now can legally shoot and kill me because of it. Like you said, "Bomb first" right? And when I have one, I will teach my son to "Bomb first" and I likely will teach my daughter to "Bomb first" and have them armed legally ASAP, and also armed with an understanding of how to make things seem like self defense if they mess up and murder an unarmed kid with candy.

What other choice do I have?

The whole thing about being able to use deadly force when one FEELS threatened is overstated. The law does NOT set such a precident. One must be able to prove that they not only felt threatened, but that they actually were in a threatening situation that allowed for/mandated the use of deadly force to protect oneself from becoming a victim themselves.
I am not overstating it at all.

Imagine a guy stalking a woman. Lets say he intends on raping the woman, but the woman doesnt know that, all she knows is she's being stalked. Guy gets too close, she is trained in self defense and is defending herself successfully against the stalker. Man pulls out pistol and shoots woman to death. Is that self defense? Do you think the courts see it as self defense?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on July 23, 2013, 05:01:45 PM
Intent is a big part of how crime is determined. The same action is a crime or not depending on intent. If you break into a house with intent of robbery, it is different from breaking into a house because you hear a woman screaming for help.

What was Trayvon's intent? Why was he on the street? He intended to go the store and then go home. We have no indication that he was up to anything other than that. Stuff about him having been suspended or being a thug wannabe is irrelevant. He had no intention of getting into a fight that night, certainly not with a gun involved.

What was Zim's intent? Why was he on the street? He intended to follow a guy while carrying a loaded gun.  There was no reason for him to be doing that. He should have been safe in his house. But he was out looking for trouble.

As has been said, if Zim had not been out there with a gun, there would have been no fight and nobody killed or hurt. Trayvon was not the problem. Zim made him into one.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Truth OT on July 23, 2013, 05:05:13 PM
I am not overstating it at all.

I wanted to say that your comparison was not an apples to apples comparison as we have no reason to believe that Zims actually stalked Trayvon. I took a moment to look at some of the legal definitions/descriptions of stalking and at least according to ILL law, Zims may have in fact been stalking Trayvon. In Florida, however, there is some doubt that Zimmerman could actually be considered a stalker for his actions in February of 2012.

Quote
Florida Law
A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking,

Cali Law
A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family is guilty of the crime of stalking.

Ill Law
A person commits stalking when he or she knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person, and he or she knows or should know that this course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to:
(1) fear for his or her safety or the safety of a third person; or
(2) suffer other emotional distress.

Texas Law
 A person commits an offense if the person, on more than one occasion and pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct that is directed specifically at another person, knowingly engages in conduct that would cause a reasonable person to fear:

(A) bodily injury or death for himself or herself;
(B) bodily injury or death for a member of the person's family or household or for an individual with whom the person has a dating relationship; or
(C) that an offense will be committed against the person's property.

Imagine a guy stalking a woman. Lets say he intends on raping the woman, but the woman doesnt know that, all she knows is she's being stalked. Guy gets too close, she is trained in self defense and is defending herself successfully against the stalker. Man pulls out pistol and shoots woman to death. Is that self defense? Do you think the courts see it as self defense?

If it is established that the guy was in fact stalking the woman with the intent to cause her harm (rape), then he has no ability to claim self defense and would be considered as a murderer for killing her.

Now, let's say that she thought she was being targeted by a potential rapist, but the evidence shows that the guy was in fact not pursuing her with any criminal intent and there was no evidence that the guy had any intention of ingaging her at all. The guy passes by her and she says, "You better stop following me." To which the guy responds, "I don't mean any harm, I thought you were someone I knew." If she then proceeds to go all Xena the Warrior Princess on his ass causing him to beg for mercy and in the process notices that he has a weapon, begins going after it only to get beaten to the punch by the guy. Is the guy not within his rights to use it to defend his own safety?

------------------
I find it a bit self servingly presumptous that the people that want Zimmerman hanged feel they know his intent. They seem to promote/accept the notion that Zims had malace aforethought and went in pursuit of Trayvon hoping for the chance to use his weapon against Trayvon. The problem with that line of thinking is that the evidence does not support that conclusion! The evidence we have shows Zims NOT stalking Trayvon, but rather looking for info on Trayvon's whereabouts to give to the laws. No attempt was made by Zims, according to the evidence, to confront or engage Martin at all. To ignore that is to dip ones toe in unreasonable waters. Comparing Zim scouting the area for Trayvon's whereabouts so that he could relay that to the authorities is hardly the same as a would be rapist stalking a woman with the intent to rape her. 
 

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Truth OT on July 23, 2013, 05:17:14 PM
As has been said, if Zim had not been out there with a gun, there would have been no fight and nobody killed or hurt. Trayvon was not the problem. Zim made him into one.

Arguing against this would be foolish. There is no doubt that Zimmerman's decision that Trayvon was somehow a threat that warranted him calling the authorities was the spark behind this whole tragedy.

What we need to be asking is why the George Zimmerman's of this world justify coming to such conclusions about the Trayvon Martins of this world. That is really the root of the bigger issue.

What was Trayvon's intent? Why was he on the street? He intended to go the store and then go home. We have no indication that he was up to anything other than that. Stuff about him having been suspended or being a thug wannabe is irrelevant. He had no intention of getting into a fight that night, certainly not with a gun involved.

Attacking the kid's charactor is in poor taste and unmerited. The case can be made that Trayvon did NOTHING wrong that night and was well within his rights to defend himself against what he perceived was a man harassing him reaching for a gun.

What was Zim's intent? Why was he on the street? He intended to follow a guy while carrying a loaded gun.  There was no reason for him to be doing that. He should have been safe in his house. But he was out looking for trouble.

According to what was told to police, he was in his truck making a run for his wife when he saw Trayvon behaving in a manner he for whatever reason found suspicious. He was not "on patrol" and nor was he looking for trouble as some who have taken the liberty of hijacking the narrative would make people believe.
Again the question comes back to why it is that Zims found Trayvon to be criminally suspicious because it is that conclusion drawn by Zims that led to everything else.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 23, 2013, 05:30:41 PM


I find it a bit self servingly presumptous that the people that want Zimmerman hanged feel they know his intent. They seem to promote/accept the notion that Zims had malace aforethought and went in pursuit of Trayvon hoping for the chance to use his weapon against Trayvon. The problem with that line of thinking is that the evidence does not support that conclusion!

The reason I formed the opinion that Zimmerman had bad intentions toward the guy in the hoodie was while listening to the 911 call.  The tone of his voice when he said "These assholes, they always get away."  When he referred to the person he had yet to meet as a "Fucking ______"  No one confirmed what that word was but it couldn't have been good.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 23, 2013, 05:39:56 PM
Youre showing an inability to put yourself into the shoes of one Trayvon Martin, but finding it all too easy to put yourself into the shoes of George Zimmerman. This is where yours and others tremendous failure is coming in.
The actual failure is your unwillingness to consider any alternative besides "George Zimmerman was at fault; Trayvon Martin was innocent".  And your example of a man pursuing a woman with intent to rape, then shooting her when she started defending herself demonstrates this.

They were both at fault.  George Zimmerman for attempting to pursue someone who wasn't committing a crime (especially since it wasn't his job to do so), and Trayvon Martin for returning after he'd gotten out of Zimmerman's sight.  That is what you're simply refusing to acknowledge - that Trayvon Martin returned to confront George Zimmerman after he had gotten away from the man.  It would be like the woman deciding after she'd gotten away that she was going go back and beat up the man who had been pursuing her because she thought he was going to rape him.

Quote from: The Gawd
Youre being stalked by a man with a gun at night. A creepy man with a gun. What do you do and why?
What do I do?  I run away as quickly as I can, and I get to a place that's well-lit and has other people there so I can safely call the police.  That's what I do.  I most assuredly do not attempt to confront the man unless I am actually trapped and unable to escape - say, I accidentally ran into a dead-end alley, or if he catches up to me and tackles me.  And at that point, I do whatever I have to do in order to break free and get away.

That did not happen here.

Quote from: The Gawd
Youre ignoring why you are being straddled and beaten.
No, you're ignoring why someone would go after someone who was possibly armed, who he'd already gotten away from, and then straddle and beat them.

Quote from: The Gawd
I guess I am a different person than you as well. I was always taught there are natural consequences to my actions. If I did something that caused me to get my ass whipped, I took my ass whipping, like a man, even when I was a boy. But I was also taught not to do things that may cause me to get my ass whipped. I was also taught to defend myself.
Meaning, I hope, that if you had gotten away from someone who was pursuing you, you wouldn't have gone back and attempted to punish him for his actions.  I honestly can't tell at this point, because this could also mean that you think Martin was justified in returning to Zimmerman's location and beating him senseless.  I think you need to clarify what you mean here.

By the way, unless you have actual legal authority over someone, like a parent has over their children, you do not have the right to punish them for something they do to you.  If you do, you're committing a crime, irrespective of whatever they might have done to you.

Quote from: The Gawd
I cant realistically magically put myself into George's shoes, because I wouldnt stalk a kid, I wouldnt stalk a kid with a loaded pistol, thus the kid wouldnt feel the need to defend himself against me. And I wouldnt have to come up with any cookoo stories about how I stalked a kid and shot him in self defense. The only way you can defend these actions is if you see Trayvon as a threat AND are unwilling to see George as a threat.
Zimmerman didn't stalk Martin - that's the point here.  He stopped when the dispatcher told him to and stayed where he was.  Have you actually looked at a map showing the layout of the place where this all went down?

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/14/2748048/interactive-map-of-trayvon-martin.html (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/14/2748048/interactive-map-of-trayvon-martin.html)

Take a look at that, especially where Zimmerman's car was parked, where Martin's house was, and where Martin's body was found.  Notice something?  Like, oh, the fact that Martin's body was less than 200 feet from Zimmerman's car, and over 300 feet from the townhouse he was staying at?  How do you make that fit with the idea that Zimmerman was stalking Martin?

Quote from: The Gawd
And the verdict absolutely does give people the right to put themselves into situations where others are justified in defending themselves, then murder them in cold blood.
Until you actually take some time to review the facts of the case - the real facts, not the talking points repeated by people with an agenda, whatever that agenda is - then I have to say that you're not knowledgeable enough about this case to declare what 'rights' it gives.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Spit on July 23, 2013, 06:49:53 PM
Dumbest post in the history of the internet. Congrats.  :blank:
I thought it was a pretty good post, myself.

Considering that my entire life has crumbled before my eyes recently, criticism from someone who refers to himself as "Spit" and who's entire repertoire of posts on this forum makes Wayne and Garth look like geniuses I find this inconsequential.
I take it back. I hope things improve soon.  ;D
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Quesi on July 24, 2013, 08:53:39 AM
You know, the larger issue here is how we as a society perceive race, gender, age and class.

I think everyone here would agree that if I, as a middle aged white woman, wore a hoodie in the rain, and walked in a random sort of way through a middle class neighborhood, no one would assume that I was a potential burglar.  And if, on that rainy night, a man followed me through that neighborhood, first in his car, and then on foot, and I subsequently lurched out and struck him, a struggle ensued, I banged his head on the sidewalk, and he then shot me to death, the police would view the situation differently.  When the police arrived on the scene, they would probably not be as ready to accept the explanation that I was a potential burglar, or that I posed a threat to the community, or that I had provoked the attack, or that the man who shot me had acted in self defense.  And a jury would view the situation differently.

Is there anyone who disagrees with the fact that this situation would be viewed differently? 

When you swap out the race and gender and age, the scenario doesn’t make sense. 

We as a society have agreed that it is ok to assume that young black men are criminals, and to treat them as such until they prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that they are not.  Here in NYC, where young black men represent a significant percentage of the population, young men of color are disproportionately targeted for random and degrading police stop and search procedures.  Taxis don’t stop for black men.  It is almost a joke.  And when black men and white men are convicted of identical crimes, the black man is statistically more likely to receive a harsher sentence.  When young black men die violent deaths, we, as a society, assume that they are at least partially to blame. 

Is this ok? 

I’ve posted this video before, but I’m going to share it again.  NYC City Council Member, Jumaane Williams, and Kristen Foy, aid to the NYC Public Advocate, were en route to a VIP luncheon associated with the West Indian Day Parade in Brooklyn.  The street that they are on was blocked off, IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE PASSAGE OF VIP’s to the event.  Councilmember Williams, who is quite young to be an elected official, showed the police his credentials, and the police refused to look at them, insisting that he could not pass.  The councilmember was on the phone with the NYC Police Commissioner at the time of his arrest.  He was arrested for refusing to leave the street that was blocked off specifically to facilitate the passage of VIP’s like him to this event.  His associate, Kristen Foy, is the man in the turquoise shirt, was also attending the event as a representative of the Public Advocate.  In this footage, you see the police pushing him back, pushing him back.  In this footage, he looks angry.  Justifiably angry.   The police are seen pushing him, and then ultimately tackling him, and knocking him face first into the ground, and then dragging him off in handcuffs. 
http://youtu.be/6HI94NG7Xso

Young black men are searched and tackled and handcuffed and shot every day.  And mostly, we kind of assume that they are at least partially responsible for their plight. 

Black men look suspicious.  They look suspicious if they walk too quickly.  They look suspicious if they walk too slowly.  They look suspicious if they don’t make eye contact.  They look confrontational if they look us directly in the eye.  They look suspicious if they reach into their pockets.  They look suspicious if they are in middle class neighborhoods.  They look suspicious if they are standing on the corner of low income neighborhoods. They look suspicious if they are carrying a bag.  They look suspicious if they are driving a nice car.  They look suspicious if they cut through an alley.  They look suspicious if they try to pass through a VIP area.  Even if they have the credentials to be there.  They look suspicious if they try to hail a cab.  They look suspicious in elevators. They look suspicious in stores.  And everyone knows they look suspicious on dark streets.   They look suspicious in groups of other black men.  And they look suspicious alone.     

We all know that this is true.  It is so deeply engrained in our psyches, that we don’t even really question it too much.   And when a black kid is shot because he looked suspicious, well, this kid should have known that he looked suspicious.  He should have been focusing on the fear of the man who was following him, rather than on his own fear of being followed by a stranger.  He should have known that the guy following him was a good guy, who had justifiably mistaken him for a bad guy.  He should have forgotten about the things he was probably taught by his parents and his teachers a decade earlier, when he was in first grade, about stranger danger. 

My first grader learned about stranger danger in school.  She thinks that there are bad guys who might try and “steal” her, and then come to our house and take Pinkie, her favorite stuffed animal.  She sometimes cries about it at night.  A decade from now, she will have different images in her mind of what a stranger might do to her.  Rachel Jeantel testified that Trayvon had images in his mind of what this stranger might do to him.   

You see, Trayvon’s problem is that he didn’t adequately embrace the fact that he just looked suspicious.  He thought that the other guy looked suspicious.  And that is a privilege that Trayvon just wasn’t entitled to.   
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on July 24, 2013, 10:29:13 AM
As a black woman, I relate to this in several levels.

I have looked at young black men with suspicion on various occasions--it is hard not too.  I have also looked at white men with suspicion, sometimes justifiably.
And I have been looked at with suspicion, mainly when I was a lot younger. I have been followed by security in stores, etc. I had to deal with the idea that I was a threat somehow, that I did not have the right to be where I was.
   
I was raised to understand that I would spend a lot of mental energy dealing with what white people thought of me, and trying to combat misperceptions. I, like most black people, had to learn to see myself through the eyes of white people, as well as developing my own identity.

It is so true that black people, esp. men,  are not supposed to have the luxury of being afraid--we are supposed to be feared, esp. by white people. We are supposed to reassure them that we are not bad. All the time. It is hard to imagine the amount of mental energy a black man, especially a young one, has to expend on this. It's a wonder more don't lose their minds.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 24, 2013, 11:33:17 AM
I actually make a specific effort not to 'notice' black people in that way.  And with good reason - I was looked at as being suspicious, strange, and even a little scary when I was growing up.  I had to wear thick glasses, so I got harassed by a lot of other children, and I responded angrily, even violently.  I got in a lot of fights where I was the one to blame for attacking even though I'd been provoked by their behavior towards me.  So I can understand how it feels to be treated that way a lot better than the average white person.  Perhaps not as well as if I'd been born with dark-colored skin, but well enough that I can at least sympathize with it.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Odin on July 24, 2013, 12:08:00 PM
I think everyone here would agree that if I, as a middle aged white woman, wore a hoodie in the rain, and walked in a random sort of way through a middle class neighborhood, no one would assume that I was a potential burglar.

Not everyone would agree.  If I were driving into my neighborhood, and saw you walking down the street toward my house, in the rain wearing a hoodie, I would view you with suspicion.  If I thought you were suspicious enough to warrant me calling the police, I most likely would try to keep you in sight until they arrived.  If I had the need to continue to track you, and you were walking into yards like you didn't want me to follow you, I would most likely have armed myself, if possible.

If you approached me, I would ask you if you were lost or needed help finding someone or a house.  You would respond by saying you were staying at such and such an address, and you were headed there now.  If you were unsure how to get there, I might offer you a lift.

If you had an attitude and gave me some lip, I would keep my distance and wait for the police to arrive.  I would still do my best to keep you in my sight.

I would do all this because I live within a neighborhood of neighbors.  I would do this to potentially protect my neighbors from harm.

I don't think I would too far out of line.  Your mileage may vary.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Quesi on July 24, 2013, 01:30:18 PM
If I thought you were suspicious enough to warrant me calling the police, I most likely would try to keep you in sight until they arrived.  If I had the need to continue to track you, and you were walking into yards like you didn't want me to follow you, I would most likely have armed myself, if possible.

What would a middle aged lady walking alone in the rain do that would be "suspicious enough" to warrant calling the police?  Especially in a fairly densely populated community.  What would I need to be doing in order to make you feel that you had to arm yourself and follow me?   
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on July 24, 2013, 04:26:46 PM
Here's where perceptions are important. At what point should a person being followed by a stranger decide that self-defense is necessary? I can't imagine following or bothering a person who is doing nothing illegal. Even if it looks "suspicious", 99% of the time it is an innocent person doing something perfectly understandable when explained.

Suppose I am out on a walk late one evening and see a young teen male, black and in a hoodie, who I don't recognize, trying to climb over a fence into a neighbor's yard. Should I assume that he is a burglar or a rapist? Should I investigate this myself, and possibly engage the person?

Of course not. If I take any action, it should be to call the neighbors, or the police. It is far more likely that it is a visiting nephew who snuck out after everyone was in bed to visit a cute neighbor girl. Or he is a mentally handicapped guy who has forgotten his keys. My brother fits that last category and, when he was younger, he got hassled a lot for "suspicious behavior" in public. Being followed or questioned invariably made him act even more "suspicious". &) I can easily imagine him freaking out and swinging at someone he thought was going to hurt him. And he could have ended up like Trayvon.[1]

If I yelled at the guy and he began to run away, is he now behaving suspiciously enough to arm myself and follow him? Why should he assume that I am not dangerous to him--I'm chasing him and he was not doing anything wrong. If he turns and attacks me, should I shoot him?  Has he now become the criminal I thought he was? Or is he still just a stupid kid who is afraid of getting in trouble with his aunt for breaking curfew, or being yelled at by his mom (again) for losing his keys?

One of the major problems with perception is that we learn about the world through the media instead of from reality. News shows feature detailed reports and images of sensational violence, while downplaying the much more widespread white collar crimes that injure far more people, but are hard to report on and boring to look at.

Several studies show that people who watch a lot of tv cop dramas and local news programs have highly exaggerated estimates of how much violent crime actually occurs. Posturing, cursing rappers and videos that feature guns and violence certainly don't help. I have seen far too many young baby-faced wannabes holding their crotches and mouthing lyrics so violent and/or obscene that my already nappy hair wants to curl.[2]

Add real guns to the already high tension mix, and people start to assume that "looks like a thug" equals suspicious equals criminal equals violence equals danger. Those people who look like this and act like that are out to do you harm. If the suspicious person reacts in some unexpected or unpleasant way, assume the worst--they are going to hurt or kill you--and shoot them first. You don't even need to wait to get a good look at them.That accounts for the "gun fail" accidental shootings of friends and family members who came home after dark or unexpectedly. :(

 1. Luckily fewer people were armed back then. He got beaten up and even arrested, but not shot. :P
 2. Can anyone explain the crotch grabbing to me?  I know, I am old school. Back in the day, some Donna Summer, Rod Stewart and Marvin Gaye songs were considered to risqué to play on the radio, just because they hinted at sex.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nam on July 24, 2013, 09:59:02 PM
This all reminds me of this southern governor (I forget which state) who was told, with evidence, that a black man wasn't guilty of the crime he was accused of, and the governor replied, "Well, he's guilty of something." -- oh by the by: the guy was on death row. Guess what happened?

-Nam
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Truth OT on July 25, 2013, 01:09:53 PM
If I thought you were suspicious enough to warrant me calling the police, I most likely would try to keep you in sight until they arrived.  If I had the need to continue to track you, and you were walking into yards like you didn't want me to follow you, I would most likely have armed myself, if possible.

What would a middle aged lady walking alone in the rain do that would be "suspicious enough" to warrant calling the police?  Especially in a fairly densely populated community.  What would I need to be doing in order to make you feel that you had to arm yourself and follow me?   

I can concede that in such a scenario one may call the police on the woman in question. BUT, the call would be quite different than it would likely be if the middle aged woman were a young man, especially a young man of color. The call to the police about the lady would likely be one that said she looks like she's on drugs and NEEDS HELP as opposed to a call that paints her as a potential threat to the neighborhood. Our perceptions as well as other factors make it more likely to feel threatened by the young male and to feel pity for the older female.

Being that GZ was supposedly running an errand for his wife when everything transpired, I am left wondering why it is that he would have been strapped. Did he make it his practice to always be packing or something?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 25, 2013, 01:42:10 PM
Being that GZ was supposedly running an errand for his wife when everything transpired, I am left wondering why it is that he would have been strapped. Did he make it his practice to always be packing or something?

Only GZ would be able to tell you that.  People who carry generally have different reasons for carrying and different times and circumstances under which they will carry.  Most people don't carry all the time, but some do.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Graybeard on July 25, 2013, 02:35:51 PM
Bureau of Justice Statistics                                    
Filename: pjim0514.csv                                    
Table 14:  Number of inmates in State prisons and local jails per 100,000 residents, by gender, race, Hispanic origin, June 30, 2005                                    
Report title:  Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2005 NCJ 213133            
Data source:  Census of Jail Inmates, 2005 and National Prisoner Statistics, 1A   
Authors:  Paige M. Harrison and Allen J. Beck
Date of version:  5/21/05
               
Table 14. Number of inmates in State prisons and local jails per 100,000 residents, by gender, race, and Hispanic origin, June 30, 2005                                    
                                    
      Number of inmates per 100,000 residents                           
Region and jurisdiction   Male.......Female...White....Black....Hispanic   ...Male/Fem......Bl:Wh               
.........All States   ..........1,249........121.......412.....2289.......742.........10.3:1.......5.6:1   

We know that a first crime is likely to be committed between ~14 and 25 years. Once you are over that age and have not committed a crime, then the chances are that you will remain basically law-abiding.

A young black male is at least 50 times more likely to be committing a crime than a middle-aged white woman.
               
This is not a perception: it is reality.

The question is, “Do you want to tackle crime by stopping and searching the most likely suspects?” or “Do you want to put an end to the statistical anomalies?”

But you would not ask either question because you can recognise a false dichotomy when you see one. You do both.

Of course you can say that
Imprisonment is the result of crime and
Crime is caused by poverty, and
Poverty is cause by low education and
Low education is caused by low expectations and
Low expectations are caused by low opportunity and
Low opportunity to make it in the honest world leads to crime and
Crime leads to imprisonment and
each generation passes down its memes.

And you can recall that in the days of slavery in the US, large numbers of slaves sat in proximity to small numbers of whites and
The whites treated them strictly to repress any ideas of freedom or rebellion and
Freedom and rebellion would have led to the loss of wealth for the whites and
The whites could pass laws but the blacks could not and
The law protects wealth and
The cause of the slaves’ dissatisfaction was the inequality of wealth and opportunity and
The fear of the whites was the inequality of wealth and opportunity and
The blacks were resentful and the whites sensed this and became afraid and distrusted the blacks.
This mentality has permeated black and white US society: Whites do not trust blacks and blacks want what the whites have and each generation passes down its memes.

Let us not forget that not all the slaves were black, the descendants of the white slaves have thrown their lot in with the other whites and see blacks as competition for scare resources.

The system needs sorting out.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 25, 2013, 03:50:27 PM
Bureau of Justice Statistics                                    
Filename: pjim0514.csv                                    
Table 14:  Number of inmates in State prisons and local jails per 100,000 residents, by gender, race, Hispanic origin, June 30, 2005                                    
Report title:  Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2005 NCJ 213133            
Data source:  Census of Jail Inmates, 2005 and National Prisoner Statistics, 1A   
Authors:  Paige M. Harrison and Allen J. Beck
Date of version:  5/21/05
               
Table 14. Number of inmates in State prisons and local jails per 100,000 residents, by gender, race, and Hispanic origin, June 30, 2005                                    
                                    
      Number of inmates per 100,000 residents                           
Region and jurisdiction   Male.......Female...White....Black....Hispanic   ...Male/Fem......Bl:Wh               
.........All States   ..........1,249........121.......412.....2289.......742.........10.3:1.......5.6:1   

We know that a first crime is likely to be committed between ~14 and 25 years. Once you are over that age and have not committed a crime, then the chances are that you will remain basically law-abiding.

A young black male is at least 50 times more likely to be committing a crime than a middle-aged white woman.
               
This is not a perception: it is reality.

The question is, “Do you want to tackle crime by stopping and searching the most likely suspects?” or “Do you want to put an end to the statistical anomalies?”

But you would not ask either question because you can recognise a false dichotomy when you see one. You do both.

Of course you can say that
Imprisonment is the result of crime and
Crime is caused by poverty, and
Poverty is cause by low education and
Low education is caused by low expectations and
Low expectations are caused by low opportunity and
Low opportunity to make it in the honest world leads to crime and
Crime leads to imprisonment and
each generation passes down its memes.

And you can recall that in the days of slavery in the US, large numbers of slaves sat in proximity to small numbers of whites and
The whites treated them strictly to repress any ideas of freedom or rebellion and
Freedom and rebellion would have led to the loss of wealth for the whites and
The whites could pass laws but the blacks could not and
The law protects wealth and
The cause of the slaves’ dissatisfaction was the inequality of wealth and opportunity and
The fear of the whites was the inequality of wealth and opportunity and
The blacks were resentful and the whites sensed this and became afraid and distrusted the blacks.
This mentality has permeated black and white US society: Whites do not trust blacks and blacks want what the whites have and each generation passes down its memes.

Let us not forget that not all the slaves were black, the descendants of the white slaves have thrown their lot in with the other whites and see blacks as competition for scare resources.

The system needs sorting out.
Just stop.

Is that evidence of a broken legal system or is that reality?
Why are there studies that show drug use is more or less equal between black and white, but drug arrests far more frequent if youre black? And that chart you posted has nothing to do with the case at hand, nor does it make it acceptable to stalk and shoot a kid. Youre doing exactly what I said, trying to defend a murder and its unbecoming of you.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on July 25, 2013, 04:10:41 PM
Statistics can be misleading. What exactly are you trying to show, Graybeard? That it is okay to detain black people who are not breaking any laws, just because? We would probably catch more criminals doing periodic random searches of everyone in the country. Guess how likely that is--middle class white people would never stand for being put through the sh!t that young black guys are supposed to accept as normal.

Imprisonment results from being arrested, charged, and convicted of a crime. Not everyone who commits a crime ends up arrested, let alone charged, or convicted. For many crimes, esp. non-violent offenses, the perp is never apprehended. And even when caught, what happens next is largely a function of the resources the perp can bring to bear.

Jails are full of people who probably are guilty of the crime they were charged with, and who could not make bail or afford a decent attorney.Middle class and upper middle class people almost never end up in jail. Not because they never break the law-- they use drugs as much as if not more than poor people,[1] pass bad checks, shoplift, and even do violence. They drive drunk or high. (cough Lohan cough.)

But they do it all behind closed doors, rather than out in the park or in a vacant lot. Police don't patrol wealthy areas to stop and search the residents. I have a friend who lives in a gated community where you have to show ID to even get past the gate. Think the police are going in there to search the teens? Who knows how the crime stats would look if they did?

And even when wealthier folks do get caught, they can get good representation so they never have to see the inside of a jail cell. They don't get beaten up or shot, either. Wealthy teens in trouble get sent to rehab or counseling, which is what should happen to most anyone doing non-violent crimes.

Once someone gets a prison record in the US, they can basically say goodbye to their future--no welfare, no food stamps, no college education, no decent job, not even the military. What is left but living off your family and/or going back to crime? And who thinks about that at 18, 19 or 20?
 1. One study I saw (wish I could remember where) showed that white middle class teens were far more likely to use drugs and drink underage than black low-income teens, because they had less supervision and more money...
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Timtheskeptic on July 25, 2013, 04:27:00 PM
As a black woman, I relate to this in several levels.

I have looked at young black men with suspicion on various occasions--it is hard not too.  I have also looked at white men with suspicion, sometimes justifiably.
And I have been looked at with suspicion, mainly when I was a lot younger. I have been followed by security in stores, etc. I had to deal with the idea that I was a threat somehow, that I did not have the right to be where I was.
   
I was raised to understand that I would spend a lot of mental energy dealing with what white people thought of me, and trying to combat misperceptions. I, like most black people, had to learn to see myself through the eyes of white people, as well as developing my own identity.

It is so true that black people, esp. men,  are not supposed to have the luxury of being afraid--we are supposed to be feared, esp. by white people. We are supposed to reassure them that we are not bad. All the time. It is hard to imagine the amount of mental energy a black man, especially a young one, has to expend on this. It's a wonder more don't lose their minds.

I agree very much. Of course, i don't try to look at people with suspicion because i have no reason to. But yeah i do feel that this world is packed with paranoid suspicions of other people. The thing i'm suspicious about are boys with their pants below their butt. I do feel that i get some people looking at me suspiciously. I don't know why. I'm just a white deaf 31 year old guy just minding his own business. I remember back in Arizona (I'm no longer living there thankfully) i was walking on home and there's this woman ahead of me. she stops when i was just about to pass her, she went, "WHAT?" at me. i said, "nothing." So when i was at the crosswalk, i went ahead and crossed again to the other side and saw her still standing at the crosswalk.

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 25, 2013, 05:53:36 PM

The question is, “Do you want to tackle crime by stopping and searching the most likely suspects?”


No.  I am not a cop.  I am not trained to deal with the reaction such suspects may have to my stopping them.  They may get pissy and beat on me.  I, being untrained, may tragically shoot and kill them.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Odin on July 26, 2013, 08:00:30 AM
What would a middle aged lady walking alone in the rain do that would be "suspicious enough" to warrant calling the police?  Especially in a fairly densely populated community.  What would I need to be doing in order to make you feel that you had to arm yourself and follow me?

I don't live in a densely populated community.  My house is in a development, near the end of a cul-de-sac. 

I have taken a long time to answer because I'm having trouble defining what might make me "suspicious enough" to warrant a call to police.  Maybe it's like pornography - I'll know it when I see it!

If I were that suspicious, I would probably try to keep you in sight until police arrived, so they could locate you and help you find your way home.  It would be a rare circumstance where I would feel threatened enough to go home, arm myself, and go back into the streets to keep an eye on you.  I have a concealed carry permit, but the chances I would have had a weapon on me are almost nil.

Maybe I missed something in the trial testimony, but GZ seemed to be trailing TM to keep him in sight.  I never heard that GZ confronted TM.  GZ said TM doubled back and confronted him.  If TM would have gone to the house upon first losing GZ, he could have told his dad about the crazy ass cracker following him, and then the police could have questioned GZ.

Of course, we have only GZ's story to go on.  TM can't tell his.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 26, 2013, 10:19:41 AM
Maybe I missed something in the trial testimony, but GZ seemed to be trailing TM to keep him in sight.  I never heard that GZ confronted TM.  GZ said TM doubled back and confronted him.  If TM would have gone to the house upon first losing GZ, he could have told his dad about the crazy ass cracker following him, and then the police could have questioned GZ.
Trailing someone - even if it's just to keep them in sight - is itself an escalation.  I mean, think about it.  Zimmerman was apparently trying to keep Martin in sight.  Do you really think that being watched like that did not affect Martin's perception of the situation?  That it didn't make him feel threatened at all?  Especially when he ran off and Zimmerman got out of his car to follow?  I'm not saying that it justified him in going back after Zimmerman, but it assuredly made the situation worse than it needed to be.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on July 26, 2013, 12:52:14 PM
Honestly, now that I think about it, Trayvon might have been acting perfectly rationally, from the perspective of a teenager with younger kids and family at home. I think that if he saw that someone was following him, after dark, and got out of their car, and was also intermittently talking on the phone, presumably about him, he would be panicked beyond belief. Does the guy have a friend in another car somewhere? What the hell is going on? Nothing good, that was for sure. If I was a teen, I know I would be thinking that rape, kidnapping or who knows what was in store for me.
 
And, as a parent, I am not sure that I would head straight home either, as I would not want the person to know where I lived and possibly go after my daughter, too! In my panicked state, I might even confront the person myself. I hope I wouldn't, but I might think I was protecting my family at that point. Trayvon might have thought that if he went home, the person--maybe a serial killer like Jeffrey Dahmer-- would know where he lived, and might go after the other kids.

Teens don't generally think they are going to die-- they think they are invincible. They also often fantasize about being heroes and saving their friends and families from danger.[1] As has been said, we don't really know what was in Trayvon's mind. And, despite the trial, we may never really know what went on between the two that night. I just wish there had not been a gun involved.
 1. My young male students and relatives love to tell me all the plans they have for saving everyone from the coming zombie apocalypse... &)
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Tero on July 26, 2013, 01:10:20 PM
Yeah, exactly, invincible teens and too much video games!

Not so much real life fights.

Zimmerman would have avoided all by:
Hi I'm the neighborhood watch here. Are you a guest here? And can we call someone to verify that?

Instead: what are you doing here? is what Z said.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 26, 2013, 01:33:28 PM
Again, lets not turn this around on the kid. He did not stalk Zimmerman. Zimmerman was the one acting invincible by stalking the kid... with a loaded pistol. His actions are the ones to be described as playing too many video games. Lets stop vilifying the kid, no? He's not the murderer, he was the one going home who was murdered.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 26, 2013, 01:36:01 PM
It isn't even so much that teenagers think they're invincible, it's that the part of their brain that assesses risk isn't fully developed.  Frankly, it doesn't finish developing till the mid-twenties or later.  I'm in my mid-thirties, and I still occasionally misjudge risks.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 26, 2013, 01:43:43 PM
It isn't even so much that teenagers think they're invincible, it's that the part of their brain that assesses risk isn't fully developed.  Frankly, it doesn't finish developing till the mid-twenties or later.  I'm in my mid-thirties, and I still occasionally misjudge risks.
Do you think he fully assessed the risk? Think it may have crossed his mind that GZ was a threat whom was stalking him and may want to kill him? Think that possibly crossed his mind? Was he correct? Lets stop blaming the kid for this lunatic murdering him. Any assumption he made about GZ were confirmed with the murder, any action he took to defend himself were confirmed with the murder.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 26, 2013, 01:53:06 PM
Again, lets not turn this around on the kid. He did not stalk Zimmerman. Zimmerman was the one acting invincible by stalking the kid... with a loaded pistol. His actions are the ones to be described as playing too many video games. Lets stop vilifying the kid, no? He's not the murderer, he was the one going home who was murdered.
Don't you realize that you're acting much the same as the people who insist on exonerating Zimmerman and vilifying Martin?

The reality of the situation is that they both made rather serious errors of judgment in that situation.  There is nothing to be gained by insisting that it must be otherwise when the facts of the matter don't support it.  Isn't that what this website is about?  Basing opinions on provable, verifiable facts?

Believe me, I've reviewed the facts of this case pretty carefully - before I did, I bought into the "Zimmerman stalked him, confronted him, and then shot him dead while claiming self-defense" line without really thinking about it - and those facts simply don't support that line of rhetoric.  They certainly don't support it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do you think he fully assessed the risk? Think it may have crossed his mind that GZ was a threat whom was stalking him and may want to kill him? Think that possibly crossed his mind? Was he correct? Lets stop blaming the kid for this lunatic murdering him. Any assumption he made about GZ were confirmed with the murder, any action he took to defend himself were confirmed with the murder.
I really wish you would stop with the confirmation bias and circular reasoning.  Anything anyone says that doesn't conform to your belief that Zimmerman is a lunatic vigilante stalker who shot Martin while claiming self-defense simply gets ignored; and stating that Martin's assumptions were confirmed and actions justified because he was killed is one of the most blatant examples of circular reasoning I've seen in a long time.

I mean, seriously!  He was killed, therefore everything he must have suspected about Zimmerman was true, and therefore everything he did to Zimmerman was retroactively justified?  Don't you realize just how you sound when you say things like this?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 26, 2013, 02:15:55 PM
Don't you realize that you're acting much the same as the people who insist on exonerating Zimmerman and vilifying Martin?

The reality of the situation is that they both made rather serious errors of judgment in that situation.  There is nothing to be gained by insisting that it must be otherwise when the facts of the matter don't support it.  Isn't that what this website is about?  Basing opinions on provable, verifiable facts?
How am I acting in the same manner, please expand. The ONLY verifiable facts of the case are that Zimmerman followed the kid, and that the kid was shot to death, and of course that the kid was not in the act of a crime. THOSE ARE THE ONLY FACTS WE HAVE. The rest is an attempt to justify the actions. This is what you are being willfully ignorant of. You are attempting to explain away WHY that kid never made it home. My position is, if he was not in the act of a crime himself, then it is irrelevant what excuse was given for him being shot. And I am not going to sit back and let dishonest people try to change the facts around to make this about what the victim did.

Quote
Believe me, I've reviewed the facts of this case pretty carefully - before I did, I bought into the "Zimmerman stalked him, confronted him, and then shot him dead while claiming self-defense" line without really thinking about it - and those facts simply don't support that line of rhetoric.  They certainly don't support it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Unless you can show the kid was committing a crime you have no reasonable case. All you have is trying to turn the victim into to guilty party.

Quote
I really wish you would stop with the confirmation bias and circular reasoning.  Anything anyone says that doesn't conform to your belief that Zimmerman is a lunatic vigilante stalker who shot Martin while claiming self-defense simply gets ignored; and stating that Martin's assumptions were confirmed and actions justified because he was killed is one of the most blatant examples of circular reasoning I've seen in a long time.

I mean, seriously!  He was killed, therefore everything he must have suspected about Zimmerman was true, and therefore everything he did to Zimmerman was retroactively justified?  Don't you realize just how you sound when you say things like this?
Confirmation bias? Please. The guy stalked him. Thats a fact as given by ALL parties. He stalked him with a LOADED PISTOL. A fact shown by the fact that the case exists. The kid has a right to defend himself against armed stalkers. The guy is a lunatic, check out his actual record. Please show me where I am wrong. When doing so, dont try to make the dead kid into the guilty party. Its classless.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 26, 2013, 02:34:49 PM
Furthermore, what should the kid have done? I keep hearing and seeing dishonest people talk about the mistakes he made, but NEVER not once has anyone suggested a reasonable different response for him. And of course ALL of them suggest he should be submissive, which of course is a holdover from Jim Crow/slavery times.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Spit on July 26, 2013, 02:36:54 PM
^FYI a "LOADED PISTOL" is the only way anybody but an idiot would carry one. It's pretty clear you know nothing about firearms.   :police:
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Tero on July 26, 2013, 02:37:03 PM
Again, lets not turn this around on the kid. He did not stalk Zimmerman. Zimmerman was the one acting invincible by stalking the kid... with a loaded pistol. His actions are the ones to be described as playing too many video games. Lets stop vilifying the kid, no? He's not the murderer, he was the one going home who was murdered.
I didn't say he was wrong, he was just immature. Many 17 to 18 year olds are stupid in practical matters, even the geniuses.

If the kid was high on Romilar, even then it is not a matter for Zimmerman to investigate up close.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 26, 2013, 02:52:12 PM
^FYI a "LOADED PISTOL" is the only way anybody but an idiot would carry one. It's pretty clear you know nothing about firearms.   :police:
Did I suggest he should carry an unloaded pistol? Stop being an idiot and trying to deflect away from the actual issue here.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: screwtape on July 26, 2013, 03:33:23 PM
Okay, let's all simmer down here and stop with the name calling.  You are all smart enough to make your arguments without trying to make the other guy feel bad or look stupid.  Calling names is not a rational argument.

Carry on. 
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 26, 2013, 04:14:53 PM
How am I acting in the same manner, please expand. The ONLY verifiable facts of the case are that Zimmerman followed the kid, and that the kid was shot to death, and of course that the kid was not in the act of a crime. THOSE ARE THE ONLY FACTS WE HAVE.
Those are facts of this case, and I don't think anyone is denying it.  However, you are ignoring other facts of the case, such as the fact that Martin attacked Zimmerman and caused physical injuries to him sometime between the end of Zimmerman's call to the 911 dispatcher and when Martin was shot.  Those are also verifiable facts in this case.

Quote from: The Gawd
The rest is an attempt to justify the actions. This is what you are being willfully ignorant of. You are attempting to explain away WHY that kid never made it home. My position is, if he was not in the act of a crime himself, then it is irrelevant what excuse was given for him being shot. And I am not going to sit back and let dishonest people try to change the facts around to make this about what the victim did.
Seriously?!  You think the fact that Zimmerman's face and the back of his head were bleeding nothing more than an attempts to justify his firing his gun?  Because that's sure what it seems like you're saying.  If he was being attacked by Travyon Martin - and those injuries go a long way towards demonstrating that he was - and if he was pinned by Trayvon Martin - which eyewitness testimony seems to corroborate - then it's a little much to call those things nothing more than attempts to justify his firing his gun.

Quote from: The Gawd
Unless you can show the kid was committing a crime you have no reasonable case. All you have is trying to turn the victim into to guilty party.
If I am being followed by someone, for whatever reason, and I get away from him (which is provable from the call to the 911 dispatcher), and then I go back and confront, then attack the person who was following me, then I just committed assault and battery, at the very least.  Doesn't matter what the guy might or might not have intended to do, or whether he was armed or not.

Quote from: The Gawd
Confirmation bias? Please. The guy stalked him. Thats a fact as given by ALL parties.
No, it isn't.  What Zimmerman did was not stalking under Florida law, and I suspect it would not have been considered stalking even under common law.  It isn't even what you said earlier - you said that Zimmerman followed Martin, which he did.  Now, maybe you're conflating the two words, but that's nobody's fault but your own.

Quote from: The Gawd
He stalked him with a LOADED PISTOL. A fact shown by the fact that the case exists.
Zimmerman had a concealed carry permit.  That means he was legally permitted to carry a loaded firearm.  Your attempt to 'prove' that he was stalking Martin with a loaded gun is, frankly, full of holes.  Yes, he was following Martin (for a short time), and yes, he was carrying a gun, but you are trying to act like the two are linked, which they aren't.

Quote from: The Gawd
The kid has a right to defend himself against armed stalkers.
And thus you twist the facts to try to 'prove' that Zimmerman was committing a crime.  The problem is, he wasn't.  He was the captain of his neighborhood watch organization.  It was his job to watch for people who might be committing crimes and alert the police to it, which he did in this case.  He made a stupid choice in going after Martin at all, but he didn't keep chasing Martin; he stopped when requested to by the dispatcher.  That blows the whole idea that he was stalking Martin out of the water.

Unless Zimmerman had Martin trapped, or unless he was actually shooting at Martin, Martin had the obligation to escape - not to attack.  If you attack someone who's not attacking you, even if they happen to be armed, then it's not self-defense.  It's assault and battery.  Trying to retroactively justify Martin's attack on Zimmerman by the fact that Zimmerman was armed is an example of both confirmation bias and circular reasoning.

Quote from: The Gawd
The guy is a lunatic, check out his actual record. Please show me where I am wrong. When doing so, dont try to make the dead kid into the guilty party. Its classless.
I'm getting more than a little tired of this "don't make the dead kid into the guilty party" line you keep dishing out.  Because I'm not making him into the guilty party.  I'm saying that they both made stupid choices, and Martin was killed as a result.  I realize that's not what you want to hear - you want people to acknowledge that you're correct about this, and that Zimmerman committed murder - but the fact of the matter is that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  Nobody has the right to take that away from him simply because they believe he's guilty.

That means every time you call him an armed stalker, every time you call him a lunatic by pointing to things in the past which you're taking out of context, every time you attempt to justify Trayvon Martin's attacking him as "self-defense", you're doing exactly what the people who are attempting to vilify Martin and exonerate Zimmerman are doing.  You're attempting to convict someone in the courtroom of public opinion.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Spit on July 26, 2013, 04:43:27 PM
^FYI a "LOADED PISTOL" is the only way anybody but an idiot would carry one. It's pretty clear you know nothing about firearms.   :police:
Did I suggest he should carry an unloaded pistol? Stop being an idiot and trying to deflect away from the actual issue here.
So Zimmerman was correct in carrying his pistol loaded.  :police:
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 26, 2013, 04:51:30 PM
^FYI a "LOADED PISTOL" is the only way anybody but an idiot would carry one. It's pretty clear you know nothing about firearms.   :police:
Did I suggest he should carry an unloaded pistol? Stop being an idiot and trying to deflect away from the actual issue here.
So Zimmerman was correct in carrying his pistol loaded.  :police:
No. Zimmerman shouldve ran his damn errands like he was supposed to. If he takes his pistol into Wal-Mart to get tampons fine.

But since you want to dwell on dumb things... lets see if youre smart as you want to appear to be.

Why shouldnt one carry an gun that isnt loaded?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 26, 2013, 05:26:09 PM
Those are facts of this case, and I don't think anyone is denying it.  However, you are ignoring other facts of the case, such as the fact that Martin attacked Zimmerman and caused physical injuries to him sometime between the end of Zimmerman's call to the 911 dispatcher and when Martin was shot.  Those are also verifiable facts in this case.
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.

Quote
Seriously?!  You think the fact that Zimmerman's face and the back of his head were bleeding nothing more than an attempts to justify his firing his gun?  Because that's sure what it seems like you're saying.  If he was being attacked by Travyon Martin - and those injuries go a long way towards demonstrating that he was - and if he was pinned by Trayvon Martin - which eyewitness testimony seems to corroborate - then it's a little much to call those things nothing more than attempts to justify his firing his gun.
Stop being willfully ignorant. Zimmerman stalked the kid and put him in a position to defend himself. Those are the facts we have. 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.

Quote
If I am being followed by someone, for whatever reason, and I get away from him (which is provable from the call to the 911 dispatcher), and then I go back and confront, then attack the person who was following me, then I just committed assault and battery, at the very least.  Doesn't matter what the guy might or might not have intended to do, or whether he was armed or not.
You are proving to be intellectually and personally dishonest. You have here, admitted that the kid was being stalked. 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.

Quote
No, it isn't.  What Zimmerman did was not stalking under Florida law, and I suspect it would not have been considered stalking even under common law.  It isn't even what you said earlier - you said that Zimmerman followed Martin, which he did.  Now, maybe you're conflating the two words, but that's nobody's fault but your own.
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.

Quote
Zimmerman had a concealed carry permit.  That means he was legally permitted to carry a loaded firearm.  Your attempt to 'prove' that he was stalking Martin with a loaded gun is, frankly, full of holes.  Yes, he was following Martin (for a short time), and yes, he was carrying a gun, but you are trying to act like the two are linked, which they aren't.
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.

Quote
And thus you twist the facts to try to 'prove' that Zimmerman was committing a crime.  The problem is, he wasn't.  He was the captain of his neighborhood watch organization.  It was his job to watch for people who might be committing crimes and alert the police to it, which he did in this case.  He made a stupid choice in going after Martin at all, but he didn't keep chasing Martin; he stopped when requested to by the dispatcher.  That blows the whole idea that he was stalking Martin out of the water.
Where did I say Zimmerman was committing a crime. You are being intellectually dishonest. As captain of his neighborhood watch, his duty is to make sure kids like Trayvon get home safe. 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.

Quote
Unless Zimmerman had Martin trapped, or unless he was actually shooting at Martin, Martin had the obligation to escape - not to attack.  If you attack someone who's not attacking you, even if they happen to be armed, then it's not self-defense.  It's assault and battery.  Trying to retroactively justify Martin's attack on Zimmerman by the fact that Zimmerman was armed is an example of both confirmation bias and circular reasoning.
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. Any smart person (which you are proving not to be) 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 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.

Quote
I'm getting more than a little tired of this "don't make the dead kid into the guilty party" line you keep dishing out.  Because I'm not making him into the guilty party.  I'm saying that they both made stupid choices, and Martin was killed as a result.  I realize that's not what you want to hear - you want people to acknowledge that you're correct about this, and that Zimmerman committed murder - but the fact of the matter is that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  Nobody has the right to take that away from him simply because they believe he's guilty.
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. The fact that you cant even understand that whether or not Zimmerman did it was not on trial. Thats a known fact. 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. 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.

Quote
That means every time you call him an armed stalker, every time you call him a lunatic by pointing to things in the past which you're taking out of context, every time you attempt to justify Trayvon Martin's attacking him as "self-defense", you're doing exactly what the people who are attempting to vilify Martin and exonerate Zimmerman are doing.  You're attempting to convict someone in the courtroom of public opinion.
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.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Odin on July 26, 2013, 06:33:36 PM
Furthermore, what should the kid have done? I keep hearing and seeing dishonest people talk about the mistakes he made, but NEVER not once has anyone suggested a reasonable different response for him. And of course ALL of them suggest he should be submissive, which of course is a holdover from Jim Crow/slavery times.

I suggested a course of action TM could have, and perhaps should have, taken above.  It would be neither aggressive nor submissive.  He could have gone home. 

I have trouble thinking about a good outcome of confronting someone "stalking" someone, in the situation described in the trial testimony.  There is likely to be a confrontation in any case.  What could have possibly led TM to believe that the crazy ass cracker following him wasn't armed?  I would have assumed he was. 

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Spit on July 26, 2013, 06:39:09 PM
^FYI a "LOADED PISTOL" is the only way anybody but an idiot would carry one. It's pretty clear you know nothing about firearms.   :police:
Did I suggest he should carry an unloaded pistol? Stop being an idiot and trying to deflect away from the actual issue here.
So Zimmerman was correct in carrying his pistol loaded.  :police:
No. Zimmerman shouldve ran his damn errands like he was supposed to. If he takes his pistol into Wal-Mart to get tampons fine.

But since you want to dwell on dumb things... lets see if youre smart as you want to appear to be.

Why shouldnt one carry an gun that isnt loaded?
An: The form of a used before words beginning with a vowel or with an unpronounced h. Now What was the question again?  :police:
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nam on July 26, 2013, 06:41:37 PM
Assumption's a bitch.

-Nam
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 26, 2013, 06:45:43 PM
I suggested a course of action TM could have, and perhaps should have, taken above.  It would be neither aggressive nor submissive.  He could have gone home. 

I have trouble thinking about a good outcome of confronting someone "stalking" someone, in the situation described in the trial testimony.  There is likely to be a confrontation in any case.  What could have possibly led TM to believe that the crazy ass cracker following him wasn't armed?  I would have assumed he was. 

Odin, King of the Gods
Hate to be captain obvious, but thats what he was doing when the armed assailant started stalking him. Remember? Armed or not, he has a right as per the FL law I linked to, to defend himself.

So, you have not provided an answer, instead simply stated that he should do exactly what he was doing when he was stalked and murdered.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 26, 2013, 06:47:01 PM
^FYI a "LOADED PISTOL" is the only way anybody but an idiot would carry one. It's pretty clear you know nothing about firearms.   :police:
Did I suggest he should carry an unloaded pistol? Stop being an idiot and trying to deflect away from the actual issue here.
So Zimmerman was correct in carrying his pistol loaded.  :police:
No. Zimmerman shouldve ran his damn errands like he was supposed to. If he takes his pistol into Wal-Mart to get tampons fine.

But since you want to dwell on dumb things... lets see if youre smart as you want to appear to be.

Why shouldnt one carry an gun that isnt loaded?
An: The form of a used before words beginning with a vowel or with an unpronounced h. Now What was the question again?  :police:
Answer the question.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Odin on July 26, 2013, 06:53:35 PM
Hate to be captain obvious, but thats what he was doing when the armed assailant started stalking him. Remember? Armed or not, he has a right as per the FL law I linked to, to defend himself.

So, you have not provided an answer, instead simply stated that he should do exactly what he was doing when he was stalked and murdered.

Sorry, but it's impossible to have any meaningful conversation with you.  Based on the only testimony we have at this point, he was headed home, but decided to abort that plan and confront an armed stalker.  According to testimony, he was tailed, not stalked.  He was shot in self-defense, not murdered.  You have absolutely no basis for your position.

So, I'll ask you directly.  It you were TM, but with your brain, would you not have assumed GZ was armed?  Would that realization not have made you want to go to a safe haven, rather than confront an armed stalker?  I would have wanted to get away, as fast as possible. 

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Graybeard on July 26, 2013, 06:59:35 PM

The system needs sorting out.
Just stop.

Is that evidence of a broken legal system or is that reality?

Why would anyone make up statistics?

Quote
Youre doing exactly what I said, trying to defend a murder and its unbecoming of you.

WWGHA is dedicated to helping people who believe something without evidence. Clearly there was no murder. Why do you insist on saying there was? Did you not hear the juror who said that there simply was not the evidence to convict? Or perhaps your prejudice trumps that?

I ask you to address the social causes from the start of the incident to the verdict, not just shout because you don't like the result.

I cannot imagine that you would want a justice system that is based on a popular vote based upon the reports of a hysterical media. Did you get so wound up about O J Simpson?

If you read what I have written instead of imagining what I have written, you will see that my point is that young blacks males are distrusted. You will note an earlier post that asks "if Martin had been a middle-aged white woman, would this have ever happened?" The answer is clearly "No." But there is probably a reason for that, and I gave a few.

It is not the justice system that is broken; the justice system reflects society. It is society that is broken. That's what I said.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 26, 2013, 07:04:36 PM
Sorry, but it's impossible to have any meaningful conversation with you.  Based on the only testimony we have at this point, he was headed home, but decided to abort that plan and confront an armed stalker.  According to testimony, he was tailed, not stalked.  He was shot in self-defense, not murdered.  You have absolutely no basis for your position.

So, I'll ask you directly.  It you were TM, but with your brain, would you not have assumed GZ was armed?  Would that realization not have made you want to go to a safe haven, rather than confront an armed stalker?  I would have wanted to get away, as fast as possible. 

Odin, King of the Gods
Youre proving to be a deliberately ignorant as well.
The kid was being stalked by an armed assailant when he was walking home (aka doing what you said he should do). What your train (lack) of thought does is let the armed assailant off the hook, and suggest a Jim Crow/slavery course of action for Martin. Well, based upon FL law, Martin had a right to defend himself.

Also using MY brain in Martin's situation I defend myself whether he has a weapon or not, but I defend myself even with more ferocity if I think he has a weapon or I know he has a weapon. What I dont do is lead him to my home where my little sisters are at, where my mother is at. I do my best to not allow him to use his weapon on me and I get to a place where I can see what he is doing so I dont get shot in the back and I have a fighting chance to come out of this alive.

You think he should just be the victim and not stand up for himself or lead an armed assailant to where his family is. Two dumb moves.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 26, 2013, 07:20:38 PM

The system needs sorting out.
Just stop.

Is that evidence of a broken legal system or is that reality?

Why would anyone make up statistics?

Quote
Youre doing exactly what I said, trying to defend a murder and its unbecoming of you.

WWGHA is dedicated to helping people who believe something without evidence. Clearly there was no murder. Why do you insist on saying there was? Did you not hear the juror who said that there simply was not the evidence to convict? Or perhaps your prejudice trumps that?

I ask you to address the social causes from the start of the incident to the verdict, not just shout because you don't like the result.

I cannot imagine that you would want a justice system that is based on a popular vote based upon the reports of a hysterical media. Did you get so wound up about O J Simpson?

If you read what I have written instead of imagining what I have written, you will see that my point is that young blacks males are distrusted. You will note an earlier post that asks "if Martin had been a middle-aged white woman, would this have ever happened?" The answer is clearly "No." But there is probably a reason for that, and I gave a few.

It is not the justice system that is broken; the justice system reflects society. It is society that is broken. That's what I said.
Still using the same lack of reasoning I see. First off, the jurors EXACT words are "George Zimmerman got away with murder" link? Admit your stupid folly and move on. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/juror-b29-maddy-says-zimmerman-got-away-with-murder/2013/07/25/a636ec2a-f55a-11e2-aa2e-4088616498b4_story.html

Why would you assume what side I "was on" in the OJ trial (as if people must pick sides)? What does that say about you? I see your true colors grey, very clearly.

There is a difference in the Zimmerman and Simpson trials, one that klansmen people like yourself seem to either ignore or are incapable of grasping. The OJ trial was a trial to determine if OJ committed the murders. Read that again and let it sink into your simple brain. The Zimmerman trial has no such debate. Zimmerman killed the kid. That was established before the trial. Read it again, let it sink into your simple brain. What ACTUALLY was on trial in the Zimmerman case is whether it was okay to murder the kid. The fact that you liken this to the OJ trial simply reveals your hood and robe for all to see.

Get it? Do I need to repeat it to make it more clear? Or is that peanut of yours working?

Yes, the justice system is broken. Thats for another thread. Society is broken as well. But when the justice system knows who the murderer is, knows the victim was an innocent kid, and lets the murderer walk free, its safe to say the system is broken. Your acceptance of a bigoted view being the reason Zimmerman got off is quite frankly disgusting.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 26, 2013, 07:21:03 PM
Okay, let's all simmer down here and stop with the name calling.  You are all smart enough to make your arguments without trying to make the other guy feel bad or look stupid.  Calling names is not a rational argument.

Carry on. 

This is what the whole nation is doing.  Calling names.  Making it racial.  Making it political.  And the media rakes in the bucks.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nam on July 26, 2013, 07:21:43 PM
Graybeard,

There wasn't evidence to convict because the jury was constrained by the judge in the method of how the jury could come to the conclusion of the findings. Based on such constriction there were really only two options posed to them: not guilty and or they can't make a final decision. (hung jury) Guilty seemed to be taken off the table based on those restrictions.

And also, there were more than one juror. You're speaking about one juror. Four of the six jurors stated that the one juror who first spoke after the trial did not represent them in any way. From my understanding, most of them felt he deserved jail time but they couldn't rule that way based on the judges orders based on the Stand Your Ground law itself.

Also, if the people are the Justice system, then how exactly can't it be broken? If the people can, so can the things they create and implement.

Oh, and many many MANY people create false statistics. Not saying your statistics are false but false ones do exist. And others manipulated. And the black society is portrayed as menacing because many white people portray them that way. Sadly, so do some black people.

Isn't it ironic that 30-40 years ago in the US whites were portrayed as menacing and now it's reversed; mainly because those same white people and their offspring etc., have propagandi'd (?) It over the years.

The KKK, white nationalist groups, storm front.org, and a good deal of the Republicans and Tea Party caucuses.

It's funny: the Republicans freed the slaves and now they're trying to enslave them once again.


-Nam
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 26, 2013, 07:26:56 PM

No. Zimmerman shouldve ran his damn errands like he was supposed to. If he takes his pistol into Wal-Mart to get tampons fine.


A little off topic but in Texas you can carry a pistol but not tampons...
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nam on July 26, 2013, 07:37:32 PM

No. Zimmerman shouldve ran his damn errands like he was supposed to. If he takes his pistol into Wal-Mart to get tampons fine.


A little off topic but in Texas you can carry a pistol but not tampons...

Hey, in Florida periods are illegal in public![1]

-Nam
 1. it could be true
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Spit on July 26, 2013, 08:00:55 PM
^FYI a "LOADED PISTOL" is the only way anybody but an idiot would carry one. It's pretty clear you know nothing about firearms.   :police:
Did I suggest he should carry an unloaded pistol? Stop being an idiot and trying to deflect away from the actual issue here.
So Zimmerman was correct in carrying his pistol loaded.  :police:
No. Zimmerman shouldve ran his damn errands like he was supposed to. If he takes his pistol into Wal-Mart to get tampons fine.

But since you want to dwell on dumb things... lets see if youre smart as you want to appear to be.

Why shouldnt one carry an gun that isnt loaded?
An: The form of a used before words beginning with a vowel or with an unpronounced h. Now What was the question again?  :police:
Answer the question.
One shouldn't carry an gun that's unloaded because when loaded the lead just sits there in the magazine bothering no one. Now if you need to sling lead it's ready.  :police:
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 26, 2013, 08:01:25 PM

Did you get so wound up about O J Simpson?

If social media had existed at that time I can only imagine the uproars in the threads.  The public was also divided among racial lines then. But it was different.  The police did such a flagrant job of framing a guilty man that he was sympathetic.  I was among those who thought he was not guilty.  (But I had a personal connection to OJ.  My mom's uncle was his trainer at USC.)  Right up until I saw his reaction to the verdict.  His face was not that of a man who was relieved to be exonerated of the murder of the mother of his children, it was the face of a man who was pleased that he got away with it.
Quote


It is not the justice system that is broken; the justice system reflects society. It is society that is broken. That's what I said.
Society is indeed broken.  At least here in the US.  It gets worse every year.  But this isn't the thread to get in to it.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 26, 2013, 08:03:47 PM

No. Zimmerman shouldve ran his damn errands like he was supposed to. If he takes his pistol into Wal-Mart to get tampons fine.


A little off topic but in Texas you can carry a pistol but not tampons...

Hey, in Florida periods are illegal in public![1]

-Nam
 1. it could be true

Only in the Old Testament.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: screwtape on July 26, 2013, 11:29:45 PM
No, you are being dishonest.

So, I get this is a topic people get passionate about.  And it is infuriating when the other guy just. refuses. to. acknowledge. that. you. are. right.  I've been there.  But let's please keep it civil and make arguments with facts and rationality and not insults, please.  If you cannot make a post cooly, then get up from your computer, have a drink of water and go outside and get some air for a little while.  This applies to all parties involved.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Dante on July 26, 2013, 11:51:50 PM
No, you are being dishonest.

So, I get this is a topic people get passionate about.  And it is infuriating when the other guy just. refuses. to. acknowledge. that. you. are. right.  I've been there.  But let's please keep it civil and make arguments with facts and rationality and not insults, please.  If you cannot make a post cooly, then get up from your computer, have a drink of water and go outside and get some air for a little while.  This applies to all parties involved.  Thanks.

I if may interject, as a pro-gun advocate?

Spit, stop being a dick.

Gawd, he's right in that only a moron would carry an empty gun. Nitpickers, as they say.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 27, 2013, 12:09:07 AM
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".
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Spit on July 27, 2013, 03:30:13 AM
No, you are being dishonest.

So, I get this is a topic people get passionate about.  And it is infuriating when the other guy just. refuses. to. acknowledge. that. you. are. right.  I've been there.  But let's please keep it civil and make arguments with facts and rationality and not insults, please.  If you cannot make a post cooly, then get up from your computer, have a drink of water and go outside and get some air for a little while.  This applies to all parties involved.  Thanks.

I if may interject, as a pro-gun advocate?

Spit, stop being a dick.

Gawd, he's right in that only a moron would carry an empty gun. Nitpickers, as they say.
Moi? An dick?  :police:
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 27, 2013, 06:40:40 AM
No, you are being dishonest.

So, I get this is a topic people get passionate about.  And it is infuriating when the other guy just. refuses. to. acknowledge. that. you. are. right.  I've been there.  But let's please keep it civil and make arguments with facts and rationality and not insults, please.  If you cannot make a post cooly, then get up from your computer, have a drink of water and go outside and get some air for a little while.  This applies to all parties involved.  Thanks.

I if may interject, as a pro-gun advocate?

Spit, stop being a dick.

Gawd, he's right in that only a moron would carry an empty gun. Nitpickers, as they say.
No, lets not make assertions.
Why would it be moronic to carry an empty gun?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 27, 2013, 06:56:59 AM
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.
You apparently didnt read the law on self defense, in an attempt to remain willfully ignorant. But I will pull it for you again since you appear incapable of doing anything independently.

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-law-self-defense-use-of-force.html
Self Defense in Florida: When is Non-Deadly Force Allowed? 
 
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.  There is no duty to retreat.


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html

Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.

As I stated before, Martin was well within his right to use self defense, your blood thirst for young kids not-withstanding. There you have the law, will you stop your pattern of ignorance and dishonesty and recognize the kid's right to defend himself. I will not go further with your ignorance until you acknowledge that.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Dante on July 27, 2013, 07:59:47 AM
No, lets not make assertions.
Why would it be moronic to carry an empty gun?

Really? Um, because then it doesn't serve the purpose of a gun.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 27, 2013, 08:09:36 AM
Really? Um, because then it doesn't serve the purpose of a gun.

Whats the purpose of a gun?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Dante on July 27, 2013, 08:14:28 AM
Really? Um, because then it doesn't serve the purpose of a gun.

Whats the purpose of a gun?

To shoot bullets.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 27, 2013, 08:17:32 AM
When someone shoots a bullet their intention is too _______? (What)
Whats the purpose of a bullet?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Graybeard on July 27, 2013, 08:19:18 AM

WWGHA is dedicated to helping people who believe something without evidence. Clearly there was no murder. Why do you insist on saying there was? Did you not hear the juror who said that there simply was not the evidence to convict? Or perhaps your prejudice trumps that?
It is not the justice system that is broken; the justice system reflects society. It is society that is broken. That's what I said.
Still using the same lack of reasoning I see. First off, the jurors EXACT words are "George Zimmerman got away with murder" link? Admit your stupid folly and move on. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/juror-b29-maddy-says-zimmerman-got-away-with-murder/2013/07/25/a636ec2a-f55a-11e2-aa2e-4088616498b4_story.html

I really do not understand what you are saying. The jurors all thought that a charge could not be brought against Zimmerman as the evidence would not sustain a guilty verdict. Of course, you need no evidence, you "just know."

It is thus surprising that you accuse me of poor thinking.

Quote
Why would you assume what side I "was on" in the OJ trial

Because you are showing yourself as a person who does not require evidence, nor to bother weighing evidence.

Quote
There is a difference in the Zimmerman and Simpson trials, one that klansmen people like yourself

Boy, are you an uppity nigra Afro-American? - I write that exceptional sentence by way of showing you what you are doing. If you think about it, that's about as racist as you can get - you think I'm white therefore I'm a Klansman... Your infantile crossing out shows the sort of person you are and I think that it will give you an example of how insulting your 'little joke' is.

You will by now realise that you have gone too far, and will wish to apologise.

I have mentioned before that you are arguing with your emotions not your brain. I now doubt you are using the latter.

Quote
The fact that you liken this to the OJ trial simply reveals your hood and robe for all to see.

Really, is that the best you can do? Do you think that is evidence of a murder?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Dante on July 27, 2013, 08:32:11 AM
When someone shoots a bullet their intention is too _______? (What)
Whats the purpose of a bullet?

To perforate what they hit when fired from a gun. But a gun without bullets is nothing more than a poorly designed paperweight.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 27, 2013, 08:34:27 AM
When someone shoots a bullet their intention is too _______? (What)
Whats the purpose of a bullet?

To perforate what they hit when fired from a gun. But a gun without bullets is nothing more than a poorly designed paperweight.

Paperweight when not loaded, but WHAT when loaded?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Dante on July 27, 2013, 08:40:59 AM
What are you going on about, gawd? Sorry man, no more time today. Tee box #1 in 45 minutes!
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: The Gawd on July 27, 2013, 08:50:24 AM
What are you going on about, gawd? Sorry man, no more time today. Tee box #1 in 45 minutes!
You know exactly what it is, but you dont want to answer the question like a theist when they know the gig is up.

You have not provided sound reasoning as to why he shouldnt carry a gun that isnt loaded. Your argument if you would become honest enough to answer the question, is that when it is not loaded it cant do what it was meant to do, which is kill. You dont want to go into the purpose of the gun because what it actually does is open a door for a murder 1 case.

There is a lot of intellectual dishonesty going on here, and it saddens me for a website supposedly full of free thinkers.

Zimmerman had his device intended to kill on him, because he intended to kill apparently. Not having bullets, may serve as a deterrent from violence equally as well as a loaded gun, but it doesnt do what it was meant to do, kill. As you and the other clown have stated, it would be moronic to not be able to kill when having the gun on hand. This is propaganda.

The same people who tell you that it is moronic to have an unloaded gun will also tell you that if you have a gun you better be ready to use it. And if you are ready to use it, you better be ready to kill with it. So, Zimmerman being the responsible gun owner that he is was more than ready to stalk and kill with his loaded weapon. As per responsible gun ownership.

You all who are co-signing this murder are the worst that humanity has to offer. 
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Azdgari on July 27, 2013, 12:45:05 PM
Well, it's a good thing nobody here is co-signing the murder, if it is that.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 27, 2013, 12:58:08 PM
You apparently didnt read the law on self defense, in an attempt to remain willfully ignorant. But I will pull it for you again since you appear incapable of doing anything independently.
Of course I read it, your attempts to pretend that I'm willfully ignorant notwithstanding.  I am no longer willing to tolerate your continued snubs and pretentious attitude merely so you can maintain this...pretense that anyone who does not agree with you is trying to justify murder.  You are only interested in validating your own belief with regards to the events that happened that night, and anyone or anything - including the facts - that get in the way are on the "side of murder" as far as you're concerned.

Quote from: The Gawd
As I stated before, Martin was well within his right to use self defense, your blood thirst for young kids not-withstanding. There you have the law, will you stop your pattern of ignorance and dishonesty and recognize the kid's right to defend himself. I will not go further with your ignorance until you acknowledge that.
I am neither ignorant nor deceptive, and you are lying here.  I quoted several times from that very article you linked, yet you are claiming I never even read it.  Well, I did, and even quoted from it.

Let me reiterate the critical part of that law that you are blatantly ignoring:  "imminent use of unlawful force".

Imminent use of unlawful force.

Imminent use of unlawful force.

Imminent use of unlawful force.

That means that you have to believe that you are about to be attacked before you can justifiably attack another in self-defense.

I don't expect an answer, unfortunately, because you pulled the "I'm going to ignore you until you admit I'm right" trick that theists are fond of, but let me ask you straight up:  Where was the "imminent use of unlawful force" regarding Zimmerman following Martin?  And before you try it, the claim that Zimmerman shooting him represented an "imminent use of unlawful force" is circular reasoning.  It's basically saying that merely carrying a gun represents an "imminent use of unlawful force", which is simply wrong.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 27, 2013, 01:22:06 PM
There is a lot of intellectual dishonesty going on here, and it saddens me for a website supposedly full of free thinkers.
The only intellectual dishonesty in this thread is coming from you, who is using circular logic and confirmation bias to 'justify' your conclusion.

Quote from: The Gawd
Zimmerman had his device intended to kill on him, because he intended to kill apparently.
Circular reasoning.  You are saying that simply carrying his gun means he intended to kill with it.  Unless you've developed mind-reading talents, this is not something you can possibly prove.

Quote from: The Gawd
Not having bullets, may serve as a deterrent from violence equally as well as a loaded gun, but it doesnt do what it was meant to do, kill. As you and the other clown have stated, it would be moronic to not be able to kill when having the gun on hand. This is propaganda.
No, this is you going off the deep end.  Carrying an unloaded gun - or something that looks enough like a gun to fool an observer - simply for deterrence purposes is stupid, because if you pull it out and act like you're going to shoot someone, you may well be attacked in self-defense.  And what do you do if they then pull out a gun on you?  But I guess that has no place in your narrative.

Quote from: The Gawd
The same people who tell you that it is moronic to have an unloaded gun will also tell you that if you have a gun you better be ready to use it. And if you are ready to use it, you better be ready to kill with it. So, Zimmerman being the responsible gun owner that he is was more than ready to stalk and kill with his loaded weapon. As per responsible gun ownership.
More circular reasoning.  You are retroactively assigning motives to George Zimmerman based on the outcome of the situation.  Not to mention going even further off the deep end.

Quote from: The Gawd
You all who are co-signing this murder are the worst that humanity has to offer.
Luckily, nobody here is actually co-signing his murder.  Just because you believe something doesn't make it true.

That goes for your smite, too.  It's just more beliefs not backed up by facts.  Unlike you, I'm not going to pretentiously demand that you "stop it", because there's no point to such a demand.  I'm not so caught up in my emotions to think I can self-righteously order someone else to stop doing something I don't like.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Azdgari on July 27, 2013, 01:52:41 PM
If carrying a loaded gun means that one intends to use it to kill, then carrying a credit card with an upper limit of $5,000 means that one wishes to spend $5000.

One can carry either with the intention of having it in case the unfortunate need arises, and a desire not to actually do so.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nam on July 27, 2013, 01:55:26 PM
Don't give me a credit card with $5,000 on it. I'll spend all of that in a second. Woah, is there a point there?

;)

-Nam
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Azdgari on July 27, 2013, 02:01:23 PM
Uhh, I was referring to a 5000 limit, not a 5000 prepaid card...you'd be in debt by 5k if you spent it all Nam. :P
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nam on July 27, 2013, 02:26:36 PM
Uhh, I was referring to a 5000 limit, not a 5000 prepaid card...you'd be in debt by 5k if you spent it all Nam. :P

I would be. But still doesn't mean I have that particular restraint.

Personally, I think Zimmerman was tired of all the break-ins, he was looking for a confrontation, and when he found he wasn't being the "hero" of the situation, he took the easy way out.

He wanted to be a hero. And he is: to gun owners and people who get away with crimes. Whether he committed a crime, or not is irrelevant to that viewpoint.

-Nam
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on July 27, 2013, 07:23:45 PM
I can't believe I am agreeing with Nam and disagreeing (somewhat) with The Gawd! What a strange world.

Here's the thing. From the first, Zim. admitted to having shot T.M., as he, said, in self-defense.  There was no doubt about that. Anyway, there is no way to know if Zim. wanted to kill someone that night, but if he thought that he could carry a loaded gun around and nobody would ever get hurt, he was living a fantasy. I don't think most people, even prejudiced and ignorant people, want to kill anyone. He wanted to end the confrontation, but he had a loaded gun to end it with, not his words, or his fists, or a stick, or a can of pepper spray.

It appears that the law in Florida does not even require much of an investigation if someone shoots someone in self-defense. Because it does not seem that the police did much investigating that night. It is the law that is problematic. Zim. is no hero but he is not a demon, either. He was just lucky he pulled the trigger in Florida, as opposed to say, Canada.  According to the law, he did not commit murder. If he had done exactly the same thing in a different state or country, he might be in prison for at least manslaughter because Zim. admitted to shooting the kid.

If Zim. really did not want to kill, he should not have had a loaded gun. It is disingenuous to claim that you can carry a loaded gun around, and not think that you might shoot, wound and possibly kill, someone. Nobody should be that naïve. A loaded gun makes a piss-poor hammer, doorstop, backscratcher, fireplace poker, (wo)manhood surrogate, sign of adulthood or warning. People need to stop thinking the real world is like the movies. If you have a gun, you are far more likely to shoot and kill someone than if you don't have one.

In a way it is exactly like the credit card analogy.  If you have a credit card with 5000 bucks limit, you are far more likely to run that up than if you don't have one. You may never take the card out of your wallet and charge anything. But that is mainly what the credit card is for.  Similarly, most people never have to pull out their gun and fire it-- even most police officers never do in their entire careers. But the potential is there and the likelihood of use-- and misuse--increases dramatically if you add fear, racial animosity, stupidity, bad judgment, immaturity, alcohol, etc.

What else is a gun for, if not to potentially shoot at someone? I am disgusted by people (adults) who fool around with guns, end up shooting someone, and then act surprised that a hole appeared in their friend or relative or some total stranger and they died. If you are not prepared to shoot at someone, you should not be carrying a loaded weapon. And if you are prepared to shoot, you have to understand that you might kill the person you shoot at.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 27, 2013, 08:57:20 PM
At least with a credit card, it's only money you have to pay back.  But you can't bring someone back to life.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Timtheskeptic on July 27, 2013, 09:21:26 PM
I will have to agree with nogodsforme. As much as i am standing for trayvon's side, i would have to agree that it could be self defense, Zim committed no crime (Nor did Trayvon) and he may not have intended to kill. The thing is, i'm more pissed how some people would automatically jump on Trayvon and assume he's a punk who deserved it with no evidence for it. Besides, i don't pretend Trayvon was a saint, but Zimmerman wasn't a hero in the slightest.

Another thing, i am not siding with the "not guilty" side because there's more holes in this case i think. Besides, it's not like Zimmerman wouldn't lie. Anyone would lie to get away from punishment. But of course, i'm not saying i know he's guilty either, but i don't know. As for the purpose of gun; defense and offense. It has to do with what each individual with a gun intents to do. I've seen folks with guns at a grocery store i work at.Did they wave it out to murder anyone? No. They have it so they won't be harmed. But i don't have a gun because i don't want to make the mistake of killing anyone or have anyone kill me. but of course, even without a gun, i'm vulnerable.

The idea that trayvon returned and jumped Zimmerman didn't make sense to me, which is one of the thing why i am not siding with the "not guilty" party. Also, i read somewhere where the jury were only give the choice of not guilty or hung jury.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Dante on July 29, 2013, 06:56:43 AM
What are you going on about, gawd? Sorry man, no more time today. Tee box #1 in 45 minutes!
You know exactly what it is, but you dont want to answer the question like a theist when they know the gig is up.

No, actually, I did not.

Quote
You have not provided sound reasoning as to why he shouldnt carry a gun that isnt loaded. Your argument if you would become honest enough to answer the question, is that when it is not loaded it cant do what it was meant to do, which is kill. You dont want to go into the purpose of the gun because what it actually does is open a door for a murder 1 case.

Nope, that's not my argument at all, but thanks for playing!

My argument is that it's moronic to carry an unloaded gun because at that point it's just a poorly designed paperweight. And, pulling out a poorly designed paperweight can get you killed, especially when the person on the other end might think it actually has bullets in it.

Quote
There is a lot of intellectual dishonesty going on here, and it saddens me for a website supposedly full of free thinkers.

Oh, an appeal to emotion. Are you sure you're not a theist?

Quote
Zimmerman had his device intended to kill on him, because he intended to kill apparently.


Wow, you're getting pretty good at reading minds. You should try to win that million bucks from JREF.

Quote
Not having bullets, may serve as a deterrent from violence equally as well as a loaded gun, but it doesnt do what it was meant to do, kill. As you and the other clown have stated, it would be moronic to not be able to kill when having the gun on hand. This is propaganda.

No, this is fact.

Quote
The same people who tell you that it is moronic to have an unloaded gun will also tell you that if you have a gun you better be ready to use it. And if you are ready to use it, you better be ready to kill with it. So, Zimmerman being the responsible gun owner that he is was more than ready to stalk and kill with his loaded weapon. As per responsible gun ownership.

You all who are co-signing this murder are the worst that humanity has to offer.

As has been stated before, being prepeared does not equal intent. We have no way of knowing Zim's intent. You're basing your entire argument on emotion. Stop doing that.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 29, 2013, 07:17:55 AM
Zimmerman had his device intended to kill on him, because he intended to kill apparently.


Wow, you're getting pretty good at reading minds. You should try to win that million bucks from JREF.

I've got to add, by the way:  The Gawd, this statement is beyond ridiculous.  It's like saying that because I have a fire extinguisher in my house, I intend to have a fire, or that because I wear a seat belt whenever I drive, I intend to crash my car.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 29, 2013, 10:38:00 AM
^That's some of what I've been trying to get across to him.  You can't judge intent by the results of a situation because it's assuming only one explanation for an outcome.  You also can't judge intent by someone's level of preparedness, because it's assuming only one reason for an action.  Both of these fall under the [wiki]denying the antecedent[/wiki] fallacy.

For this situation, it's the equivalent of saying, "George Zimmerman was carrying a gun and shot Trayvon Martin.  Therefore, he must have intended to shoot someone otherwise he wouldn't have been carrying his gun."  Or, as The Gawd actually said, "Zimmerman had his device intended to kill on him, because he intended to kill apparently."
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nam on July 29, 2013, 03:00:00 PM
Zimmerman had his device intended to kill on him, because he intended to kill apparently.


Wow, you're getting pretty good at reading minds. You should try to win that million bucks from JREF.

I've got to add, by the way:  The Gawd, this statement is beyond ridiculous.  It's like saying that because I have a fire extinguisher in my house, I intend to have a fire, or that because I wear a seat belt whenever I drive, I intend to crash my car.

You don't?!?!?! Shame on you. ;)

-Nam
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jetson on July 30, 2013, 08:23:23 AM
^That's some of what I've been trying to get across to him.  You can't judge intent by the results of a situation because it's assuming only one explanation for an outcome.  You also can't judge intent by someone's level of preparedness, because it's assuming only one reason for an action.  Both of these fall under the [wiki]denying the antecedent[/wiki] fallacy.

For this situation, it's the equivalent of saying, "George Zimmerman was carrying a gun and shot Trayvon Martin.  Therefore, he must have intended to shoot someone otherwise he wouldn't have been carrying his gun."  Or, as The Gawd actually said, "Zimmerman had his device intended to kill on him, because he intended to kill apparently."

Respectfully, I would put a gun in a different category, personally.  It has no other purpose other than to kill.  A person who feels the need to carry a gun for any reason at all, has no other position to stand on.  Carrying a gun while doing neighborhood patrol automatically puts one in the position of very few choices: show you have a weapon, draw the weapon, fire the weapon.  All of those actions are by definition an act of aggression towards another person, regardless of the reason, and especially if the other person is unarmed.

The neighborhood watches that I grew up with would drive the streets in shifts, armed with radios.  They would contact a base station with relevant information, and the base station would contact authorities if needed.  Under no circumstances would a neighborhood watch engage anyone they thought was suspicious.

Edit:  I should add that I am of the opinion that Zimmerman should not have left his car.  I blame the death of TM solely on Zimmerman.  TM did not deserve to die over the feelings and fears that Zimmerman apparently carried.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Dante on July 30, 2013, 08:58:25 AM
Respectfully, I would put a gun in a different category, personally.  It has no other purpose other than to kill.  A person who feels the need to carry a gun for any reason at all, has no other position to stand on.

So all the cops out there doing daily work intend to kill, just because they carry loaded guns? Because that's the argument that the Gawd is putting forward.

Quote
Carrying a gun while doing neighborhood patrol automatically puts one in the position of very few choices: show you have a weapon, draw the weapon, fire the weapon.

Unless, of course, one just holds a suspect/perpetrator at gunpoint, without firing. Do you think that never happens? My guess is it happens fairly frequently, in both private and public arenas. But only a fool would try that tactic with an unloaded weapon.

For the record, I'm not defending Zim either. I think he made a huge, tragic mistake. Whether on accident or on purpose, I don't presume to know.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 30, 2013, 09:18:55 AM
Unless, of course, one just holds a suspect/perpetrator at gunpoint, without firing. Do you think that never happens? My guess is it happens fairly frequently, in both private and public arenas.

I haven't looked it up in a while, but if memory serves, in the United States, guns that are used for defense are only ever fired in something like seven percent of all such cases (and in most of those cases, only a warning shot is fired).  In the other 93% of cases, the gun is merely brandished, and the perpetrator either flees or is apprehended.  So in other words, yes, you're right.

Quote
But only a fool would try that tactic with an unloaded weapon.

Definitely.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 30, 2013, 09:42:21 AM
With all due respect, jetson, and speaking as someone who doesn't own (never mind carry) a gun, the reasoning you are putting forward here is flawed.  I have self-defense training that would allow me to kill a person with my bare hands - the purpose of those techniques is to kill someone.  Does that mean that, by having learned them, I have no position to stand on?  I 'carry' them around with me all the time, since I'm trained in them.

That is the fault in your logic.  A person carrying a gun is responsible for the use to which they put it, as is anyone who knows or has something that is potentially lethal.  But that does not mean that when they 'carry' it, they intend to go out and kill people with it.  Indeed, I would much prefer never to have to use techniques like that against another person.  But the time may come when I have to, to protect myself or someone else.

If I had someone on top of me, beating my head into the ground (or into a concrete sidewalk), and I retaliated, killing them, I'd be responsible for their death.  But the fact of the matter is that self-defense training is fundamentally about knowing how to act as forcefully as possible in order to defend yourself - and then putting restraints on that forcefulness so you don't use it unless it's necessary and you use no more of it than necessary.

And it's certainly true that Martin did not deserve to die.  But he could have made better choices as well.  Simply going into his house and calling the police, for example, rather than hanging around outside for whatever reason.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: screwtape on July 30, 2013, 10:29:50 AM
So all the cops out there doing daily work intend to kill, just because they carry loaded guns?

kinda seems that way, doesn't it?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/07/28/95-year-old-man-dies-after-police-use-stun-gun-on-him/UPI-57271375032019/
Some reports do not mention a 12" knife, but rather a metal shoe horn.  I suspect the po-po said it was a 12" knife to make their murder seem more justifiable.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on July 30, 2013, 10:42:46 AM
In movies with some suspense or danger, there is always a character who goes to investigate the strange noise outside at night or follows the bad guy into the abandoned warehouse. Alone, often unarmed. When my daughter sees this she always yells, "He's being stooopid!" :o

It has become a joke in our family to the point where my husband and I yell it when we are watching movies without her.

If the Zim-TM interaction had been a movie, my daughter would have been beside herself. Because they were both "being stooopid". And one of them had a loaded gun. And it was no movie. :(
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 30, 2013, 10:54:04 AM
So all the cops out there doing daily work intend to kill, just because they carry loaded guns?

kinda seems that way, doesn't it?

Not in the United States, it doesn't.  In some countries, though, a police officer's badge is practically equivalent to a hunting license for humans.  Jamaica is one of the worst.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Dante on July 30, 2013, 11:39:53 AM
So all the cops out there doing daily work intend to kill, just because they carry loaded guns?

kinda seems that way, doesn't it?

You're starting to sound a little paranoid there, screwy.  ;)
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 30, 2013, 11:53:20 AM
kinda seems that way, doesn't it?
Not really.  For every incident like the one you cited, there are hundreds where armed police officers never even have to draw their weapons, let alone shoot to kill with them.  And you might note that they used a stun gun and beanbag rounds.

Quote from: screwtape
Some reports do not mention a 12" knife, but rather a metal shoe horn.  I suspect the po-po said it was a 12" knife to make their murder seem more justifiable.
And I think you should read the articles you link more carefully.  In it, they said he had a metal shoe horn at first, but that he went for a butcher knife, and that's when the police used that stun gun on him.

Do you have a bias against police officers, screwtape?  I ask because of the way you referred to them and your accusing them of murder.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: screwtape on July 30, 2013, 01:07:28 PM
And you might note that they used a stun gun and beanbag rounds.

You say that as if it's a good thing.  The guy was 95 years old.  Who'd guess he'd die from that?  Pretty much everyone except the stupid cop.

And are you telling me a strapping young officer, trained in a plethora of martial arts (or should be) cannot figure out how to disarm a geriatric patient of a knife without shooting him with bean bag rounds and 50Kilovolts?  If not, he should not be a cop.

Are you telling me three of them together could not figure out a way that would not end up with one or more person involved dead?  If not, they should find other jobs.

Are you telling me that someone in charge of police tactics could not think of a better way to handle this type of situation "by the book"?  If not, our police establishment needs a complete overhaul (it does).

And I'll have to dole out another link:
http://www.kdrv.com/taser-used-on-naked-i-5-wanderer/

cops taser naked 11 year old autistic girl.  I cannot put in print what I think should be done to this half-man in a police uniform.  It involves chains, a utility knife and several elephants.

I think cops use tasers too freely.  I think they should never use a taser since they sometimes cause cardiac arrest.  But if you cannot ban them outright, then I'd say they are appropriate when a blow from a baton is warranted.  Is it warranted to strike a 95 year old man with a baton?  Fuck no.  Is it warranted to strike a naked 11 year old autistic girl walking down the road?  Fuck no.  So why do they do it?  Because they can.

This is where I kind of buy into the gun-nuts argument about having guns to protect us from the government.  In this case by "government" I mean "police".  While I think the loons who protest with assault rifles strapped to their backs are assholes, because they are, I would understand if Occupy protesters showed up packing due to the levels of police brutality they faced.  It would be justice of a sort, I think, for all those cops in riot gear ready to curb stomp some hippies to suddenly be facing the business end of about 500 guns.

However, we all know how that work out. See link below for more on that.


Do you have a bias against police officers, screwtape?

Absolutely.  I didn't used to, though.  It is a recent thing.  Has to do with our increasingly militarized police force and how the law allows them to more or less kill whomever they like without consequence.[1] I'm not the only one who thinks that.  TomDispatch.com  has numerous essays on police militarization. 

Add to that how post 9/11 the entire country has been more or less happy to throw away their civil liberties for a smidgen of perceived safety and you have a recipe for me going paranoid.




edit; corrected or --> of
 1. http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_me_i_was_reading_a_book_the_new_warrior_cop_is_out_of_control/ (http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_me_i_was_reading_a_book_the_new_warrior_cop_is_out_of_control/)
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nam on July 30, 2013, 02:18:08 PM
In movies with some suspense or danger, there is always a character who goes to investigate the strange noise outside at night or follows the bad guy into the abandoned warehouse. Alone, often unarmed. When my daughter sees this she always yells, "He's being stooopid!" :o

It has become a joke in our family to the point where my husband and I yell it when we are watching movies without her.

If the Zim-TM interaction had been a movie, my daughter would have been beside herself. Because they were both "being stooopid". And one of them had a loaded gun. And it was no movie. :(

It probably will be a movie, officially or unofficially.

 Got to make money off the suffering and actions of others.

-Nam
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on July 30, 2013, 03:22:17 PM
In movies with some suspense or danger, there is always a character who goes to investigate the strange noise outside at night or follows the bad guy into the abandoned warehouse. Alone, often unarmed. When my daughter sees this she always yells, "He's being stooopid!" :o

It has become a joke in our family to the point where my husband and I yell it when we are watching movies without her.

If the Zim-TM interaction had been a movie, my daughter would have been beside herself. Because they were both "being stooopid". And one of them had a loaded gun. And it was no movie. :(

It probably will be a movie, officially or unofficially.

 Got to make money off the suffering and actions of others.

-Nam

Yup. And there will be protests on every side of the issue.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jetson on July 31, 2013, 07:09:40 AM
Respectfully, I would put a gun in a different category, personally.  It has no other purpose other than to kill.  A person who feels the need to carry a gun for any reason at all, has no other position to stand on.

So all the cops out there doing daily work intend to kill, just because they carry loaded guns? Because that's the argument that the Gawd is putting forward.

Quote
Carrying a gun while doing neighborhood patrol automatically puts one in the position of very few choices: show you have a weapon, draw the weapon, fire the weapon.

Unless, of course, one just holds a suspect/perpetrator at gunpoint, without firing. Do you think that never happens? My guess is it happens fairly frequently, in both private and public arenas. But only a fool would try that tactic with an unloaded weapon.

For the record, I'm not defending Zim either. I think he made a huge, tragic mistake. Whether on accident or on purpose, I don't presume to know.

Regardless of any specific result, a gun is purely designed to kill.  Carrying a loaded gun means that one implicitly recognizes that end result - as well, in training, my understanding is that you do not pull out a loaded weapon unless you are fully prepared to kill.  Out side of cops, who trains people to pull out their gun and simply brandish it?

I am not trying to defend anyone, simply making a point about the purpose of a gun.  In fact, I have been told by more than one CHL friend that they are told to de-escalate first, before even brandishing a weapon.  After all, if one decides to pull out a gun, they are also risking their own life.  It's not as if carrying a gun guarantees a good outcome for the carrier - they are literally risking their own life, and I think sometimes people forget that.

The practical reason for carrying a gun goes straight to the ability and intent to kill if necessary - that is the fundamental argument I am making.  I'm not sure why anyone would think otherwise.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jetson on July 31, 2013, 07:25:24 AM
With all due respect, jetson, and speaking as someone who doesn't own (never mind carry) a gun, the reasoning you are putting forward here is flawed.  I have self-defense training that would allow me to kill a person with my bare hands - the purpose of those techniques is to kill someone.  Does that mean that, by having learned them, I have no position to stand on?  I 'carry' them around with me all the time, since I'm trained in them.

That is the fault in your logic.  A person carrying a gun is responsible for the use to which they put it, as is anyone who knows or has something that is potentially lethal.  But that does not mean that when they 'carry' it, they intend to go out and kill people with it.  Indeed, I would much prefer never to have to use techniques like that against another person.  But the time may come when I have to, to protect myself or someone else.

If I had someone on top of me, beating my head into the ground (or into a concrete sidewalk), and I retaliated, killing them, I'd be responsible for their death.  But the fact of the matter is that self-defense training is fundamentally about knowing how to act as forcefully as possible in order to defend yourself - and then putting restraints on that forcefulness so you don't use it unless it's necessary and you use no more of it than necessary.

And it's certainly true that Martin did not deserve to die.  But he could have made better choices as well.  Simply going into his house and calling the police, for example, rather than hanging around outside for whatever reason.

I am also trained in personal self defense.  I am trained to first leave, as opposed to risking my personal safety, or my life, before anything else.  I would feel ZERO shame in walking, or even running from a confrontation.  I would also feel ZERO regret in giving someone my personal property if it meant my life was spared.  Personally, I don't buy into the ridiculous idea that we need to have a "Stand your ground" law, which basically means we don't have to give in to thugs, or robbers. 

I get why it appeals to some people - the idea that we need to be vigilantes, to some extent, in order to show those bad guys a thing or two.  I believe that if I had no other choice, I would be more effective in defending myself than I would be without the training I have.  But I am not foolish enough to believe that I will always win (I know you are not making that position).

I never said that the intent of carrying a gun is to kill, I said it is the inevitable purpose of carrying - to kill.  To say otherwise is very naive, in my opinion.  Having a gun on your person is a calculated measure to have the ability to kill another person.  Bottom line, as I see it, is that a gun is very specific, regardless of intent, training, or wether it is actually loaded.  Cars kill people, but they are not built for the purpose of killing people.

BTW - in my self-defense training, the idea of actually killing a person is at the bottom of the list.  The goal is to disable, and leave.  Killing is a last resort, as I'm sure you would agree.  There is no specific intent to kill another person in my training.  With gun training, it is very specific - to kill.  I'm not aware of gun training designed to do anything else?  Are there gun training classes where they teach you not to shoot to kill?

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 31, 2013, 07:37:35 AM
Regardless of any specific result, a gun is purely designed to kill.  Carrying a loaded gun means that one implicitly recognizes that end result

Just as having a fully charged fire extinguisher implicitly recognizes that one may have a fire.  Not that one is planning to have a fire, or wants to have a fire, or anything else like that, simply a recognition that fires do happen and one should be prepared for one in case it happens to oneself.  That's all.

Quote
- as well, in training, my understanding is that you do not pull out a loaded weapon unless you are fully prepared to kill.

Which is not the same thing as actually carrying out the killing.  In most cases, as has already been discussed, it does not.

Quote
Out side of cops, who trains people to pull out their gun and simply brandish it?

Do you really think that cops are trained to have more restraint with their sidearms than private citizens?  Because they're not, I assure you.  In fact, private citizens exhibit quite a bit more restraint with their firearms in self-defense situations than cops do.  Cops know that they have much broader discretion on killing people and are much more likely to be excused for it than private citizens, and private citizens know that as well.  And yes, brandishing first before you fire -- assuming circumstances permit it, that is -- is part of defensive gun use training.

It sounds to me like you may not know a great deal about how self-defensive gun uses usually play out in real life.  You may find the "Armed Citizen" informative in this regard.
http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

Sample story:  "A pair of armed robbers entered a Kangaroo convenience store in Mount Pleasant, S.C. and demanded money from the clerk. Despite the clerk complying with the demand, one of the criminals fired at the employee while leaving, grazing his arm. However, also inside the store was a Right-to-Carry permit holder, who drew a pistol and confronted the robbers as they were leaving. Upon seeing the armed citizen, one of the criminals surrendered and waited for police to arrive, while the other fled on foot only to be captured by U.S. Marshals the next day. Following an investigation, law enforcement officials now believes the duo is responsible for a rash of convenience store robberies in the Mount Pleasant area. "

This type of scenario -- where the gun is brandished but not fired -- is quite a bit more common than the RTC holder shooting a perp, although obviously that happens as well.

Quote
The practical reason for carrying a gun goes straight to the ability and intent to kill if necessary - that is the fundamental argument I am making.  I'm not sure why anyone would think otherwise.

Ability, yes, intent, no.  I don't do that there are some smogbrained Eastwood wannabes out there who carry because they intend to kill someone, but they're the exception.  Most people who carry a gun, carry a gun because they recognize that killing someone may someday be a necessary evil, not because they crave the experience and look forward to it.  I'm sure there are some freaks who think it's fun to go to the dentist and get cavities filled as well, but for most of us, it's just something that we endure because we know that the alternative would be even worse.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jetson on July 31, 2013, 08:32:58 AM
Piano,

On the use of the word "intent", I want to be more clear.  I am not referring to any form of premeditated, cold blooded, calculated killing.  I am referring to the facet of the purpose of a gun, to kill.  Unless a person is trained to shoot and not kill?  Is that something that is literally taught in classes?  Shoot, but try not to kill?

Perhaps I am not being as clear as i should be in my argument.  I think there a lot of people who get a gun, and then get the CHL using the "just in case" reasoning.  But the end result cannot change. Guns are designed specifically to kill, and the person buying the gun must understand this very important piece of the equation, don't you think?

I consider myself a passive, non violent person.  I did not get involved in Martial arts for self defense, I got into it for physical fitness, and to be a partner to my son at the time.  A result of my taking it all the way to a second degree black belt, is that I learned a lot about self defense along the way.  In two weeks, I will be demonstrating one possible method of disarming a gun pointed at a driver.  Perp points gun into open window threatening the driver.  In that scenario, there are few, if any, options in my opinion.  Nonetheless, if there is a chance, it might be worth it for the driver to make an attempt at disarming. 

I have thought a lot about personal safety, and what I would do if confronted.  I don't have a good answer.  And I am personally very reluctant to think that carrying a gun is the answer, mainly because even with the best training, you are ultimately putting your own life at risk.  Maybe I'm just naive as hell on all of this stuff.  And don't misunderstand, I know there are people with the training and confidence that satisfies them personally on carrying.  Good for them, but they would be very naive to believe that they have solved the problem just by carrying.



Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 31, 2013, 08:52:33 AM
Unless a person is trained to shoot and not kill?  Is that something that is literally taught in classes?  Shoot, but try not to kill?

No... a lot of people think that that's the case, but it isn't.  What's taught is that firing is the absolute last resort, but that if you do fire, you cannot shoot to wound -- you have to shoot to kill.  There are various reasons, both tactical and legal, that shooting to wound is unwise.

Quote
Perhaps I am not being as clear as i should be in my argument.  I think there a lot of people who get a gun, and then get the CHL using the "just in case" reasoning.  But the end result cannot change. Guns are designed specifically to kill, and the person buying the gun must understand this very important piece of the equation, don't you think?

Yes, this I agree with completely.  If you carry a gun for self-defense, you have to be ready for the possibility, however unlikely it actually is (and the odds actually are pretty slim), that you'll have to kill someone someday.  The ramifications, on so many levels, of taking another human life are extremely grave, far more than even I had realized when I first started getting into firearms.  There's the risk of prison, of civil liability, or even of simply not knowing yourself as well as you thought you did and not being able to handle the killing as well as you thought you might have.

Quote
I have thought a lot about personal safety, and what I would do if confronted.  I don't have a good answer.

I can see that, and I appreciate it.  It's hardly an easy question.

Quote
And I am personally very reluctant to think that carrying a gun is the answer, mainly because even with the best training, you are ultimately putting your own life at risk.  Maybe I'm just naive as hell on all of this stuff.  And don't misunderstand, I know there are people with the training and confidence that satisfies them personally on carrying.

There are simply some people who, for whatever reason, should not carry a gun -- I would never attempt to deny this.  Among other things, if you're of the mindset that you wouldn't be able to handle shooting someone, or you doubt your ability to be able to use one effectively, or whatever, then you are absolutely one of the people who shouldn't.  If you think you wouldn't be able to use a gun properly, then you're very likely right.  It's like that line from "Bull Durham".  "If you think you're on a winning streak because you're getting laid, or because you're not getting laid, or because you're wearing women's underwear, then you are!"

Quote
Good for them, but they would be very naive to believe that they have solved the problem just by carrying.

Would that the world were so simple that a gun on your hip worked like a magic talisman.  If it did, there would be no debate on the subject.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: screwtape on July 31, 2013, 12:16:19 PM
let me just add:

And I think you should read the articles you link more carefully.  In it, they said he had a metal shoe horn at first, but that he went for a butcher knife, and that's when the police used that stun gun on him.

You are correct.  In one article I read, that was not mentioned.  In the other, it was but I missed it.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 31, 2013, 12:54:32 PM
In fairness, you do have a point - unless this is an extremely fit 90-year old man, they shouldn't have needed to taze him.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jetson on July 31, 2013, 01:30:39 PM
I should add something that may sound odd.  I am a fairly new addict to Call of Duty, the first person shooter game.  If nothing else, I have learned more about weapons than I knew prior to playing.  I can't claim any expertise, but I have a new understanding as it relates to military use of weaponry.

It has made me think more about weapons in my real life.  I have no conclusions that guns are useful, or that I need one, but I am thinking about the topic, and what it might entail.

From this knowledge, I think I have a better understanding of what it might mean to have certain limits on what private citizens should be allowed to own. 
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 31, 2013, 01:59:22 PM
Care to elaborate?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 31, 2013, 02:14:10 PM
I should add something that may sound odd.  I am a fairly new addict to Call of Duty, the first person shooter game.  If nothing else, I have learned more about weapons than I knew prior to playing.

It's an extremely bad idea to "learn" about firearms from video games.  It's on par with learning about firearms from watching movies.  Virtually everything you see is wrong.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on July 31, 2013, 03:25:18 PM
^^^Agreed. Unfortunately, there will be a Zim vs TM video game, if there is not already.

I cringe when I see my young male relatives shooting and shooting at anything that moves on their video games. The games they like don't encourage any thought or reflection, just fast reaction times. The scenarios are so rigid and contrived. No discussion, no alternative to shooting fast, shooting first, or being shot. If you don't shoot, you don't win. It looks like the "stand your ground" mentality in recreational form. Lots of dead bodies are needed to win the game.

Only no ambulances, no emergency rooms, no permanently disabled people, no funerals or bereaved friends and family members. Maybe the games should include a required "explain why you shot 200 people to their folks" portion in order to get your score.....
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jetson on July 31, 2013, 03:38:26 PM
I should add something that may sound odd.  I am a fairly new addict to Call of Duty, the first person shooter game.  If nothing else, I have learned more about weapons than I knew prior to playing.

It's an extremely bad idea to "learn" about firearms from video games.  It's on par with learning about firearms from watching movies.  Virtually everything you see is wrong.

Agreed - and I would not advocate such a thing as useful for reality when it comes to game use of weapons versus actual use.  However, when it comes to learning differences between assault rifles, sub machine guns, pistols, light machine guns, semi and fully automatic, etc., I see no reason to think that the game is so misleading as to not be helpful at some level.  Many of the weapons in Call of Duty are based on actual weapons, and thus represent fairly accurate information.  There are some weapons that are more creative, and thus not attached to real world capabilities.



Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on July 31, 2013, 03:48:34 PM
Only no ambulances, no emergency rooms, no permanently disabled people, no funerals or bereaved friends and family members. Maybe the games should include a required "explain why you shot 200 people to their folks" portion in order to get your score.....
And how many games do you think you would sell with such an obvious moral bent to them?

I'm not trying to be rude here, and you do have a point that video games tend to emphasize the action part of the game and skimp on the consequences.  But games that do things like you're suggesting tend to be games that fail miserably.  They're intended for entertainment - your mileage may vary as to the value of that entertainment - and who wants what amounts to a lecture or a morality lesson for entertainment?  If the idea of the game is to shoot things, who wants to spend hours writing up fake explanations to virtual characters as to why you did what you did?

I've seen games which do at least try to incorporate something more than a "shoot everything that moves" mentality.  For example, there are numerous arcade lightgun games where if you shoot something you're not supposed to, your score is penalized, or you actually take damage.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on July 31, 2013, 04:17:56 PM
Agreed - and I would not advocate such a thing as useful for reality when it comes to game use of weapons versus actual use.  However, when it comes to learning differences between assault rifles, sub machine guns, pistols, light machine guns, semi and fully automatic, etc., I see no reason to think that the game is so misleading as to not be helpful at some level.

The amount of accurate information one can glean from such sources is pretty minimal.  It's like the difference between a racing game on a console and actually driving a sports car.  The game's creators may have done some research, or even a lot of research, into how the different cars accelerate, decelerate, and so forth, but even so, what you'll learn about the real-life Ferrari from driving the simulation on your Xbox is minimal and highly distorted.  You never learn how to change a flat tire, for example, you never have to fill the tank or change the oil, and so on.  The parallels to firearms are obvious, or at least they are to someone who shoots at all.  (No offense intended, I hasten to add; I've never owned a car, and I chose the comparison quite deliberately.)
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on July 31, 2013, 04:25:15 PM
I know young guys would never play a game that made them feel bad for shooting people. I know that games with morals don't sell-- I wasn't expecting to be taken seriously about that.

But the result of playing shooting games hour after hour has to have some effect in an environment where real guns are widely available[1] and young people aren't taught real ways to deal with conflict non-violently.

They have very violent video games in Japan, but they don't have real guns in over half the households, or a cultural tradition of solving interpersonal problems with violence, either. :-\
 1. I personally know lots of people who have guns in their homes. I am sure every US person on this site knows where they could get a gun within a day or two if they wanted one, either from someone else or from a store or pawn shop.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jetson on July 31, 2013, 04:49:01 PM
Agreed - and I would not advocate such a thing as useful for reality when it comes to game use of weapons versus actual use.  However, when it comes to learning differences between assault rifles, sub machine guns, pistols, light machine guns, semi and fully automatic, etc., I see no reason to think that the game is so misleading as to not be helpful at some level.

The amount of accurate information one can glean from such sources is pretty minimal.  It's like the difference between a racing game on a console and actually driving a sports car.  The game's creators may have done some research, or even a lot of research, into how the different cars accelerate, decelerate, and so forth, but even so, what you'll learn about the real-life Ferrari from driving the simulation on your Xbox is minimal and highly distorted.  You never learn how to change a flat tire, for example, you never have to fill the tank or change the oil, and so on.  The parallels to firearms are obvious, or at least they are to someone who shoots at all.  (No offense intended, I hasten to add; I've never owned a car, and I chose the comparison quite deliberately.)

I know very little about real guns.  Playing the game has made me think about them more than I used to - even to the point of considering some real shooting lessons with me and my son.  My martial arts instructor offered to take us to a gallery for safety lessons, and actual shooting.  I don't think we will be buying any guns at this point, but it would be interesting to learn with real weapons and ammunition.

nogods - you bring up another topic that is important.  What do FPS games do to the minds of people who play a lot?  Do they have a measurable effect on reality versus game modes?  I have not heard of credible research that supports the thought that video games lead directly to actual violence, but I suspect there must be at least some correlated data - maybe?

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on July 31, 2013, 05:18:31 PM
I can't link to anything, but I have read some articles. Nobody can show any direct link between the games and real violence AFAIK. These games are tremendously popular around the world and other high video game places like Canada and Japan don't have the kind of gun violence we have. There is more data on linking lots of tv watching to antisocial behavior than video games, esp. in kids with issues to begin with. 

It has more to do with the opportunity for people with substance abuse, bad judgement and/or mental issues to get their hands on a real loaded gun. They tend to be young and male, the same population that plays a lot of video games.

I read a piece on military using video games in training as a way to reduce the normal reticence people have to shooting others. (Someone with military training will have to weigh in here.) The chilling part of the article that I remember was the fact that field commanders in every war situation have had a hard time getting soldiers to actually fire their weapons. A desirable trait in normal civilian life will get you killed on the battle field.

The idea was that using video games would make the idea of shooting on command a reflex, automatic and without conscious thought. Nice. Especially when these people come home, some traumatized and with PTSD. How are they supposed to unlearn that reflex? I have had too many students, ex-military, with some level of trauma, just from what they saw, let alone what they did.[1]
 1. One of my students says her boyfriend saw several tours in Afghanistan and now can't sleep without his loaded gun under his pillow. And there are kids in the house.... :o
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nam on July 31, 2013, 05:44:33 PM
I've played Resident Evil 4 over 200 times. Does it make me want to go out and kill people? No. Undead people, maybe, but not the alive ones.

-Nam
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: screwtape on August 01, 2013, 07:29:39 AM
The amount of accurate information one can glean from such sources is pretty minimal. 

That depends.  I landed a glider in real life primarily from hours spent playing Jane's USAF shooting down MiGs.  It was a ride with a pilot in the back.  He let me fly a bit and was surprised how good I was.  After my half hour was up he let me land, which I did expertly.  He did not let me shoot down any other gliders, however.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on August 01, 2013, 07:46:43 AM
The amount of accurate information one can glean from such sources is pretty minimal. 

That depends.  I landed a glider in real life primarily from hours spent playing Jane's USAF shooting down MiGs.  It was a ride with a pilot in the back.  He let me fly a bit and was surprised how good I was.  After my half hour was up he let me land, which I did expertly.  He did not let me shoot down any other gliders, however.

I can see how that would work, yes.  Everything about the operation of the glider would be contained in the game with the possible exception of spin training, and there's very little to maintaining a glider vis-a-vis a powered aircraft -- no oil to change or anything like that.  I still stand by my original point, though... I have yet to see any kind of FPS game that requires you to clean your gun after any significant length of time spent shooting.  Which is not surprising -- any game with that as a "feature" wouldn't sell five copies.  (Cleaning your gun is a gigantic pain in the ass, in case you didn't know.  A messy, tedious, time-consuming business, but also one which is unavoidable.)
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: screwtape on August 01, 2013, 07:58:22 AM
I still stand by my original point, though...

I would mostly agree.  A video game is going to have limited educational value.  But I think Jets' point was there are *some* things you can learn, depending on the accuracy of the game. 

Cleaning your gun is a gigantic pain in the ass, in case you didn't know.

Yup.  I've cleaned a rifle, a shotgun (semi-automatic) and a glock 9mm in my time.  Not fun.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Odin on August 21, 2013, 09:37:44 PM

BTW - in my self-defense training, the idea of actually killing a person is at the bottom of the list.  The goal is to disable, and leave.  Killing is a last resort, as I'm sure you would agree.  There is no specific intent to kill another person in my training.  With gun training, it is very specific - to kill.  I'm not aware of gun training designed to do anything else?  Are there gun training classes where they teach you not to shoot to kill?

The goal of traditional martial arts is to train oneself to defend oneself without destroying others.  I agree.

As to the "guns are made to kill" argument, you are right.  However, you ignore the fact that legally and ethically a gun user is obligated to use deadly force only in the face of deadly force.  You tout your martial arts training (of which I have some also).  In training for my concealed carry permit, we were taught that raised voices could be countered with raised voices, shoves with shoves, fists with fists, and deadly force with deadly force. 

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nam on August 21, 2013, 10:05:14 PM
You push me, I beat the shit out of you--that's what I learned.

You shoot me and I live, I shoot you and you die.

That's what I learned.

-Nam
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on August 21, 2013, 10:15:38 PM
Actually, raised voices can be countered with soft voices, and shoves and other physical attacks can be countered with blending.

The point itself is valid, though.  Deadly force shouldn't be used just because it's available.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on August 22, 2013, 07:36:49 AM
(Cleaning your gun is a gigantic pain in the ass, in case you didn't know.  A messy, tedious, time-consuming business, but also one which is unavoidable.)

This brings back memories.   :P  Also when I was in the military we were timed as  to how fast we could take apart & reassemble them.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on August 22, 2013, 07:37:55 AM
Actually, raised voices can be countered with soft voices, ...

When I worked in collections we were trained that if someone started to raise their voice we should lower ours.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: screwtape on August 22, 2013, 08:20:05 AM
However, you ignore the fact that legally and ethically a gun user is obligated to use deadly force only in the face of deadly force.

While I agree that is how it should be, that is not so in all states.  In several states now you may shoot or otherwise kill someone to protect yourself from any force or to protect your property.  Prime example is Texas:
http://www.uslawshield.com/texas/texas-gun-law/
Quote
In Texas, there are several situations where a person is justified in using force or deadly force.

A person may use force against another to the degree the person believes that it is reasonably necessary to protect themselves or a third person from another’s unlawful use of force.
...
Texas law allows a person to use force in the protection of property to prevent or terminate another’s trespass or other unlawful interference with the possession of real or personal property. Deadly force can be used in Texas when the crime against property is classified as arson, burglary, robbery, criminal mischief at night or theft at night. Deadly force may also be used to prevent a person from fleeing with property immediately after the commission of a burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime if the actor believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means or the use of force other than deadly force would expose the person to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

bold mine.  I read an article recently where a man chased and killed another man over a stolen radio.  The killer was not even charged.  Does it seem to you that a radio is worth taking another person's life?

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nick on August 22, 2013, 08:46:11 AM
Only if it played country music 24/7. ;)
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 22, 2013, 01:12:58 PM
Quote
The killer was not even charged.  Does it seem to you that a radio is worth taking another person's life?

Lately? Short answer: Yes.

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Quesi on August 28, 2013, 05:37:40 PM
This beautiful piece is making the rounds on Facebook today.  It is not specifically about Trayvon Martin.  But it is about the problem.

Today, on the 50th anniversary of the world changing "I have a dream" speech, we have much to be proud of as a nation.   And much to be ashamed of.

This is so worth watching. 

http://youtu.be/u9Wf8y_5Yn4
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: epidemic on August 30, 2013, 02:36:28 PM
According to the EMS, "Pt has abrasion to his forehead, + bleeding and tenderness to his nose and a small laceration to the back of his head." 

The treatment he received when the EMS arrived consisted of cleaning the wounds, and handing him back to the police.  No medication.  No xrays.  No concerns about a potential concussion.  It doesn't even sound like they gave him ice, which is what I do when my daughter gets a bump on her nose or head. 

(http://i1131.photobucket.com/albums/m551/keepemhonest2/ZimmermanEMTReport_zps0629d8e2.jpg)


I still vote for tragedy not criminal. 

Let me bang your head against the concrete and tell me how you feel about the situation?  If you had a knife, gun or other would you use it to stop me? If not when would you choose to use deadly force?

May I turn the question around?  If I were stalking you, and you knew it -  you told your friend on the phone that you were being stalked, and I then jumped out of the car brandishing a gun, might you have taken a swing at me?   

Where do you get jumping out of a car brandishing a weapon from?  Zimmerman broke into a jog for about 5 to 8 seconds according to the audio tape, he was walking aroung talking on a phone in a calm cool voice.  All injuries beyond the gunshot were defensive on the part of Zimmerman and Offensive on Martin.  The most plausible scenario for those injuries are associated with Treyvon jumping zimmerman. 

I also love when people cite the little booboos on zimmerman, his head was lacerated and his nose was broken.  wittnesses put TM on top of GZ ground and pounding him.  At what point do you feel one should feel their life is in jeopardy? 

I don't say you are even wrong, but the evidence left behind after this event leaves a clear and reasonable verdict of not guilty.  There is absolutely reasonable doubt as to GZ attacking TM, there is reason to believe that GZ could conclude his life was in danger.  Done, not guilty.

Innocent???  don't know but Not guilty was the only possible verdict and based on the evidence there is no logical reason to have even arrested him because all the evidence pointed that way from the beginning.

this is not a black white thing either.  both innocent and guilty African americans get off on lack of evidence as well in a situation like this.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: epidemic on August 30, 2013, 02:44:09 PM
Quote
In Texas, there are several situations where a person is justified in using force or deadly force.

A person may use force against another to the degree the person believes that it is reasonably necessary to protect themselves or a third person from another’s unlawful use of force.
...
Texas law allows a person to use force in the protection of property to prevent or terminate another’s trespass or other unlawful interference with the possession of real or personal property. Deadly force can be used in Texas when the crime against property is classified as arson, burglary, robbery, criminal mischief at night or theft at night. Deadly force may also be used to prevent a person from fleeing with property immediately after the commission of a burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime if the actor believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means or the use of force other than deadly force would expose the person to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

bold mine.  I read an article recently where a man chased and killed another man over a stolen radio.  The killer was not even charged.  Does it seem to you that a radio is worth taking another person's life?

Sounds like you could say this another way.  The law is what it is.  Do you think stealing someones elses hard earned property is worth your life?  I have an idea don't steal peoples shit:)

Personally I would not shoot someone unless I felt my life was in danger.  Fleeing thief I might send a few rounds into the ground to insure he stopped running but if that did not work I would not train my weapon on him unless he was attacking. 

I may have the right to shoot him but I probably would not exercise it.  In texas you forfit your right to life when you rob someone it is the law so you should probably avoid breaking that law.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: epidemic on August 30, 2013, 03:17:52 PM
I know young guys would never play a game that made them feel bad for shooting people. I know that games with morals don't sell-- I wasn't expecting to be taken seriously about that.

But the result of playing shooting games hour after hour has to have some effect in an environment where real guns are widely available[1] and young people aren't taught real ways to deal with conflict non-violently.

They have very violent video games in Japan, but they don't have real guns in over half the households, or a cultural tradition of solving interpersonal problems with violence, either. :-\
 1. I personally know lots of people who have guns in their homes. I am sure every US person on this site knows where they could get a gun within a day or two if they wanted one, either from someone else or from a store or pawn shop.

Take a look at gun violence statistics.  since the advent of first person shooters the amount of gun violence has decreased.   I don't say that this is because of the first person shooters,   however, with virtually every kid on the street exposed to Grand Theft Auto and Call to Duty.  I would say that the link between Video game violence and real world gun violence is pretty thin.   during same time period from 1996 to 2012, Gun ownership as well as video game violence has been rising all the while that gun violence is down.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on August 30, 2013, 03:42:24 PM
Let me put the question of "is it worth killing someone over property" a different way.  Is it worth dying because you want your property back?

And no, it is not worth killing someone over a possession.  Not ever, under any circumstances.  You can buy a radio, but you can't bring someone back to life.  Life is literally priceless.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Dante on August 30, 2013, 03:58:54 PM
Let me put the question of "is it worth killing someone over property" a different way.  Is it worth dying because you want your property back?

I think that would depend on the property, and be entirely subjective. Is there nothing you can think of that's worth dying to try to retrieve?

Quote
And no, it is not worth killing someone over a possession.  Not ever, under any circumstances. 

See above. 
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: neopagan on August 30, 2013, 04:32:48 PM
jaimehlers...
If someone is breaking into my home, I have no way of knowing if he or she shares the conviction that killing someone over a piece of property is a bad idea. Most folks who rob, steal and burgle spend precious little time considering the ethical implications of their actions on others.  Ergo, he or she is likely to get shot... sadly, not over fear about my dvd player getting swiped, but my life being threatened.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on August 30, 2013, 04:52:01 PM
Is there nothing you can think of that's worth dying to try to retrieve?
Not a single possession is worth dying for.  I mean, it's just stuff, when it comes right down to it.  I can always get more of it.  But if I die, that's it.  And the same goes for everyone else.  If you die to retrieve something of yours, what good's it going to do you?

If someone is breaking into my home, I have no way of knowing if he or she shares the conviction that killing someone over a piece of property is a bad idea. Most folks who rob, steal and burgle spend precious little time considering the ethical implications of their actions on others.  Ergo, he or she is likely to get shot... sadly, not over fear about my dvd player getting swiped, but my life being threatened.
And thus the difference.  You're not fighting to defend your property, you're fighting to protect your life.  Not only that, but most thieves have no interest in getting into a fight over the stuff they steal - most actual thefts happen when residents aren't at home, or else are subtle things that are easily missed for a time.  That means someone who's trying to break into your house, while you're there, probably does mean you harm.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: screwtape on August 31, 2013, 09:09:06 AM
Sounds like you could say this another way.  The law is what it is.

The law is what it is?  No.  The law is what we decide it is.  The law of gravity is what it is.  The law in Texas of when you are legally allowed to kill another person is decided by legislators.  And that is the whole point of what we are getting at here. These are terrible laws.

Do you think stealing someones elses hard earned property is worth your life?  I have an idea don't steal peoples shit

Of course it is not worth dying over and of course you shouldn't steal.  But it is a question of justice and sound public policy.  Do people deserve to die for stealing a radio?  Is that justice?  Is it really a good idea to give citizens the right to shoot other people over stolen property.  You may have missed it, but in another thread here a link was posted to a news story about a man in texas murdering an escort and getting away with it because he was trying to recover $150.
http://gawker.com/texas-says-its-ok-to-shoot-an-escort-if-she-wont-have-511636423

This is a result of the law.  Are these the results we want?

Quote
In texas you forfit your right to life when you rob someone it is the law so you should probably avoid breaking that law.

We are discussing the wisdom and morality of that law.  Your commentary has added little.

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on August 31, 2013, 09:51:52 AM
That example of a man shooting a Craigslist escort over $150 and getting away with it because "he didn't mean to do it" is sickening.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nam on August 31, 2013, 11:26:25 AM
jaimehlers,

I disagree with what you say to neopagan if what you're saying applies to everyone.

Take me for an example: I don't care about me at all. Don't care if I live or die. I see that it's just the way things are. However, if I lived with someone, then I'd protect them as much as I could with my life. If I didn't live with anybody then I would attempt to protect my stuff. Whether I could replace it or not is irrelevant. It's like a fire. If a fire started in my home unknowingly, I would try to save as much of my property as I could. Why wouldn't I toward an intruder? My life (whether I cared or not about it) would still be at stake.

-Nam
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Azdgari on August 31, 2013, 03:07:30 PM
Nam, if you would, could you clarify which of your possessions you would be willing to kill another person in order to retain, in a situation where not killing them meant you would lose those possessions?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: DVZ3 on August 31, 2013, 05:28:53 PM
When the home is invloved...

The one big variables with a break-in, home intruder, robbery, <insert whatever you want to call a person or people who don't give a shit about you or your possessions here> is the fact that you don't know or hear about their motive after the fact. Only the ones who are brutally murdered in their home during a burglary etc... make the news.

Knowing that my life, my wife's life and/or my children's life may or may not be robbed from them is the risk and variable I'm willing to take into my own hands if someone invades my home.  That being said, I don't pretend it's obvious to prove or know firsthand if the would be robber was out for my DVD collection or out for anything along with whoever get in their way...

It's not an easy decision especially when you may be presented in the future with something that may or may not threaten you or families life.  In the end, the former or latter is never known for sure.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Azdgari on August 31, 2013, 05:36:51 PM
Indeed, as jaimehlers acknowledged above, a home break-in while you're there is a threat[1] not just to property, but also to the lives of the home's inhabitants.

What about cases where it's just property?  Like the case with the radio?
 1. I'd say "potential threat" but given the unknown, from the home-owner's perspective, it's simply a "threat".
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nam on August 31, 2013, 11:33:40 PM
Nam, if you would, could you clarify which of your possessions you would be willing to kill another person in order to retain, in a situation where not killing them meant you would lose those possessions?

My DVD's. I am very obsessive over them. I'd tell you to ask anyone I know in person but I can't. I have 98% of them in storage right now, I check on them 4 times a week on average. Just to give you perspective, they are 12 miles away from where I live (not the nearest storage unit to where I live but the closest with AC).

I could live without almost all other possessions I have but not my movies. I'd explain why but you probably wouldn't understand, and if a thief came into my future home where I'd have them there, I would hurt that person might even kill them, or die trying to protect them. I know it sounds a little crazy or a lot crazy but I can't help that, nor do I care to.

-Nam
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jetson on September 02, 2013, 07:45:39 AM
GZ is 100% guilty because he got out of his car.  TM's death is 100% GZ's fault.  No doubts in my mind.  If GZ had stayed in his car, and simply allowed real police to take over, TM would be alive.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on September 02, 2013, 11:27:14 AM

What about cases where it's just property?  Like the case with the radio?

Maybe it isn't just property.  Maybe it is the principle of someone taking something that belongs to you.  Someone with no entitlement to your possessions deciding they can take them from you.  Things you paid for.  Someone who decides not to work but to steal the things you worked for.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on September 02, 2013, 12:47:36 PM
^^^^That is why stealing is wrong! But so is parking in front of a fire hydrant and running through a shopping mall naked. The question is, which crimes are so bad that the perp deserves to die. If someone breaks into an occupied home, I can understand shooting them or whacking them into center field with a baseball bat.

But if you catch someone sneaking out of your house with some of your property, and you personally are not in danger-- they just want to run away-- are you justified in using deadly force on them to get your sh!t? Like, shooting them in the back?

Things that are not replaceable--rare books, family photos, souvenirs from trips, etc-- are not the things most thieves are after. Things that thieves want-- money, credit cards, TV's, cameras, cellphones, radios, laptops, guns, leather jackets, jewelry--are usually replaceable. It takes time and is a hassle, but you can get them again.  I've been robbed of some very valuable jewelry and I was quite upset, but I have other jewelry.

The only things in my house I would risk my life to protect are my daughter, my husband and my doggies. If everything else was lost in a flood, theft or fire, I would be very sad, but if I lost my family, I would never recover.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: screwtape on September 02, 2013, 12:55:23 PM

What about cases where it's just property?  Like the case with the radio?

Maybe it isn't just property.  Maybe it is the principle of someone taking something that belongs to you.

That is, by definition, just property.  If you are talking about the principle of it, then you are justifying the death penalty for even the most petty theft.  When my sister was about 6 she swipped a few rubber balls from the local department store.  Would the owner have been in the right if he'd shot her?

Someone with no entitlement to your possessions deciding they can take them from you.  Things you paid for.  Someone who decides not to work but to steal the things you worked for.

Are you saying that death is a reasonable punishment for theft of "something that belongs to you"?  I understand that having something stolen can make someone feel personally violated.  But that is the emotional reaction.  Take your emotion out of it.  Is killing someone who has stolen a radio out of your car while you were someplace else justice? Is this how you want our society to function?  If so, it seems to me a regression to less civilized times, not progress.

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Azdgari on September 02, 2013, 02:18:51 PM

What about cases where it's just property?  Like the case with the radio?

Maybe it isn't just property.  Maybe it is the principle of someone taking something that belongs to you.  Someone with no entitlement to your possessions deciding they can take them from you.  Things you paid for.  Someone who decides not to work but to steal the things you worked for.

To clarify, then, the rationale you offered is what makes it morally okay to kill someone in order to get your stuff back?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Graybeard on September 02, 2013, 03:29:42 PM
Try this: In a country where it is known that theft of property is punishable by death at the hands of the owner, is it reasonable for your relatives to complain that you are dead at the hands of the owner after you tried to steal/stole a radio?

It is probably illegal to climb up to power lines. The penalty is probably a fine. However, the ultimate penalty is death. Does the power company get sued? No. Because everyone knows that the real punishment can be death.

The next problem comes with “Everyone has a gun and everyone can shoot to defend almost anything.” This means that the perps go armed. This means that the thief is probably armed. This means that he is willing to use a gun on anyone who tries to stop him. That means he can be shot.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on September 02, 2013, 04:22:44 PM
This means that he is willing to use a gun on anyone who tries to stop him. That means he can be shot.

To be brutally honest I'm not sure how much I value the life of someone who would prefer to get a gun a hold it on me and rob me of my possessions over getting a job and earning the money to buy himself possessions.  In in court I would not advocate for penalties that are more severe than the crime or the monetary value of what was stolen.  I don't even believe in the death penalty.  I think sitting in prison is a worse punishment.  But in the heat of the moment I can understand the outrage of finding a perp violating your home and your things.  I have no money right now but I have no intention of stealing from anyone.  I humiliate myself going through legal means trying to get assistance for myself and my kid.  I don't go around holding a gun to people and demanding what is not rightfully mine.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nam on September 02, 2013, 04:56:31 PM
I think "in the moment" rationale is hardly ever rational. What one believes now may not be the outcome in-the-moment.

You won't really know until you're in the moment. Therefore one is just playing in hypotheticals in this moment.

-Nam
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on September 02, 2013, 06:32:03 PM
Hypotheticals are what the law is based on. "If this situation happens, that law applies." We can't make law over every heat of the moment situation as they actually occur. &)
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on September 02, 2013, 08:06:08 PM
I think "in the moment" rationale is hardly ever rational. What one believes now may not be the outcome in-the-moment.

You won't really know until you're in the moment. Therefore one is just playing in hypotheticals in this moment.

-Nam

It is true that you don't know what you'll do until you're in the moment.  Once my son & I were playing at the computer when my son said "Mom, someone is coming in our house"  Now, the smart thing to do, especially in my neighborhood, would have been to call 911 & take my son & run out the back door.  But apparently my fight or flight mechanism is seriously impaired because I went stomping up to the intruder with my hands on my hips and said "Excuse me, what the f*ck do you think you are doing?" He froze and said "I think I have the wrong house" and turned around and left.  I said "You're goddamn right you have the wrong house!" and slammed the door behind him.  Well, it turned out he really did have the wrong house, as my neighbor explained when he came over and apologized for his cousin...  Lucky for me he was not an armed creep.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: screwtape on September 03, 2013, 10:05:57 AM
Hi Lori.  I think you missed my post.  http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25192.msg568039.html#msg568039

Could you please respond?  In the case I was talking about a man took the radio out of a parked car with no one in it.  The owner chased the thief and stabbed him to death. 
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_133

Do you think that is justice?  Is this what you want society to look like?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on September 03, 2013, 11:22:05 AM
I disagree with what you say to neopagan if what you're saying applies to everyone.
The principle applies to everyone, whether or not you care about your own life.

Quote from: Nam
Take me for an example: I don't care about me at all. Don't care if I live or die. I see that it's just the way things are. However, if I lived with someone, then I'd protect them as much as I could with my life. If I didn't live with anybody then I would attempt to protect my stuff. Whether I could replace it or not is irrelevant. It's like a fire. If a fire started in my home unknowingly, I would try to save as much of my property as I could. Why wouldn't I toward an intruder? My life (whether I cared or not about it) would still be at stake.
Let me put this to you in very stark terms - if you die trying to retrieve your replaceable property, then what good would it be to you?  You have to be alive for that property to be of any use to you.  I suppose you could argue you were rescuing it for your next-of-kin, whoever that was.  But how do you think your next-of-kin would feel if you died because of some piece of property?  How much do you think that would console them, when you were gone from their life - forever?

By dying over some object, you would do permanent harm to the people who care about you.  Preventable harm, for that matter, since you didn't have to run back into that burning building, or confront that armed robber, because of something you own.  So whether you care about your own life, you have an obligation to protect it for the sake of others who do care about it, assuming you are serious about protecting them from harm.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: epidemic on September 03, 2013, 01:02:39 PM
I disagree with what you say to neopagan if what you're saying applies to everyone.
The principle applies to everyone, whether or not you care about your own life.

Quote from: Nam
Take me for an example: I don't care about me at all. Don't care if I live or die. I see that it's just the way things are. However, if I lived with someone, then I'd protect them as much as I could with my life. If I didn't live with anybody then I would attempt to protect my stuff. Whether I could replace it or not is irrelevant. It's like a fire. If a fire started in my home unknowingly, I would try to save as much of my property as I could. Why wouldn't I toward an intruder? My life (whether I cared or not about it) would still be at stake.
Let me put this to you in very stark terms - if you die trying to retrieve your replaceable property, then what good would it be to you?  You have to be alive for that property to be of any use to you.  I suppose you could argue you were rescuing it for your next-of-kin, whoever that was.  But how do you think your next-of-kin would feel if you died because of some piece of property?  How much do you think that would console them, when you were gone from their life - forever?

By dying over some object, you would do permanent harm to the people who care about you.  Preventable harm, for that matter, since you didn't have to run back into that burning building, or confront that armed robber, because of something you own.  So whether you care about your own life, you have an obligation to protect it for the sake of others who do care about it, assuming you are serious about protecting them from harm.

People keep saying would I die for  posessions.   whether I chase a thief or not is really a choice I make consciously.  But whether I choose to chase them or shoot them I do not expect to die.  When I draw my weapon to stop a thief I really dont expect to die.

I tend to not want to kill someone over a rubber ball but there is a principle of the thing at work here that might well factor in.

That person does not know if the car they stole from me was the car use to get to work to pay for my mother chemo,  they don't know if by steeling it I might lose my job.  Thieves in texas risk their life when they steal and I am not entirely against that.  I am in favor of stand your ground laws but fleeing theif is a little further than I would choose. 

I should not be forced by law to retreat to the furthers portion of the house in hopes the thief will take my shit and leave.   It is not my job to run away on my property in my house.  When you show up in my house I have no idea you will do while in there.  As soon as I get the drop on you I am gonna take you out.  I don't see why I should end up in court over same.  If you attempt to steal my car, or rob me I don't know you are planning to let me go when you have what you want.  You forfeit your right to life to my judgement when you rob me.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on September 03, 2013, 02:58:36 PM
Hi Lori.  I think you missed my post.  http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25192.msg568039.html#msg568039

Could you please respond?  In the case I was talking about a man took the radio out of a parked car with no one in it.  The owner chased the thief and stabbed him to death. 
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_133

That is ridiculous.  A criminal robbed a criminal.  And why do I assume guy #2 is a criminal?  Because you generally would inform the police if you were robbed.   You would let someone know, somehow that you injured somebody, rather than deny involvement.
Quote
Do you think that is justice?  Is this what you want society to look like?

It is not justice under the law but I guess getting killed on the job is an occupational hazard of choosing a life of crime.  I would prefer a society where guys aren't running around with bags of stolen radios. 

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on September 03, 2013, 03:22:38 PM
People keep saying would I die for  posessions.   whether I chase a thief or not is really a choice I make consciously.  But whether I choose to chase them or shoot them I do not expect to die.  When I draw my weapon to stop a thief I really dont expect to die.
Then perhaps you should start thinking about it, rather than making shortsighted assumptions.  I seriously doubt you've ever actually been in a situation where you actually drew a weapon to stop a thief, or pursued a thief, or whatever - if you had, you wouldn't be so blithe about it.

Quote from: epidemic
I tend to not want to kill someone over a rubber ball but there is a principle of the thing at work here that might well factor in.
Sure, I understand, you don't like it when someone steals your stuff.  I don't know that anyone does.  I'm certainly not saying that it's okay for someone to steal from you, or that you shouldn't try to stop a robber if you can do so.  But possessions aren't worth a life, period.  They aren't worth your life, and certainly not worth taking someone else's life either.

Quote from: epidemic
That person does not know if the car they stole from me was the car use to get to work to pay for my mother chemo,  they don't know if by steeling it I might lose my job.  Thieves in texas risk their life when they steal and I am not entirely against that.  I am in favor of stand your ground laws but fleeing theif is a little further than I would choose.
And you don't know why they might have stolen your radio, or your car, or some other object in your possession.  Besides, there's insurance to help with things like that.  For example, comprehensive car insurance covers you against theft and vandalism.  A far more effective solution than attempting to chase down and kill someone for daring to steal your car, or its radio.

Quote from: epidemic
I should not be forced by law to retreat to the furthers portion of the house in hopes the thief will take my shit and leave.
You also shouldn't have the option to commit murder to prevent someone from, as you say, taking your shit and leaving (especially if, say, you weren't at home at the time, or if they broke into your car and stole your radio - or stole the car itself, for that matter).

Quote from: epidemic
It is not my job to run away on my property in my house.  When you show up in my house I have no idea you will do while in there.  As soon as I get the drop on you I am gonna take you out.  I don't see why I should end up in court over same.  If you attempt to steal my car, or rob me I don't know you are planning to let me go when you have what you want.  You forfeit your right to life to my judgement when you rob me.
Maybe you should catch up from the last time you posted in this thread, before you write other posts in it.  If you had, you would have seen that I acknowledged that if someone is breaking into your house while you're there, that falls under defending your life rather than your property.  Most thieves are smart enough to investigate a house they're planning on robbing beforehand, and they generally won't bother trying to rob an occupied house.  That means if someone is trying to break into an occupied house, that they know is occupied, it's probably because they want to do something to the residents.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on September 03, 2013, 03:23:22 PM

That person does not know if the car they stole from me was the car use to get to work to pay for my mother chemo,  they don't know if by steeling it I might lose my job.  Thieves in texas risk their life when they steal and I am not entirely against that.  I am in favor of stand your ground laws but fleeing theif is a little further than I would choose. 

On the day of Hurricaine Sandy, I called all my homecare patients to announce I was visiting them and about what time, called my office to let them know I should be able to make my visits and made some admin type calls.  The storm was expected to hit my area around 3pm and I expected to be done right around then.  When I went out to my car I found the passenger window smashed, my GPS stolen and my nursing bag with my stethoscope, BP cuff and about $400 assorted wound care and other medical supplies (which I keep in my car ready to go under a blanket) missing.  By now it was about 10:30.  I had no time to wait for the incompetent police so I could get a report to submit to insurance, I had to stick on a plastic bag, call my employer on my cell and rush straight to the nearest glass repair place, knowing a plastic bag repair job would not withstand the hurricane that was coming in a couple hours.  So one criminal asshole inconvenienced me, all my patients, my employer, my coworkers who had to fill in for me at the last minute, and the glass people who although they did get additional business, had to rush it at the last minute for a 3+ year old GPS and some medical crap with no resale value.  Plus this unscheduled absence from my job and the stress from the theft and replacing all my things was part of the downfall which led to the ultimate tear in the relationship with my employer which could have been the difference between me staying there in a less strenuous position and leaving.  So these seemingly simple crimes have butterfly effects.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on September 03, 2013, 04:04:53 PM
That's certainly a doozy, Lori.  However, if you had seen the person fleeing from your vehicle, would you have attempted to chase them down and get your stuff back?  Or would you have saved those details for the police and instead focused on getting things fixed up as best you could?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on September 03, 2013, 04:08:00 PM
Well, did you see the post where I described my idiotic self confronting the home intruder?

 
I think "in the moment" rationale is hardly ever rational. What one believes now may not be the outcome in-the-moment.

You won't really know until you're in the moment. Therefore one is just playing in hypotheticals in this moment.

-Nam

It is true that you don't know what you'll do until you're in the moment.  Once my son & I were playing at the computer when my son said "Mom, someone is coming in our house"  Now, the smart thing to do, especially in my neighborhood, would have been to call 911 & take my son & run out the back door.  But apparently my fight or flight mechanism is seriously impaired because I went stomping up to the intruder with my hands on my hips and said "Excuse me, what the f*ck do you think you are doing?" He froze and said "I think I have the wrong house" and turned around and left.  I said "You're goddamn right you have the wrong house!" and slammed the door behind him.  Well, it turned out he really did have the wrong house, as my neighbor explained when he came over and apologized for his cousin...  Lucky for me he was not an armed creep.

My common sense can be defective at times...  If I were leaving for work I someone were fleeing with my stuff?  Well, I would not be armed or really on my own turf to be "standing my ground" or having the balls (or physicality) to take chase but I think I would definitely scream and yell some very foul stuff.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on September 03, 2013, 04:19:21 PM
Of course I did.  But that was a different situation; you were confronting someone who was trying to enter your home, with your children present. What I asked was whether you would have tried to chase down someone who was in the act of fleeing from your car with some stuff that had been stolen from it.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: epidemic on September 05, 2013, 07:57:51 AM
I really don't care why they are stealing my stuff, it is really irrelevant.  Yes they could be stealing for their sick child.  But that is the risk you take in your line of work as a thief.  If a smoke jumper is killed in a forest fire I feel bad for him but that is the life he chose.

I have the right to my stuff, if I confront you and I end up shooting you as you retreat I really feel that you set the wheels in motion for your own demise.  I guess the bigger question is would you jail someone for shooting a fleeing thief,  would you take him away from his family and friends because he responded to a theft more aggressively than you would have? 

Personally I don't think said person is a threat to the community for dispatching a thief.  I would punish him with a fine for disturbing the peace with his loud gun and for littering leaving a trash (dead body) in the street. 


I really do have a problem with shooting a fleeing thief.  Generally speaking I would not shoot a fleeing thief, but I can see where in the heat of the moment where someone might and I don't feel that person should be jailed for it.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: DumpsterFire on September 05, 2013, 08:33:10 AM
A fleeing suspect represents no physical threat, and shooting someone who is running away is never justifiable[1]. One cannot, by definition, "stand one's ground" while in pursuit.

I find it pretty shocking that many on this forum seem to think otherwise.
 1. unless they're running away with your child under their arm or something
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on September 05, 2013, 08:45:12 AM
I really don't care why they are stealing my stuff, it is really irrelevant.  Yes they could be stealing for their sick child.  But that is the risk you take in your line of work as a thief.  If a smoke jumper is killed in a forest fire I feel bad for him but that is the life he chose.
Difference being that you didn't go out and shoot the guy.

Quote from: epidemic
I have the right to my stuff, if I confront you and I end up shooting you as you retreat I really feel that you set the wheels in motion for your own demise.  I guess the bigger question is would you jail someone for shooting a fleeing thief,  would you take him away from his family and friends because he responded to a theft more aggressively than you would have?
Your right to your property does not give you the right to commit murder.  It absolutely does not, under any circumstances, and to argue otherwise opens the door to them justifying killing you based on some right of theirs.

Quote from: epidemic
Personally I don't think said person is a threat to the community for dispatching a thief.  I would punish him with a fine for disturbing the peace with his loud gun and for littering leaving a trash (dead body) in the street.
Fortunately, you are not in charge of dispensing punishments, and I hope you never are if this even comes close to your real feelings on the matter.

Quote from: epidemic
I really do have a problem with shooting a fleeing thief.  Generally speaking I would not shoot a fleeing thief, but I can see where in the heat of the moment where someone might and I don't feel that person should be jailed for it.
I can understand how "in the heat of the moment" works, but that does not mean that they should be given carte blanche for murdering another human being.  Or given a slap on the wrist and let go.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: screwtape on September 05, 2013, 09:25:36 AM
I really don't care ...
I feel bad... but
I have the right...
I really feel that... 
Personally I don't think...
I would...
I really do ...
I can see... 
I don't feel...

Bold mine.  You have shared your feeling and opinions, but you have not made much of a case as to why anyone should agree with you.  You have not given a rational explanation as to why, in a nation where we have laws, police and a guarantee to due process, you support vigilante execution for people accused of theft.

Quote
I guess the bigger question is would you jail someone for shooting a fleeing thief,  would you take him away from his family and friends because he responded to a theft more aggressively than you would have? 

That is a bit of a mischaracterization, but yes, I would. 

I bet you would like some justification for that.

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on September 05, 2013, 09:50:34 AM
I guess the bigger question is would you jail someone for shooting a fleeing thief,  would you take him away from his family and friends because he responded to a theft more aggressively than you would have?
This merits a further response.

Yes, I absolutely would seek to have someone who committed murder jailed.  I don't care if they just randomly pulled out a gun and shot someone down on the street or if they were chasing a fleeing man they thought was a thief.  Even if they actually witnessed the thief[1], that doesn't justify taking the law into their own hands.  Or, to put it another way, if the other person does not deserve due process, why do you?

The only time I would not is if they were acting in defense of themselves or another. - defense or recovery of property does not count.  And even then, due process should still be observed - that is, they should be tried in a court of law and the evidence examined.
 1. assuming it was a theft
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: epidemic on September 05, 2013, 12:10:58 PM
I guess the bigger question is would you jail someone for shooting a fleeing thief,  would you take him away from his family and friends because he responded to a theft more aggressively than you would have?
This merits a further response.

Yes, I absolutely would seek to have someone who committed murder jailed.  I don't care if they just randomly pulled out a gun and shot someone down on the street or if they were chasing a fleeing man they thought was a thief.  Even if they actually witnessed the thief[1], that doesn't justify taking the law into their own hands.  Or, to put it another way, if the other person does not deserve due process, why do you?

The only time I would not is if they were acting in defense of themselves or another. - defense or recovery of property does not count.  And even then, due process should still be observed - that is, they should be tried in a court of law and the evidence examined.
 1. assuming it was a theft

Due process is for when the police get their hands on them :)  As for murder, in texas they have not comitted murder, they killed someone within the law. 

You don't care if someone simply pulled a gun on someone for no reason or shot them for stealing?  So you feel it is exactly the same to kill someone for being completely innocent as to kill someone for a transgression.

I think most laws are to protect us from people who pose a danger to us.  I feel a person who randomly shoots someone is far more a danger to myself and my family than someone who kills people for stealing. 

Again I personally would not take this course of action but I definitely would want to consider the mitigating factors before punishing the killer.  first and formost I like to know if they pose a danger to society.   
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on September 05, 2013, 03:35:38 PM
Due process is for when the police get their hands on them :)  As for murder, in texas they have not comitted murder, they killed someone within the law.
So, then, you don't deserve due process?  Because that's what you're saying by declaring that it's okay for someone to kill someone else they thought was committing a crime and get away with it.  You're saying that you're perfectly okay with someone else pulling out his gun and shooting you because he thought you were committing a crime, whether or not you actually were.  You know how we tell whether that actually was happening?  Due process.

Quote from: epidemic
You don't care if someone simply pulled a gun on someone for no reason or shot them for stealing?  So you feel it is exactly the same to kill someone for being completely innocent as to kill someone for a transgression.
Of course it isn't exactly the same.  But it is not a meaningful difference, either.  You can't unkill someone, which means if you were wrong, you can't do anything about it.  And that is why it is wrong to kill someone who you thought was committing a crime - because you aren't an arbiter of justice.

Quote from: epidemic
I think most laws are to protect us from people who pose a danger to us.  I feel a person who randomly shoots someone is far more a danger to myself and my family than someone who kills people for stealing.
Someone who is willing to kill someone else for any reason save to protect lives is a danger to a lawful society, because they are taking the law into their own hands[1].  And as such, they deserve to be removed from it (such as being put in jail) or else rendered incapable of further endangering it.

Quote from: epidemic
Again I personally would not take this course of action but I definitely would want to consider the mitigating factors before punishing the killer.  first and formost I like to know if they pose a danger to society.
And as I just got done saying, such people do pose a danger to society, because their actions imperil it.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my life to be in the hands of someone who thinks that it's okay to shoot people to death for committing crimes - and who then starts deciding what constitutes a crime.  So I'm implacably opposed to this kind of vigilante justice.
 1. And thus deciding for the entire society whether a person deserves to live or die, rather than abiding by the rules of that society; that forces other people to start doing so as well to protect themselves from the vigilantes, and thus society starts to break down.  The only ones who benefit from this are the ones who were breaking the law in the first place.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on September 05, 2013, 03:44:02 PM
Vigilanteism is a dangerous thing.  I think that part of it is vengeance.  But part of it is frustration.  When people think that the law breakers and criminals are getting away with everything.  They feel powerless.  They complain and nothing is done about it.  And then they start to take the law in to their own hands.  I am not condoning it.  I am just saying that I understand it.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Anfauglir on September 06, 2013, 06:55:20 AM
You don't care if someone simply pulled a gun on someone for no reason or shot them for stealing?  So you feel it is exactly the same to kill someone for being completely innocent as to kill someone for a transgression.

I think most laws are to protect us from people who pose a danger to us.  I feel a person who randomly shoots someone is far more a danger to myself and my family than someone who kills people for stealing. 

In the immediate, yes.  Of course a random shooter is more dangerous, because he is chaotic and unpredictable.  But the odds are that will only happen ONCE. 

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.

Consider also this.  I go somewhere to buy a used TV.  I pay, and leave the house - through the back way, because the size of the TV makes it easier.  The neighbour comes home, in time to see a stranger emerging from the back way of the next door house clutching a TV.  He thinks "thief", and goes for his gun.  I, concerned with juggling a heavy TV, suddenly see a stranger pointing a gun at me.

In that position, I would feel FAR happier if I knew that "I thought he was a thief" was NOT going to be accepted in court as justification for shooting me dead.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: screwtape on September 06, 2013, 08:24:15 AM
I feel a person who randomly shoots someone is far more a danger to myself and my family than someone who kills people for stealing. 

"Random" shooters are very rare.  If we have a society where people get shot shoot people for stealing and other crimes, rather than call the police, then we created an environment where mainly untrained idiots have license to shoot at people any time, any place.  This is much more dangerous to everyone.  In the most recent gunfail - #33 - it includes an armed man who chased after a thief in the middle of the night.  The armed man, not the thief, was shot by another home owner.  Hurray for responsible gun owners.


Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: epidemic on September 06, 2013, 08:44:26 AM

In the immediate, yes.  Of course a random shooter is more dangerous, because he is chaotic and unpredictable.  But the odds are that will only happen ONCE. 

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.


So it is your contention that in Texas we have a person who will escallate the number of people they shoot for theft?  Well considering that the law as been in place for a while do you see someone going around all charles bronson on thieves?  I see some possibility of it, can you cite any cases where one person is now shooting multiple thieves in multiple incidents?

 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.

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.

Possibly if by minor transgression you mean that your family is caught stealing.

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.

It seems to be self limiting because there is not a rash of people killing for petty theft.  Whilst there are many murders for other reasons such as robbery, rape, and just because someone needed killin by random unjustified killing.  This is the law of the land in Texas and does not seem to indicate the problems you are claiming.

Consider also this.  I go somewhere to buy a used TV.  I pay, and leave the house - through the back way, because the size of the TV makes it easier.  The neighbour comes home, in time to see a stranger emerging from the back way of the next door house clutching a TV.  He thinks "thief", and goes for his gun.  I, concerned with juggling a heavy TV, suddenly see a stranger pointing a gun at me.
  I do not remember if the law allows you to protect other peoples property.

In that position, I would feel FAR happier if I knew that "I thought he was a thief" was NOT going to be accepted in court as justification for shooting me dead.

I don't know if that is a problem being that i can not recall if the law allows me to shoot you for stealing other peoples property.  It also would be actionable if they did shoot at you, killing you or not, because you had a relationship with the former owner of the TV and as such they are liable for killing you unjustifiably.  At best manslaughter.


Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: epidemic on September 06, 2013, 08:52:35 AM
I feel a person who randomly shoots someone is far more a danger to myself and my family than someone who kills people for stealing. 

"Random" shooters are very rare.  If we have a society where people get shot shoot people for stealing and other crimes, rather than call the police, then we created an environment where mainly untrained idiots have license to shoot at people any time, any place.  This is much more dangerous to everyone.  In the most recent gunfail - #33 - it includes an armed man who chased after a thief in the middle of the night.  The armed man, not the thief, was shot by another home owner.  Hurray for responsible gun owners.

Random shooters are pretty rare.   But shooters who have no justification for shooting the victim are plentiful.  I only chose random shooter for my example.  I would of course include in that people who shoot me for my stuff, robbery as well as rape, and other unjustified crimes where the victim has not trangressed in any way against the attacker.



BTW I am not a huge proponent of the law,  I just happen to feel that I would not want to jail someone for defending themselves or their property.   Do I feel that shooting someone in the back as they flee is a good idea?  I would not do it, but I am not terribly against it either.

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on September 06, 2013, 09:16:31 AM
So it is your contention that in Texas we have a person who will escallate the number of people they shoot for theft?  Well considering that the law as been in place for a while do you see someone going around all charles bronson on thieves?  I see some possibility of it, can you cite any cases where one person is now shooting multiple thieves in multiple incidents?
And just how many people have actually shot thieves in Texas?  That's what counts here, not the mere existence of the law.  If there's only been a handful of them, then the law is not currently having an effect - people are not paying attention to it.  But if there's been hundreds of people shooting thieves and suspected thieves, then it's a serious problem.

Quote from: 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.
And who determines that?  The person who pulls out the gun and shoots.  In other words, yes they are shooting people they think are thieves.  And as screwtape's example showed, it's entirely possible to shoot the wrong person in an incident like that.  Saying, "well, the law only says you can shoot someone who is a thief" is missing the point.  It's the actions of people that matter, not the literal text of the law.

Quote from: epidemic
Possibly if by minor transgression you mean that your family is caught stealing.
That is so much kuso, and I think you know it.  What he meant is someone shooting one of your family members for a perceived transgression.  What makes you think that everyone who takes advantage of that law will be the kind of person who carefully makes sure that they've got everything straight before they pull out their gun and start shooting at a suspect?

Quote from: epidemic
It seems to be self limiting because there is not a rash of people killing for petty theft.  Whilst there are many murders for other reasons such as robbery, rape, and just because someone needed killin by random unjustified killing.  This is the law of the land in Texas and does not seem to indicate the problems you are claiming.
Get enough of these laws in place - and more importantly, enough people taking advantage of them - and you will get people shooting other people over petty theft.

Quote from: epidemic
I do not remember if the law allows you to protect other peoples property.
You can be sure that there will be people who interpret it that way no matter what the law actually says.

Quote from: epidemic
I don't know if that is a problem being that i can not recall if the law allows me to shoot you for stealing other peoples property.  It also would be actionable if they did shoot at you, killing you or not, because you had a relationship with the former owner of the TV and as such they are liable for killing you unjustifiably.  At best manslaughter.
Do you honestly think that people is going to spend a lot of time considering whether the law allows them to shoot a suspected thief who's absconding with someone else's property?  Most people follow the "better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" rule, as in, it's better to do something and maybe get in trouble over it afterward, than to ask about it first and get told not to.

Yeah, it would probably be actionable.  But that won't help a person who was shot and killed, or shot and permanently injured.  You can't give them back their life, and you can't necessarily give them back their health.  Not only that, but then you have the potential for a firefight between suspected thief and wannabe vigilante, where both of them could end up dead or injured.  What's the point of that?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: epidemic on September 06, 2013, 09:47:39 AM
So it is your contention that in Texas we have a person who will escallate the number of people they shoot for theft?  Well considering that the law as been in place for a while do you see someone going around all charles bronson on thieves?  I see some possibility of it, can you cite any cases where one person is now shooting multiple thieves in multiple incidents?
And just how many people have actually shot thieves in Texas?  That's what counts here, not the mere existence of the law.  If there's only been a handful of them, then the law is not currently having an effect - people are not paying attention to it.  But if there's been hundreds of people shooting thieves and suspected thieves, then it's a serious problem.

Quote from: 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.
And who determines that?  The person who pulls out the gun and shoots.  In other words, yes they are shooting people they think are thieves.  And as screwtape's example showed, it's entirely possible to shoot the wrong person in an incident like that.  Saying, "well, the law only says you can shoot someone who is a thief" is missing the point.  It's the actions of people that matter, not the literal text of the law.

Quote from: epidemic
Possibly if by minor transgression you mean that your family is caught stealing.
That is so much kuso, and I think you know it.  What he meant is someone shooting one of your family members for a perceived transgression.  What makes you think that everyone who takes advantage of that law will be the kind of person who carefully makes sure that they've got everything straight before they pull out their gun and start shooting at a suspect?

Quote from: epidemic
It seems to be self limiting because there is not a rash of people killing for petty theft.  Whilst there are many murders for other reasons such as robbery, rape, and just because someone needed killin by random unjustified killing.  This is the law of the land in Texas and does not seem to indicate the problems you are claiming.
Get enough of these laws in place - and more importantly, enough people taking advantage of them - and you will get people shooting other people over petty theft.

Quote from: epidemic
I do not remember if the law allows you to protect other peoples property.
You can be sure that there will be people who interpret it that way no matter what the law actually says.

Quote from: epidemic
I don't know if that is a problem being that i can not recall if the law allows me to shoot you for stealing other peoples property.  It also would be actionable if they did shoot at you, killing you or not, because you had a relationship with the former owner of the TV and as such they are liable for killing you unjustifiably.  At best manslaughter.
Do you honestly think that people is going to spend a lot of time considering whether the law allows them to shoot a suspected thief who's absconding with someone else's property?  Most people follow the "better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" rule, as in, it's better to do something and maybe get in trouble over it afterward, than to ask about it first and get told not to.

Yeah, it would probably be actionable.  But that won't help a person who was shot and killed, or shot and permanently injured.  You can't give them back their life, and you can't necessarily give them back their health.

You have alot of what if's,  what if someone interprets the law wrong??? 

Well that applies to self defense as well.   So do we not make a law for the people who inappropriatly interperet it, you can no longer use deadly force in defense of your life because someone may interpret the law wrong? 

"Oh he said something bad about my momma"  so I beat him to death in defense of my mamma.  No!!!! we throw him in jail for being a dumbass and killing him for something that was not self defense.

"Oh I thought he was stealing a TV from my neighbor"  so I shot him to death in defense of my neighbors TV.  We throw him in jail for being a dumbass and killing someone who was not stealing.


Not only that, but then you have the potential for a firefight between suspected thief and wannabe vigilante, where both of them could end up dead or injured.  What's the point of that?

That is a judgment call of the victim.  Do I feel my TV is worth this risk.  Just like self defense, do I think this guy is really gonna hurt me, will my actions result in worse situation?  Or will he holster his gun, turn tail and run once i give him my shit.  Or will this rapist stop at just rape or have a change of heart if I don't pull out my gun and shoot him.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on September 06, 2013, 10:40:27 AM
You have alot of what if's,  what if someone interprets the law wrong??? 

Well that applies to self defense as well.   So do we not make a law for the people who inappropriatly interperet it, you can no longer use deadly force in defense of your life because someone may interpret the law wrong?
I keep bringing up what-ifs because you need to think about them when you're making a law, or talking about a law for that matter.  And you're not thinking about them.  You're basically saying you're okay with a law that gives a license to kill in order to prevent (perceived) property theft.  And when other people bring up the problems with such a law, you blithely handwave them away by saying things like "well, if they interpret it wrong, then they'll get punished for it."  Fat lot of good that does the person who got killed!  Fat lot of good it does their family, who now have to deal with their loss!

That is the point here which you just keep refusing to see.  When you kill someone, it's permanent.  You can't bring them back to life.  But you can return or replace stolen property.  So why do you think it's justifiable to kill someone - to take their life, which can't ever be returned to them - in order to stop a theft - property which can be returned or at worst replaced?  And it's even worse than that, because you're being inconsistent.  According to you, a victim has the right to kill someone because they are sure someone is stealing their property, but a bystander doesn't even if they are equally sure someone is stealing another person's property.  Similarly, a thief doesn't deserve due process - to be punished by the legal system - if the victim gets to them first.  But if they kill the wrong person, or someone who was innocent, then they deserve due process - to be punished by the legal system.  Why, because the real victim isn't alive to dish out his own punishment?

Giving a person the right to kill someone else is not just, not even when acting in presumed self-defense.  It's just that when you're in imminent danger of being killed, and the only way to prevent it is to kill your attacker, then it's acceptable.  But it's still not just.

Quote from: epidemic
"Oh he said something bad about my momma"  so I beat him to death in defense of my mamma.  No!!!! we throw him in jail for being a dumbass and killing him for something that was not self defense.

"Oh I thought he was stealing a TV from my neighbor"  so I shot him to death in defense of my neighbors TV.  We throw him in jail for being a dumbass and killing someone who was not stealing.
Hey, thanks for the examples.  Mind if I borrow them?

"Oh, he was slandering me, so I shot him to death to defend my good name."  "Oh, he was stealing my TV, so I shot him to death to keep him from getting away with it."  Neither of these are even remotely acceptable excuses to justify killing someone.  In both cases, the shooter was being a dumbass who deserves to be thrown in prison.

Quote from: epidemic
That is a judgment call of the victim.  Do I feel my TV is worth this risk.  Just like self defense, do I think this guy is really gonna hurt me, will my actions result in worse situation?  Or will he holster his gun, turn tail and run once i give him my shit.  Or will this rapist stop at just rape or have a change of heart if I don't pull out my gun and shoot him.
It is not even remotely close to self-defense, in any way, shape or form, to shoot someone over a television, or some other piece of replaceable property.  So your example here is totally worthless.

For that matter, your attempt to compare theft to rape is abhorrent.  Rape is an attack on a person - not a theft of their property.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on September 06, 2013, 11:03:44 AM
Just like self defense, do I think this guy is really gonna hurt me, will my actions result in worse situation?  Or will he holster his gun, turn tail and run once i give him my shit.  Or will this rapist stop at just rape or have a change of heart if I don't pull out my gun and shoot him.

Here's my dilemma.  I could be described as a "pretty little blonde."  So on the surface defending myself against a direct attack of a "legitimate" rapist with a gun would seem justified, by non teabaggers, I suppose.  But I am also a combat trained military veteran who, when my rotator cuff does not resemble ground beef, has some serious self defense skills.  So, would my military background be held against me if I were to shoot my attacker?  Would a prosecutor say I should have delivered a well-placed throat punch or blow to the jugular instead?  And what if the aforementioned blows resulted in serious injury or death to my attacker?  Am I at fault for using deadly force?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nam on September 06, 2013, 12:04:59 PM
I disagree with what you say to neopagan if what you're saying applies to everyone.
The principle applies to everyone, whether or not you care about your own life.

Quote from: Nam
Take me for an example: I don't care about me at all. Don't care if I live or die. I see that it's just the way things are. However, if I lived with someone, then I'd protect them as much as I could with my life. If I didn't live with anybody then I would attempt to protect my stuff. Whether I could replace it or not is irrelevant. It's like a fire. If a fire started in my home unknowingly, I would try to save as much of my property as I could. Why wouldn't I toward an intruder? My life (whether I cared or not about it) would still be at stake.
Let me put this to you in very stark terms - if you die trying to retrieve your replaceable property, then what good would it be to you?  You have to be alive for that property to be of any use to you.  I suppose you could argue you were rescuing it for your next-of-kin, whoever that was.  But how do you think your next-of-kin would feel if you died because of some piece of property?  How much do you think that would console them, when you were gone from their life - forever?

By dying over some object, you would do permanent harm to the people who care about you.  Preventable harm, for that matter, since you didn't have to run back into that burning building, or confront that armed robber, because of something you own.  So whether you care about your own life, you have an obligation to protect it for the sake of others who do care about it, assuming you are serious about protecting them from harm.

I'm sorry, how are things replaceable to those who aren't able to replace them? Because I couldn't do it. Took me a lifetime to get my possessions, I don't have another lifetime to get them all back. And I doubt many other people do as well.

Insurance companies aren't going to replace those things especially if you can't afford to pay for the high cost of insurance. Police rarely recover all stolen property, and there's no guarantee you'll get the stuff back anyway, or in the condition it was in in the first place.

If a fire takes it, you'll most likely never see it again.

Just because you believe everything is replaceable, it isn't. Hell, even for many of us: our homes are irreplaceable.

That's how some homeless people become homeless.

-Nam
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on September 06, 2013, 12:14:01 PM
No offense, Nam, but that's not valid reasoning.  Sure, if your house burns down, you won't be able to recover that house...but you can get a replacement house (or, at least, residence).  If someone steals your TV, you may not recover the TV, but you can get a replacement TV.  So on and so forth.  And please, don't try to tell me that a person can't replace something that's lost or destroyed.  Because that's silly.  They certainly can replace it.  Whether they're willing to take the necessary actions to do so is a different story.

And while it's true that there are sentimental items that aren't easily replaceable (such as heirlooms), it's the sentiment that matters, not the item itself.  So while I would be less likely to condemn someone for acting irrationally because of an heirloom, I still don't consider it a justifiable reason to kill the other person.  Because you can neither recover nor replace a lost life.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nam on September 06, 2013, 12:16:20 PM
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.

-Nam
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on September 06, 2013, 02:36:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: epidemic on September 06, 2013, 02:39:04 PM
That is the point here which you just keep refusing to see.  When you kill someone, it's permanent.  You can't bring them back to life. 

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

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

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.

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?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nam on September 06, 2013, 02:48:43 PM
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
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: epidemic on September 06, 2013, 02:49:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on September 06, 2013, 04:16:12 PM
So when I kill someone it is permanent?  Are you sure ;D?
Don't waste my time with comments like this.

Quote from: epidemic
Umm, that is the point that is why I killed him to make it permanent. :o  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.

Quote from: epidemic
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.

Quote from: epidemic
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.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on September 06, 2013, 04:21:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on September 06, 2013, 04:28:29 PM
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.

Quote from: epidemic
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.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on September 06, 2013, 04:56:08 PM
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.                             
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on September 06, 2013, 05:07:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on September 06, 2013, 05:27:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nam on September 06, 2013, 11:45:51 PM
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
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Anfauglir on September 07, 2013, 04:20:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Chronos on September 07, 2013, 04:51:25 AM
So when I kill someone it is permanent?  Are you sure ;D?
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.

Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nam on September 09, 2013, 02:18:22 PM
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
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: nogodsforme on September 09, 2013, 03:14:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: One Above All on September 09, 2013, 03:27:15 PM
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
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nick on September 09, 2013, 03:28:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on September 09, 2013, 03:43:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nick on September 09, 2013, 05:15:15 PM
She probably rat holed the money and he can't get to any of it.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Quesi on September 09, 2013, 05:46:55 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nick on September 09, 2013, 06:54:04 PM
Like a dog that gets in the chicken coop and kills chickens.  Never the same after the taste of blood.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Anfauglir on September 10, 2013, 06:17:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on September 10, 2013, 07:03:59 AM
It appears that the new Zimmerman story is false.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Anfauglir on September 10, 2013, 08:20:48 AM
In that case, I never said what I said I said!   ;)
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: epidemic on September 10, 2013, 08:36:15 AM
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]
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Anfauglir on September 10, 2013, 09:16:29 AM
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!
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Anfauglir on September 10, 2013, 09:23:18 AM
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?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Azdgari on September 10, 2013, 09:59:09 AM
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?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: epidemic on September 10, 2013, 10:22:25 AM
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?

8) 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. 
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on September 10, 2013, 10:23:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: naemhni on September 10, 2013, 10:28:35 AM
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.

Quote
2) may I pursue him

Yes.

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

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

Quote
4) Can I physically detain him?

Yes, this is called a citizen's arrest.

Quote
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.

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

Same as number five.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Anfauglir on September 10, 2013, 10:42:44 AM
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. 

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.  Net effect is that a thief is killed, with no sanction on the person who killed him.  Sounds like capital punishment for theft to me, for all practical purposes.

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 ?

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

From what I understand of this law as you have described it.....apparently you can. 

I'm glad that YOu wouldn't do it.  But the law as I understand it means that this is quite legal.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Anfauglir on September 10, 2013, 10:48:46 AM
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.

Actually, I don't see any problem with your stances on capital punishment, and killing in self-defence.

BUT, I see a big difference between killing someone to prevent or stop a (generic) crime, and killing someone who is trying to kill you or someone nearby.  So I'd see a problem if your stances were "capital punishment is wrong, but it is okay to kill someone to stop them jaywalking (to pick another random non-lethal crime).

In the case of the law in question here, it IS capital punishment - the theft, the crime, HAS already taken place by definition, since we are talking about shooting "the thief".  You can't be a thief if you haven't yet stolen anything, surely?  So I stand by my view that this law IS capital punishment.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on September 10, 2013, 11:10:00 AM
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.
Given that our legal system presumes innocence (that is to say, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty), that means that this law is not workable as it stands.  Because people are always only suspected of a crime until proven guilty under the law.

Quote from: epidemic
It only protects you if the person is known to be a theif.
And how can they be known to be a thief before they're even tried for theft?  Given that the Constitution guarantees the right of a person to be tried in a court for both criminal and civil affairs, and the legal presumption of innocence, this law is very probably unconstitutional, since it allows a person to legally murder[1] another person over a matter of theft before the person is even apprehended, never mind tried.

Quote from: epidemic
You better be dam sure you are shooting a guilty person.
In my opinion, even if the person you shot and killed did steal something from you, you're still guilty of murder, and you still deserve to be punished for it - not let off the hook because you shot a thief.

Quote from: epidemic
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]
Can it with the strawmen, epidemic.  We aren't talking about armored car companies, nor are we talking about grand theft.  We're talking about petty theft - stealing something that's not very valuable (usually, less than $500).  So, it doesn't matter if you consider robbing $3 million from a bank to be the same as stealing a $30 radio - the fact of the matter is that we don't define theft based on how much money someone has.  We define it based on the value of what is being stolen.

Petty theft is a misdemeanor, but murder (even when it's in defense of something) is always a felony.  So your argument is that it's okay for someone to commit a felony - and be let off the hook for it, no less - in defense of something that would at best result in a misdemeanor criminal charge against that person.
 1. that is, to kill with an attack that causes grievous bodily harm, though it would probably be third-degree murder without the actual intent to kill them
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on September 10, 2013, 11:18:08 AM
If I see a guy running away with my stereo ?

In your opinion what should my option be?:

1) Just call police!
You should always call the police no matter what else you do.

Quote from: epidemic
2) may I pursue him
Up to you, although the police might disagree.

Quote from: epidemic
3) Can I demand my stuff back with harshly worded request?
I suppose you can...

Quote from: epidemic
4) Can I physically detain him?
Probably.

Quote from: epidemic
5) If he restists can I use force?
Within reason.

Quote from: epidemic
) If he attempts to injure me can I injure him back?
You're better off restraining him in such a way that he can't hurt you.  When you injure someone else, even if they were trying to injure you, it confuses the situation.

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

8 ) 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?
None of these are appropriate responses to petty theft.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Graybeard on September 10, 2013, 02:06:42 PM
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.  Net effect is that a thief is killed, with no sanction on the person who killed him.  Sounds like capital punishment for theft to me, for all practical purposes.

I used to think like that but now I think that it is an error. There is the criminal law, the civil law and then there is acceptable behaviour.

1. The criminal law looks at everything in an even-handed and clinical  manner and is the public face of authority.
2. The civil law is broader and laxer in what it considers and works on a balance of probabilities. It is as if a reasonable man were looking at the situation.
3. Acceptable behaviour understands that human behaviour cannot be written down and actions on the spur of the moment or because it seemed a good idea at the time are understandable. This standard is very broad. It is possible for actions to fall into either or neither of the above categories.

Killing a person whose crime does not attract the death penalty where your life or the lives of others were not in danger, may seem severe but it is what happens - people get upset, they don't think straight, they are annoyed, they do the first thing that enters their head. This is rarely a crime. Others look at it and say, "Yes, I can see why he did that."

On the other hand there is the case of the able person who does not give assistance to the person in mortal danger - he commits (in most countries) no crime if he allows the other to die.

I think that is little point trying to impose your views so didactically on someone - the spectrum of human morality is broad. There are obvious exceptions but the line between them is inherently vague.

Edit for small typo
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on September 10, 2013, 02:15:42 PM
Killing a person whose crime does not attract the death penalty where your life or the lives of others were not in danger, may seem severe but it is what happens - people get upset, they don't think straight, they are annoyed, they do the first thing that enters their head. This is rarely a crime. Others look at it and say, "Yes, I can see why he did that."
Understanding why someone did something is not the same as excusing it, though.  I can understand why someone might fly into a rage over something and kill someone else, but that's not the same as excusing their behavior or saying they were right to do so.

Quote from: Graybeard
On the other hand there is the case of the able person who does not give assistance to the person in mortal danger - he commits (in mist countries) no crime if he allows the other to die.
There's a difference between commission and omission, though.  It's why we don't hold people who don't act to stop a thief accountable as accomplices to theft.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Nick on September 10, 2013, 06:19:19 PM
His lawyer quit today and asked for George to pay him. 
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: epidemic on September 11, 2013, 08:28:11 AM
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.  Net effect is that a thief is killed, with no sanction on the person who killed him.  Sounds like capital punishment for theft to me, for all practical purposes.

I used to think like that but now I think that it is an error. There is the criminal law, the civil law and then there is acceptable behaviour.

1. The criminal law looks at everything in an even-handed and clinical  manner and is the public face of authority.
2. The civil law is broader and laxer in what it considers and works on a balance of probabilities. It isd as if a reasonable man were looking at the situation.
3. Acceptable behaviour understands that human behaviour cannot be written down and actions on the spur of the moment or because it seemed a good idea at the time are understandable. This standard is very broad. It is possible for actions to fall into either or neither of the above categories.

Killing a person whose crime does not attract the death penalty where your life or the lives of others were not in danger, may seem severe but it is what happens - people get upset, they don't think straight, they are annoyed, they do the first thing that enters their head. This is rarely a crime. Others look at it and say, "Yes, I can see why he did that."

On the other hand there is the case of the able person who does not give assistance to the person in mortal danger - he commits (in mist countries) no crime if he allows the other to die.

I think that is little point trying to impose your views do didactically on someone - the spectrum of human morality is broad. There are obvious exceptions but the line between them is inherently vague.

Wow an eloquent version of what rambles round in my head.  That pretty much sums up my postion. 

Shooting someone for stealing from you, I think the response may be along the extreme line of the acceptable spectrum of responses to the transgression.









For those who say theft is not a capital offense,  neither is child rape.  However, would you jail someone for shooting someone he caught in the act of raping his six year old boy?  I would never ever consider putting that guy in jail for shooting his childs rapist in the heat of the moment.  I think almost any reasonable man would shoot the rapist of his child.  I think at the absolute extreme of acceptable human behavior is shooting the guy for stealing his car.  Being stolen from creates a very visceral emotional response, as such you should probably avoid stealing from people or you might get your ass shot.

(I am not equating stealing a stereo to child rape, only saying that reasonable human response is a spectrum that does not always line up with judicial process)
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Graybeard on September 12, 2013, 05:00:21 PM
Understanding why someone did something is not the same as excusing it, though.
That is true but, from time to time we see a person prosecuted or sued for something about which we think, "What's the fuss about?" It is this area I was aiming at.

Quote
Quote from: Graybeard
On the other hand there is the case of the able person who does not give assistance to the person in mortal danger - he commits (in mist countries) no crime if he allows the other to die.
There's a difference between commission and omission, though.  It's why we don't hold people who don't act to stop a thief accountable as accomplices to theft.

There was a case in the UK where 2 Assistant Police Officers (Community Officers) stood by and watch a child drown in a public park lake. They were obeying orders that they should not put themselves in danger. The lake was not deep and even if it was, they should have been able to swim. The public were shocked at this omission. Here we have the idea of
Quote
3. Acceptable behaviour understands that human behaviour cannot be written down and actions on the spur of the moment or because it seemed a good idea at the time are understandable. This standard is very broad. It is possible for actions to fall into either or neither of the above categories.
but in the negative.

Omissions are often the source of civil suits.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: jaimehlers on September 12, 2013, 07:19:49 PM
For those who say theft is not a capital offense,  neither is child rape.  However, would you jail someone for shooting someone he caught in the act of raping his six year old boy?  I would never ever consider putting that guy in jail for shooting his childs rapist in the heat of the moment.  I think almost any reasonable man would shoot the rapist of his child.  I think at the absolute extreme of acceptable human behavior is shooting the guy for stealing his car.  Being stolen from creates a very visceral emotional response, as such you should probably avoid stealing from people or you might get your ass shot.

(I am not equating stealing a stereo to child rape, only saying that reasonable human response is a spectrum that does not always line up with judicial process)
You did, however, suggest that if we don't have a problem with someone shooting a child rapist caught in the act, that we shouldn't have a problem with someone shooting a thief caught in the act.  That is as disturbing as it is wrong.  Child rape may not be a capital offense, but it is a felony.  Petty theft (such as stealing a stereo or a TV) is not.

You know, I can understand that someone might do something like that in the heat of the moment.  I can understand that a person feels attached to possessions.  But that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean we should excuse them for doing it.
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Azdgari on September 12, 2013, 07:32:42 PM
If the heat of the moment means that someone shooting a fleeing thief should be legally okay, then why shouldn't the heat of the moment mean that a guy shooting his wife and kids in a rage is legally okay?

I consider both to be murder.  What say you, epidemic?
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Anfauglir on September 13, 2013, 03:47:05 AM
For those who say theft is not a capital offense,  neither is child rape.  However, would you jail someone for shooting someone he caught in the act of raping his six year old boy?  I would never ever consider putting that guy in jail for shooting his childs rapist in the heat of the moment.

Should we be pushing to change the law so that it is okay to shoot someone who is littering?  If not, why not?

The issue is not "should we let people off who do something in the heat of the moment?" because we already have a system that allows for mitigation in cases such as yours.  The question I am posing is whether there should be a law on the books that enables Joe Public to exact capital justice in non-life threatening circumstances with impunity? 

Because as the law stands, "heat of the moment" does not appear to be relevant.  Whether you shoot "enraged" or shoot "detached and calm", you are covered by the law to exactly the same extent.

So to come back to your example....if a person with no children came across someone assaulting a 6-year old who was unknown to them, and shot them dead, should they be treated in the same way as if the boy's father has done it?  Should they, too, be spared all jail time? 
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Mrjason on September 13, 2013, 04:35:22 AM
CPS guidance is a good place to start for members from the UK as its them that are gonna prosecute you  :police:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html (http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html)

This is particularly relevant to the discussion:

Quote
What if I chase them as they run off?

This situation is different as you are no longer acting in self-defence and so the same degree of force may not be reasonable. However, you are still allowed to use reasonable force to recover your property and make a citizen's arrest. You should consider your own safety and, for example, whether the police have been called. A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not

edit: for info on the parliamentary discussions on the use of force http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-for-the-new-parliament/security-and-liberty/reviewing-counter-terrorism-legislation1/ (http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-for-the-new-parliament/security-and-liberty/reviewing-counter-terrorism-legislation1/)

Again, necessary and reasonable are the highlighted topics.

Shooting someone in the back as they run away?
Not necessary or reasonable in my opinion.
the [wiki]Tony Martin (farmer)[/wiki] case was one that tested the water on this.
It is being debated whether the law should changed to incorporate force that is reasonable under the circumstances i.e. the extreme duress of finding someone in your home.
Deliberate or premeditated[1] killing is still not an appropriate response though as this would be grossly disproportionate.
 1. premeditation can be something as simple as picking up a knife
Title: Re: Zimmerman Verdict
Post by: Mrjason on September 13, 2013, 06:29:01 AM
Quote from: Graybeard
On the other hand there is the case of the able person who does not give assistance to the person in mortal danger - he commits (in mist countries) no crime if he allows the other to die.
There's a difference between commission and omission, though.  It's why we don't hold people who don't act to stop a thief accountable as accomplices to theft.

To be criminally liable for an omission you must have a causal link to the omission applying the [wiki]But for test[/wiki].

For example you threaten a person with a knife. They run onto a railway track to escape you. They stumble and get stuck on the track. You leave them there. They get hit by a train and killed.

Your omission (not moving them off the track) combined with the causal link (but for the fact that you threatened them with a knife etc..) makes you liable for their death.