View Full Version : This Person is a Member of the US House of Representatives
No, that can't be right. The prosecution has to prove he killed Martin in a premeditated way (murder), then Zimmerman has to argue the defence of "self defence"Well, let's see (http://www.propublica.org/article/the-23-states-that-have-sweeping-self-defense-laws-just-like-floridas)....
In Florida, a homicide case can be thrown out by a judge before trial because the defendant successfully invokes self-defense. The burden is on the prosecution to disprove the claim in order to bring charges, rather than do so in the trial. The Florida state attorney leading the prosecution told ABC news that the self-defense law means it is "more difficult than a normal criminal case" to bring charges.
Understand, I think Zimmerman was overzealous and should have stayed in the car- that doesn't make him a murderer though. He probably wasn't charged initially because the DA's office knew that charges couldn't stick.
No, that can't be right. The prosecution has to prove he killed Martin in a premeditated way (murder), then Zimmerman has to argue the defence of "self defence"
Otherwise, anyone who killed someone in an altercation would just be let go - you'd never convicat anyone. So long as the other guy was facing you you could just go "self defence" and go on your merry way.
Zimmerman is guilty of murder unless it was self defence. He has to be able to demonstrate genuine mortal fear, at least on the balance of probability, surely.
No, it's the other way around. It's self defense unless the prosecution can prove otherwise.
but to open that distance Martin would have to stop attacking him - if the first thing Zimmerman does once the attack stops is shoot the guy, that doesn't really look like self defence.
Not necessary... he could have pulled a gun just as Martin was charging right at him.
And it's kinda hard to draw a gun when someone's shooting you in the face.
Que?
Question: What if Martin had killed Zimmerman with his bare hands and when asked said, "the guy pulled a gun and tried to shoot me."
Would you then say Zimmerman got what he deserved as well?
Sure. The survivor gets the presumption of innocence. He beat Zimmerman to death in self-defense unless the prosecution can prove otherwise.
What exactly makes Zimmerman's life more valuable than Martin's that it's ok for Martin to be killed, but not Zimmerman?
Nothing. Zimmerman said he was defending himself, and there's little reason to doubt him.
.....that's what Zimmerman has been charged with- second degree murder (http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-charged-murder-trayvon-martin-killing/story?id=16115469).
You were not framing your question as specifically about this case, rather about whether there were cases in which you could kill another person and not get charged with murder. Actually, you put it in an even more convoluted formulation:
is there ever a case where one person can kill another in justifiable self-defense and not have to be charged with murder and go to trial in your opinion?
Which makes no sense from either angle; by framing the whole thing with "justifiable" you are either prematurely declaring Zimmerman innocent, again, or you're moving the goalposts from your hypothetical to a specific reading of this case. Hypothetical or specific; pick one and stick to it.
Anyway, I've answered your hypothetical fully and reasonably. And as I keep saying, Zimmerman deserves his day in court. How this can be a controversial position is kinda puzzling.
Otherwise, anyone who killed someone in an altercation would just be let go - you'd never convicat anyone. So long as the other guy was facing you you could just go "self defence" and go on your merry way.
Under the broadest possible reading of the Stand Your Ground Law, this would be the case. I cannot imagine a sane court reading the law in quite such a sweeping fashion, however. Yay for judges and juries. There's a reason the law is interpreted by men, not machines.
Greyblades
05-18-2012, 03:33
Under the broadest possible reading of the Stand Your Ground Law, this would be the case. I cannot imagine a sane court reading the law in quite such a sweeping fashion, however. Yay for judges and juries. There's a reason the law is interpreted by men, not machines. ...Huh, funnily enough I would prefer a machine compared to the sort of crap that can come out of the men being stupid and or bigoted.
Holy ****, I did a brief post-work stroll through some news sources ... what the **** is wrong with Florida? Why is evidence cropping up all over the web? What the gah are they thinking?
I find this genuinely upsetting. Like this case wasn't already messed-up by media coverage, racists, race-baiters and opportunistic politicians of all stripes ... now they're plastering discovery material to any news outlet that's awake? Seriously, what the ****?
For crying out loud, all I wanted was a proper investigation and a fair trial. I guess that's a doomed hope. What a mess.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-18-2012, 12:45
No, it's the other way around. It's self defense unless the prosecution can prove otherwise.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of 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 such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.
I'm sorry - but that looks like a defence against a crime. In order for Zimmerman not to be guilty of murder he must demonstrate that he believed, " such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself " otherwise he was not justified. Note the legal assumption - you are not justified in the use of deadly force only...
Burdan of proof must be on Zimmerman, at least on the balance of probabilities.
Not necessary... he could have pulled a gun just as Martin was charging right at him.
Use of deadly force requires deadly threat - and actually, Martin was already on top of him. So how did he pull the gun?
Que?
You know what I meant - try pulling something out of your jacket with someone sat on your chest.
Sure. The survivor gets the presumption of innocence. He beat Zimmerman to death in self-defense unless the prosecution can prove otherwise.
Nothing. Zimmerman said he was defending himself, and there's little reason to doubt him.
Ah, I see so in your country you can kill whoever you want provided it was in a fight?
-1 on Philipvs ever visiting any part of the US.
Vladimir
05-18-2012, 12:57
Anyone hear of the autopsy findings that showed he was shot at close range and had THC in his system?
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of 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 such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.
I'm sorry - but that looks like a defence against a crime. In order for Zimmerman not to be guilty of murder he must demonstrate that he believed, " such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself " otherwise he was not justified. Note the legal assumption - you are not justified in the use of deadly force only...
Burdan of proof must be on Zimmerman, at least on the balance of probabilities.
All he needs to do is reasonably believe, which he did.
Use of deadly force requires deadly threat - and actually, Martin was already on top of him. So how did he pull the gun?
You know what I meant - try pulling something out of your jacket with someone sat on your chest.
Guess he figured out a way. It's remarkable what someone can do to save his life.
Ah, I see so in your country you can kill whoever you want provided it was in a fight?
-1 on Philipvs ever visiting any part of the US.
Whatever floats your boat.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-18-2012, 13:48
All he needs to do is reasonably believe, which he did.
So he says - he should have to demonstrate it before a Court of Law, however, because otherwise his actions constitute murder.
Guess he figured out a way. It's remarkable what someone can do to save his life.
Unless he already had it out.
Man, someone please explain to me why all of this information is being released to the public. Seems straight-up insane to this lemur. I guess we are genuinely meant to try him in the blogs and the news feeds?
Of the mass of detail coming out, the only thing that really seems relevant to me is this bit (http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-investigator-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674#.T7ZJ0kXIaZb): "The lead homicide investigator [...] recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter" — which is probably the correct charge. Who knew that being there on the ground seeing the people and evidence firsthand could lead you to an informed conclusion?
I am amazed that both sides of this case are leaking pretty much everything to the press and nobody's getting in trouble. Is anything illegal in Florida?
Greyblades
05-18-2012, 14:30
Is anything illegal in Florida?
Well I hear comitting anything against disney is a death sentance in florida, though I dont think the guy who said that had the Criminal courts in mind.
So he says - he should have to demonstrate it before a Court of Law.
Should be easy enough to do.
because otherwise his actions constitute murder.
Where'd you find that part?
Unless he already had it out.
Speculation.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-18-2012, 16:57
Where'd you find that part?
He killed a man in a premeditated act - without being able to demonstrate "self defence" he is guilty of either murder or manslaughter. It would be a one day trial, and on the first day he's have to plead out.
The fact that Zimmerman killed Martin is not in question - that is murder unless Zimmerman can mount a succesful defence.
How is this controversial?
He killed a man.
He killed a man in a premeditated act
Prove it.
- without being able to demonstrate "self defence" he is guilty of either murder or manslaughter.
Your opinion. The law states what the statue is and what the consequences are. Have you read it? If so post it. Otherwise you're just making up an opinion.
It would be a one day trial, and on the first day he's have to plead out.
I love it. Please, keep telling us exactly how it works. Your overarching knowledge of everything is astounding.
The fact that Zimmerman killed Martin is not in question
Correct.
- that is murder unless Zimmerman can mount a succesful defence.
Again, your opinion. The actual law is the last word.
How is this controversial?
He killed a man.
Because under certain circumstances, lethal force is fully justified. The prosecution must make the case here and prove it. Thankfully in America, we have the right to not self incriminate to assist those making a case against us.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-18-2012, 17:43
Prove it.
He deliberately shot him. That's a premeditated act, as opposed to not meaning to shoot him, which would be an accident.
Your opinion. The law states what the statue is and what the consequences are. Have you read it? If so post it. Otherwise you're just making up an opinion.
Did that. Statute says you are only justified in the use of lethal force when...
Ergo - you need to demonstrate a belief that you are in immidiate danger of death or serious injusry.
I love it. Please, keep telling us exactly how it works. Your overarching knowledge of everything is astounding.
Take away "self defence" and Zimmerman is undeniably guilty. His only possible out is the "self defence" claim. If he just said, "nah I shot him because he looked at me funny" he's go straight down.
Again, your opinion. The actual law is the last word.
Premeditated manslaughter is murder. Zimmerman shot him, he meant to shoot him, Martin died as a direct result.
Zimmerman is guilty of murder unless he can prove he was justified.
Because under certain circumstances, lethal force is fully justified. The prosecution must make the case here and prove it. Thankfully in America, we have the right to not self incriminate to assist those making a case against us.
Zimmerman's defence must be to prove those circumstances, if he cannot prove those circumstances he must be convicted.
It is not complicated.
You have the crime (which he committed) and you have the defences against being convicted of that crime (self defence here).
Zimmerman killed Martin in a premeditated act, he has admitted as much, it is his responsibility to justify his actions, not the responsibility of the State to let him off.
Vladimir
05-18-2012, 17:48
You have an interesting definition of premeditated that I can't see to find in the dictionary. Few things in a fight are premeditated in less you're Sherlock Holmes.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-18-2012, 18:08
You have an interesting definition of premeditated that I can't see to find in the dictionary. Few things in a fight are premeditated in less you're Sherlock Holmes.
Legally premeditation is the deliberate act - if you hit a guy round the head with a baseball bat, or shoot him, that's a premeditated act regardless of whether you only decided to do it a few moments before.
Zimmerman intended to shoot Martn - it was a "pre-meditated" act, he thought about it, then decided to do it. Indeed - his defence depends on premeditation, because he is arguing he decided to shoot Martin to save his own life.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/First_Degree_Murder_vs_Second_Degree_Murder
You might try a legal dictionary:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p075.htm
Zimmerman basically said, "I shot him because I thought he was going to kill me" not "we struggled and the gun went off in my hand."
He admits both the act and the decision to carry it out - Mens Rea et Actus Reus - neither mens nor actus are in doubt, only motive.
Vladimir
05-18-2012, 18:12
You might try to think about what you're implying. You're implying that he followed Trayvon with the intent to kill him and is claiming self-defense to get away with it.
Pulling your hand out of a fire isn't a premeditated act. Clear your head and use the time Zimmerman didn't have and come to a rational conclusion.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-18-2012, 18:52
You might try to think about what you're implying. You're implying that he followed Trayvon with the intent to kill him and is claiming self-defense to get away with it.
Pulling your hand out of a fire isn't a premeditated act. Clear your head and use the time Zimmerman didn't have and come to a rational conclusion.
Don't be a curr.
No - I'm implying no such thing.
In order for the Act to be premeditated he merely has to have thought about it. Zimmerman himself claims to have had enough time to decide "him or me", his defence relies upon it. It is not necessary for Zimmerman to have gone out that evening to kill someone, or even Martin, it is merely necessary for Zimmerman to have taken the decision to discharge his weapon in the knowledge that it would most likely kill Martin, and to have done it anyway.
Did Zimmerman mean to shoot Martin, or did he do it as a reflex? Zimmerman appears to have done it deliberately - so the act was premeditated.
Read the links I posted - all that is required is enough time to come to a decision.
In order for the Act to be premeditated he merely has to have thought about it.
Thought? No, not in this universe. Planned in advance is more like it.
Vladimir
05-18-2012, 19:15
Really? Thought about it? How much time is enough time then?
There was no planning or deliberation. It was a response to a situation that he believed could end in his death.
You guys are arguing with a brick wall. He will continue to have his opinions, regardless if they match up with legal reality or not. There's really nothing wrong with having an opinion anyway, even if it is misguided.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-18-2012, 19:29
Thought? No, not in this universe. Planned in advance is more like it.
In advance of the act...
How far in advance?
It depends on the act, really, but in this case there is a certain amount of premeditation in his carrying a loaded weapon whilst out looking for criminals. That implies preparedness to use the weapon - added to which Zimmerman appears to have taken the deliberate decision to shoort Martin. "Planned in Advance" does not necessarily mean he went out to shoot someone, it merely means he took a decision and then carried it out.
"Planned in Advance" does not necessarily mean he went out to shoot someone
Yes it does.
You guys are arguing with a brick wall. He will continue to have his opinions, regardless if they match up with legal reality or not. There's really nothing wrong with having an opinion anyway, even if it is misguided.
You're right. I'm done.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-18-2012, 19:44
You guys are arguing with a brick wall. He will continue to have his opinions, regardless if they match up with legal reality or not. There's really nothing wrong with having an opinion anyway, even if it is misguided.
In my (admittedly brief) period studying Law we covered premeditation - and it was far less than a complex worked out plan.
The question is how much thought Zimmerman put into shooting Martin - it was obviously a deliberate act, but you guys are presenting this as a considered choice, something you find agreeable. "him or me".
That makes the shooting, if not the killing, premeditated - even if only just.
Zimmerman's caliming self defence is implicitely claiming a logical decision - which rasies all sorts of arkward questions.
If you look back at what I wrote about what I think he's actually guilty of I said manslaughter, but that is precisely because I think his shooting of Martin was not justified and he acted without any though - and possibly had the weapon drawn when he approached Martin.
You think I'm a brick wall?
rvg doesn't care who dies, just so long as the killer gets away with it - so long as they were having a fight.
In my (admittedly brief) period studying Law we covered premeditation - and it was far less than a complex worked out plan.
English law != US law, at all. Drawing parallels is highly tenuous at best.
The question is how much thought Zimmerman put into shooting Martin
We are telling you we don't think there was any immediately prior to the shooting, unless proven otherwise.
- it was obviously a deliberate act,
Deliberate, yes. Premeditated, planned, or thought out in advance, a resounding no. Unless they prove otherwise.
That makes the shooting, if not the killing, premeditated - even if only just.
No, it does not. Hence your highly flawed understanding of US law and these legal definitions.
but that is precisely because I think his shooting of Martin was not justified
In self defense against a credible lethal threat, it absolutely is. Disagree all you want.
and he acted without any though
Reaction to a credible lethal threat is almost always a snap judgment to a rapidly developing situation.
- and possibly had the weapon drawn when he approached Martin.
I don't believe that for one second. Trying to punch or assault someone with a drawn weapon is a death sentence, and though I do think he was a little thug and punk, Treyvon was not THAT stupid. Now you are demonstrating a woeful lack of understanding of human psychology when it comes to combat. I am NOT an expert on this, but I have trained with and learned extensively from people who are, and who train military and police forces on these subjects.
You think I'm a brick wall?
rvg doesn't care who dies, just so long as the killer gets away with it - so long as they were having a fight.
Yes, you are a brick wall. Going back and reading the majority of your posts here in the back room, as well as your self confessed mindsets and attitudes in your personal thread give a pretty clear picture of your personality. Your offensive statements about rvg and his mindset are just more examples of this, I read the complete opposite in his past few posts.
Sir Moody
05-18-2012, 21:10
English law != US law, at all. Drawing parallels is highly tenuous at best.
don't worry he is wrong in English Law as well - premeditation refers to intent and planning - it doesn't have to be much planning but there is a distinction
for example - if you draw a gun, walk into a bar and shoot someone that is premeditated - you intended (planned) to shoot someone in the bar
if instead you happen to have a gun and a bar fight breaks and during that fight you draw and shoot someone that isn't premeditated
if the Prosecution believed you took the gun to the bar to shoot someone and waited for the moment its up to them to prove you did not plan to shoot someone and not that the gun was for self defence
in this case its doubtful Zimmerman went out to shoot Martin - the gun was merely protection because he was living in fear (further evident from the viscous dog he bought for home defence) - while he may have gone out to confront him the question will still be did he assault Martin leading to the shooting or did he merely provoke Martin into assaulting him by confronting him
to be honest im not sure the prosecution can prove which of those is the case and the lead investigator was right - he should have been charged with Manslaughter not Murder
The Stranger
05-18-2012, 21:50
Some people always live in fear, some happy massacre that will be! God Bless America!
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-18-2012, 21:59
English law != US law, at all. Drawing parallels is highly tenuous at best.
Oh come on, the principles are broadly the same, as are many of the definitions. They may not be identical but then neither is law in Florida to law in Alaska.
We are telling you we don't think there was any immediately prior to the shooting, unless proven otherwise.
Deliberate, yes. Premeditated, planned, or thought out in advance, a resounding no. Unless they prove otherwise.
I'll give that "premeditated" may be the wrong word - used in haste and pursued to a fault by myself, but this is surely still a deliberate act. It's not as though Zimmerman discharged his weapon accidentally - so some sort of thought must have gone through his mind. You can't have it both ways.
No, it does not. Hence your highly flawed understanding of US law and these legal definitions.
It remains a deliberate act. I also have misgivings about a man who goes to confront someone carrying a concealed weapon - what does that say about Zimmerman's state of mind? It looks like he was prepard to use lethal force ahead of time, and I'm still suspicious of how he managed to draw the gun from his jacket.
I'm also suspicious that a round was apparently already chambered - unless we are now saying Zimmerman was able to draw the weapon, cock it, disengage the safety, and discharge it.
In self defense against a credible lethal threat, it absolutely is. Disagree all you want.
Reaction to a credible lethal threat is almost always a snap judgment to a rapidly developing situation.
This "credible lethal threat" was an unarmed skinny 17 year old with some skittles and iced tea.
I don't believe that for one second. Trying to punch or assault someone with a drawn weapon is a death sentence, and though I do think he was a little thug and punk, Treyvon was not THAT stupid. Now you are demonstrating a woeful lack of understanding of human psychology when it comes to combat. I am NOT an expert on this, but I have trained with and learned extensively from people who are, and who train military and police forces on these subjects.
Yes, yes, I know. He was a thug who got what he deserved. Oddly enough I don't believe anyone deserves death - and if Martin got what he deserved that raises all sorts of moral questions about the man that shot him and his fate.
Whether or not Martin would rush Zimmerman depends on how scared he was - he'd have to be fairly scared to start punching him like that. If he was scared enough and thought Zimmerman was going to kill him any way he might have gone for the gun. Zimmerman himself saif they struggled over it.
People do stupid things, like charging machine gun nests - that has a fairly high mortality rate, too.
Yes, you are a brick wall. Going back and reading the majority of your posts here in the back room, as well as your self confessed mindsets and attitudes in your personal thread give a pretty clear picture of your personality. Your offensive statements about rvg and his mindset are just more examples of this, I read the complete opposite in his past few posts.
I cannot remember you ever being anything but rude to me, not to mention hateful of my religion, even though you don't understand, or attempt to understand, my personnal beliefs.
Pot kettle black.
I honestly cannot understand how you can tell me with a straight face that when an armed man kills and unarmed man in a scuffle the armed man should just be let off. rvg's statement that if Martin had killed Zimmerman he should also be let off is even more bizare.
Zimmerman's version of events is unconvincing, as is his portrait of Martin as a sociopath.
I just cannot understand how you people can be so lithe about homocide - as though people's lives only have value so long as they can defend them. It's bizare in the extreme that rvg can just sit there and say that whoever one the fight (by homocide) should have his version of events respected when the other side is unavailable by virtue of his being dead!
Nobody has a greater motive to distort the truth than Zimmerman, and therefore his account cannot be reliable.
don't worry he is wrong in English Law as well - premeditation refers to intent and planning - it doesn't have to be much planning but there is a distinction
for example - if you draw a gun, walk into a bar and shoot someone that is premeditated - you intended (planned) to shoot someone in the bar
if instead you happen to have a gun and a bar fight breaks and during that fight you draw and shoot someone that isn't premeditated
if the Prosecution believed you took the gun to the bar to shoot someone and waited for the moment its up to them to prove you did not plan to shoot someone and not that the gun was for self defence
in this case its doubtful Zimmerman went out to shoot Martin - the gun was merely protection because he was living in fear (further evident from the viscous dog he bought for home defence) - while he may have gone out to confront him the question will still be did he assault Martin leading to the shooting or did he merely provoke Martin into assaulting him by confronting him
to be honest im not sure the prosecution can prove which of those is the case and the lead investigator was right - he should have been charged with Manslaughter not Murder
I've already retracted the "premeditated" point - so I'll just say this. In the US you have "Second Degree" murder and it is my understanding that all that is required is the deliberate act, the traditional "malice of forethought" for that charge to stick.
It may be that Zimmerman will be able to convince a jury that he was seeing so many stars he didn't really know where the gun was pointing, or that he couldn't think clearly with his head being smashed into the pavement - but as Martin is dead he should still be tried.
Oh come on, the principles are broadly the same, as are many of the definitions. They may not be identical but then neither is law in Florida to law in Alaska.
In some cases yes, in others no. You cannot paint with as broad a brush as you do.
I'll give that "premeditated" may be the wrong word - used in haste and pursued to a fault by myself, but this is surely still a deliberate act. It's not as though Zimmerman discharged his weapon accidentally - so some sort of thought must have gone through his mind. You can't have it both ways.
Never said it wasn't deliberate. We have said we highly doubt it was premeditated.
It remains a deliberate act.
On this we agree.
I also have misgivings about a man who goes to confront someone carrying a concealed weapon
People all across the US go armed with concealed carry permits. In the vast, vast majority of instances, one could have a conversation or interact with such a person and never know it. This means nothing.
- what does that say about Zimmerman's state of mind?
Absolutely nothing. Your anti-gun bias is really coming out.
It looks like he was prepard to use lethal force ahead of time
Again, your opinion.
, and I'm still suspicious of how he managed to draw the gun from his jacket.
I'm also suspicious that a round was apparently already chambered - unless we are now saying Zimmerman was able to draw the weapon, cock it, disengage the safety, and discharge it.
There's dozens and dozens of scenarios in which all of these could have happened. If you were actually HERE I could take you to my gym, or my friend's qwoon and we could go over these with you with fake weapons and protective fighting gear on. It's not remotely farfetched. Just because YOU don't see it, doesn't mean that it's unlikely or impossible. I also haven't heard anything about what is claimed to have happened, and until I do I reserve judgment.
This "credible lethal threat" was an unarmed skinny 17 year old with some skittles and iced tea.
You are still demonstrating your complete lack of understanding about humans fighting and combat. It is 100% entirely possible, and given what I've seen getting toward probable, that if Treyvon surprised Zimmerman in any way, it would have put him on the defensive and reeling. Your claim that a smaller person cannot or is highly unlikely to overpower a larger individual is completely baseless. Again, if you were actually here, I and my coaches and friends could definitively demonstrate these principles to you and have you even try them out for yourself, if you were so inclined.
Yes, yes, I know. He was a thug who got what he deserved. Oddly enough I don't believe anyone deserves death - and if Martin got what he deserved that raises all sorts of moral questions about the man that shot him and his fate.
Your words, not mine. I've never said or implied anything like that, quite the opposite in fact if you read back.
Whether or not Martin would rush Zimmerman depends on how scared he was - he'd have to be fairly scared to start punching him like that. If he was scared enough and thought Zimmerman was going to kill him any way he might have gone for the gun. Zimmerman himself saif they struggled over it.
Lack of understanding again. In survival situations fight or flight kicks in. A "normal" person when confronted with an "unwinnable" situation, such as the other person has a drawn gun, will not tempt fate as it were and would attempt to flee if possible. Hence fight or flight. If he were confronted in such a manner that he did not think flight was possible, then it's the fight reaction, this is possible depending on Zimmerman's actions. The other possibility is that he was a dumb punk or extremely foolish, and thought that he could take a few swings at Zimmerman, beat him up a bit and scare him off. There's another dozen possible combinations or scenarios. Some of them include Zimmerman being the aggressor, others not. Your basic presumption though has been that Zimmerman went at this with 1. a premeditation or mindset that he was going to use lethal force and even 2. he had the intent of causing a physical altercation. We are saying we don't agree with these, especially point 1.
People do stupid things, like charging machine gun nests - that has a fairly high mortality rate, too.
Completely, 100%, absolutely, unequivocally different situations that have zero relevance or similarity to each other.
I cannot remember you ever being anything but rude to me, not to mention hateful of my religion, even though you don't understand, or attempt to understand, my personnal beliefs.
Go back and start reading your posts some day. I understand you pretty well. You've actually become a bit of a weather vane for me I've found, with a few exceptions. My views and outlook on life are almost polar opposites from yours. You've been very quick to indicate when you find other's stated views and opinions offensive, and give extremely arrogant and judgmental replies. But when it's your turn, you can't take the heat. Sorry you feel so persecuted here, if you don't like disagreement then don't debate. If you present yourself and your opinions in an extremely arrogant, self-centered, judgmental, and superior manner, don't be the least bit surprised when you get highly negative reactions. I'll leave it at this.
I honestly cannot understand how you can tell me with a straight face that when an armed man kills and unarmed man in a scuffle the armed man should just be let off. rvg's statement that if Martin had killed Zimmerman he should also be let off is even more bizare.
Go back and show me where I said that. I said if the prosecutor reviews the evidence, and determines that there isn't remotely enough evidence to make a solid case which points to the accused being guilty, then there's nothing that can be done. I'll repeat it for good measure, it is better to let a guilty person go free than to take an innocent man's life or freedom.
Zimmerman's version of events is unconvincing, as is his portrait of Martin as a sociopath.
Opinions, and your self-righteous rage and condemning others of us for not seeing things your way is garnering you no support.
I just cannot understand how you people can be so lithe about homocide - as though people's lives only have value so long as they can defend them. It's bizare in the extreme that rvg can just sit there and say that whoever one the fight (by homocide) should have his version of events respected when the other side is unavailable by virtue of his being dead!
More self-righteousness. That this transpired was sad. But calling it homicide is just more of your opinion. If it's self defense, it's not homicide. Perhaps you should wait until the trial is over and all the evidence is presented before making your own judgments, but given your nature that's not how you work. Think it's insulting? Go back and review your statements. Same holds true for all the other wailing teeth-gnashers who have been clamoring for Zimmerman's head.
Nobody has a greater motive to distort the truth than Zimmerman, and therefore his account cannot be reliable.
That's why we have juries, so that one can be judged by one's peers. If it really was self defense, the prosecution is going to have a near impossible task due to lack of evidence and self-incrimination laws. Zimmerman's counsel will guide him appropriately as to what he should or should not say, but telling the truth when he does talk (if at all) shouldn't hurt him.
I've already retracted the "premeditated" point - so I'll just say this. In the US you have "Second Degree" murder and it is my understanding that all that is required is the deliberate act, the traditional "malice of forethought" for that charge to stick.
I'm sure the prosecutor would be glad to hear what else he should be charged with. Perhaps emailing them would be helpful, as I'm sure they would also welcome a non-US citizen providing guidance on how we should govern ourselves or how to enact the proper legislation to bring it in line with your views.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-19-2012, 00:17
In some cases yes, in others no. You cannot paint with as broad a brush as you do.
Of course I can - the similarities are broad - the differences are in the detail. The Common Law definition of murder across the Anglo-Sphere is "the killing of another with malice of forethought" - where "malice" means a deliberate act. In the US you have statutes on homocide which modify that position, but they follow the same basic defintion.
Never said it wasn't deliberate. We have said we highly doubt it was premeditated.
And I have retracted "premeditated" but "murder" requires the deliberate act - not premeditation.
On this we agree.
OK, so can we agree this is "the killing...forethought" - the issue is motive. Zimmerman does need to provide justification.
People all across the US go armed with concealed carry permits. In the vast, vast majority of instances, one could have a conversation or interact with such a person and never know it. This means nothing.
What's your point? Don't most guns get used on their owners in the US? Just because lots of people do it doesn't make it a good idea.
Absolutely nothing. Your anti-gun bias is really coming out.
I actually quite like guns - I just can't see the point in carrying one. Taking this case as an example, even Zimmerman's testemony implies his weapon escalated the situation and it remains to be seen if Martin's killing was justified.
Again, your opinion.
A weapon with a round chambered is unsafe, yes? The rule is that you don't chamber a round unless you are about to fire, you certainly don't carry an unsafe weapon on your person outside a combat situation.
There's dozens and dozens of scenarios in which all of these could have happened. If you were actually HERE I could take you to my gym, or my friend's qwoon and we could go over these with you with fake weapons and protective fighting gear on. It's not remotely farfetched. Just because YOU don't see it, doesn't mean that it's unlikely or impossible. I also haven't heard anything about what is claimed to have happened, and until I do I reserve judgment.
Dozens and dozens is a bit of a strech, surely?
Zimmerman had to draw the weapon, make ready, remove the safety and fire the weapon whilst simultaneously bringing it into line - all whilst being repeatedly punched in the face. That's according to his own testemony.
You are still demonstrating your complete lack of understanding about humans fighting and combat. It is 100% entirely possible, and given what I've seen getting toward probable, that if Treyvon surprised Zimmerman in any way, it would have put him on the defensive and reeling. Your claim that a smaller person cannot or is highly unlikely to overpower a larger individual is completely baseless. Again, if you were actually here, I and my coaches and friends could definitively demonstrate these principles to you and have you even try them out for yourself, if you were so inclined.
This does not then equate to credible lethal threat. I've taken beatings - I was once headbutted so hard on a public bus I went flying three feet back into my seat and my nose exploded in a spray of blood - but I never felt like someone was going to kill me with his fists. But then, I also didn't have a gun to shoot him with - so that option was not available to me, I just had to take the beating.
Your words, not mine. I've never said or implied anything like that, quite the opposite in fact if you read back.[quote]
No - that's true, you didn't initially say he deserved to get shot, but others you appear to agree with have and your first response in the thread was "the little thug that got shot."
Thug has all sorts of implications, it's pretty much one of the worst slurs you can put on someone's character short of "rapist" and "baby killer" - it's also and extremely ugly word for this reason.
[quote]Lack of understanding again. In survival situations fight or flight kicks in. A "normal" person when confronted with an "unwinnable" situation, such as the other person has a drawn gun, will not tempt fate as it were and would attempt to flee if possible. Hence fight or flight. If he were confronted in such a manner that he did not think flight was possible, then it's the fight reaction, this is possible depending on Zimmerman's actions. The other possibility is that he was a dumb punk or extremely foolish, and thought that he could take a few swings at Zimmerman, beat him up a bit and scare him off. There's another dozen possible combinations or scenarios. Some of them include Zimmerman being the aggressor, others not. Your basic presumption though has been that Zimmerman went at this with 1. a premeditation or mindset that he was going to use lethal force and even 2. he had the intent of causing a physical altercation. We are saying we don't agree with these, especially point 1.
No I'm not. I'm following Zimmerman's testimony - Martin confronted him, he says, and started attacking him. That doesn't ring particularly true - as the investigating officer said at the time. I also never said that Martin could not over power Zimmerman. I simply said that if Martin were scared enough he might attack Zimmerman. Talking about fight or flight, some people have crossed wires, in some cases they Beserk - and do stupiud things. It's not possible to know, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Zimmerman presented a sufficient threat to cause a highly irrational action.
Completely, 100%, absolutely, unequivocally different situations that have zero relevance or similarity to each other.
Not 100% - some people do extremely stupid things when threatened. Assaulting machine guns is rarely actually neccessary, after all. I'm not asking to draw some complex parallel here.
Go back and start reading your posts some day. I understand you pretty well. You've actually become a bit of a weather vane for me I've found, with a few exceptions. My views and outlook on life are almost polar opposites from yours. You've been very quick to indicate when you find other's stated views and opinions offensive, and give extremely arrogant and judgmental replies. But when it's your turn, you can't take the heat. Sorry you feel so persecuted here, if you don't like disagreement then don't debate. If you present yourself and your opinions in an extremely arrogant, self-centered, judgmental, and superior manner, don't be the least bit surprised when you get highly negative reactions. I'll leave it at this.
You think I oppose homosexual marriages because I'm a homophobe, you think I'm not only intellectually and emotionally dishonest, but also that I peddle deliberate falsehoods. The most interesting thing is that you do to me what you accuse others of doing to you - not reading your posts critically and respondingt appropriatly.
Oh, and if I'm your weather vane then presumably you believe in Young Earth Creationism, Criminalising Homosexuality and imprisonment without trial?
Or perhaps I am slightly more complex and nuanced than you give me credit for?
Go back and show me where I said that. I said if the prosecutor reviews the evidence, and determines that there isn't remotely enough evidence to make a solid case which points to the accused being guilty, then there's nothing that can be done. I'll repeat it for good measure, it is better to let a guilty person go free than to take an innocent man's life or freedom.
Well, aside from the fact that the investigating officer dissagreed with the proecutor - we dissagree on a point of principle. I believe that when a man dies and his killer can be positively identified there should be a trial by jury - in every case.
Opinions, and your self-righteous rage and condemning others of us for not seeing things your way is garnering you no support.
Your own self-righteous disdain for the victim is not helping you, either.
More self-righteousness. That this transpired was sad. But calling it homicide is just more of your opinion. If it's self defense, it's not homicide. Perhaps you should wait until the trial is over and all the evidence is presented before making your own judgments, but given your nature that's not how you work. Think it's insulting? Go back and review your statements. Same holds true for all the other wailing teeth-gnashers who have been clamoring for Zimmerman's head.
I called it "homocide" not muder. Martin was killed by Zimmerman in a deliberate act - homocide; the Coroner has already recorded a verdict of homocide, so this is not my "opinion" it is an established fact.
As Zimmerman committed the act of homocide his testimony cannot be relied upon. That doesn't mean he is lying, but all things being equal it is more likely.
That's why we have juries, so that one can be judged by one's peers. If it really was self defense, the prosecution is going to have a near impossible task due to lack of evidence and self-incrimination laws. Zimmerman's counsel will guide him appropriately as to what he should or should not say, but telling the truth when he does talk (if at all) shouldn't hurt him.
You assume, again, that he is telling the truth. He may not be. Yes, this is why we have juries - it is alos why we cause witnesses to testify under Oath.
I'm sure the prosecutor would be glad to hear what else he should be charged with. Perhaps emailing them would be helpful, as I'm sure they would also welcome a non-US citizen providing guidance on how we should govern ourselves or how to enact the proper legislation to bring it in line with your views.
You object? He killed someone in a deliberate act - why should he not be charged with murder, and manslaughter?
In a trial it the responsibility of the prosecution to secure a conviction and the defense to prevent it.
The Stranger
05-19-2012, 00:45
Alot of things
for someone who reserves judgment this "the little thug" is quite judgmental to say about someone you don't know about a thing that happened when you weren't there...
but that's just my oppinion ofcourse...
for someone who reserves judgment this "the little thug" is quite judgmental to say about someone you don't know about a thing that happened when you weren't there...
but that's just my oppinion ofcourse...
Head on back to the start of this thread for that part about him being a punk.
A weapon with a round chambered is unsafe, yes? The rule is that you don't chamber a round unless you are about to fire, you certainly don't carry an unsafe weapon on your person outside a combat situation.Actually the Kel Tec 9mm pistol is double-action only and has internal safeties that make it mechanically impossible for the gun to fire without the trigger being pulled. Having a round in the chamber in a gun like that is pretty standard...
The Stranger
05-19-2012, 11:11
Head on back to the start of this thread for that part about him being a punk.
Yeah yeah, I'm clearly racist. From what I read the kid was a thug, multiple school suspensions and a bad track record. The shooter claims the kid punched and assaulted him, but this is all yet to be seen. I didn't say the kid deserved to be shot, going to wait and find out what comes out in court and see if I believe it first and it was true self defense. Either way, I'm definitely leaning towards his character was less than stellar and that he was a little thug.
I gotta agree with PJ's post for the most part, I'm utterly sick and tired of the race card being pulled all the damn time. It's got to the point where I develop this almost instinctive immediate counter-reaction and whenever a situation arises and the race card comes out, I start to believe the opposite party in the conflict.
If you mean this, I've read it, and it is hardly rational or reasonable don't you think?
I've got multiple school suspensions, I'm hardly what you call a thug. I don't really get what you mean by track record, but I got quite an awesome time on the 400 meter sprint.
(I don't think it was a rascist murder, yet that some people do clearly influenced your judgment of this case)
ajaxfetish
05-20-2012, 19:34
From this non-expert, looking through Wikipedia's explanations of different charges for killing, the boundary between second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter looks rather vague:
Wikipedia: Murder (United States law) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_%28United_States_law%29#Degrees_of_murder_in_the_United_States)
First degree murder is any murder that is willful and premeditated. Felony murder is typically first degree.[5]
Second degree murder is a murder that is not premeditated or planned in advance.[6]
Voluntary manslaughter sometimes called a "Heat of Passion" murder, is any intentional killing that involved no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed." Both this and second degree murder are committed on the spot, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.[7]
Involuntary manslaughter stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional, or negligent, act leading to death. A drunk driving-related death is typically involuntary manslaughter. Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional," because the killer did not intend for a death to result from his intentional actions. If there is a presence of intention it relates only to the intent to cause a violent act which brings about the death, but not an intention to bring about the death itself. [8]
But this explanation of Voluntary Manslaughter seems to clarify it quite a bit:
Wikipedia: Voluntary Manslaughter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_manslaughter)
Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being in which the offender had no prior intent to kill and acted during "the heat of passion," under circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed. In the Uniform Crime Reports prepared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, it is referred to as non negligent manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter is one of two main types of manslaughter, the other being involuntary manslaughter.
Contents
...
Provocation
Provocation consists of the reasons for which one person kills another. "Adequate" or "reasonable" provocation is what makes the difference between voluntary manslaughter and murder. According to the book Criminal Law Today, “provocation is said to be adequate if it would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control”. [1] For example, if a man were to come home and find his wife in bed with another person and kill both of them in a jealous rage, this might be considered adequate provocation and thus voluntary manslaughter.[citation needed]
State of mind
Imperfect self-defense
In some jurisdictions, malice can also be negated by imperfect self-defense. Self-defense is considered imperfect when the killer acted from his belief in the necessity for self-defense, but that belief was not reasonable under the circumstances. If the belief in self-defense were reasonable, then the killing would be considered justified and not unlawful. Where the belief is unreasonable, the homicide is considered to be voluntary manslaughter.
An example is if a person kills a passer-by he mistakes as a threatening mugger.
So it seems that one critical issue is whether or not Zimmerman was reasonably provoked. If he was violently assaulted by Martin, as he claims, then the killing would qualify only as voluntary manslaughter. If Martin didn't start the altercation, but rather Zimmerman initiated it, or I suppose if the assault was of insufficient intensity to qualify as an adequate provocation, then he'd be guilty of second-degree murder. And if Martin did indeed start the fight, the question is then whether Zimmerman's self-defense was 'perfect,' or whether or not his belief in his need to defend himself thus was reasonable. If it was unreasonable, then he'd be guilty of voluntary manslaughter, but if it was reasonable, his killing of Martin would be lawful.
So for the prosecution, I guess the question is, can they demonstrate that Martin did not start the fight, or that if he did, his assault was not an adequate provocation? If so, the charge should be second-degree. That sounds difficult, though, based on how the circumstances have been related, so they'd probably be a lot safer with a voluntary manslaughter charge. Then they'd only need to prove that Zimmerman's belief in his need for lethal self-defense was not reasonable. Or is that where Florida's implementation of castle law could gum up the works?
Ajax
PS: also, in the midst of a discussion of definitions, this bit made my day:
the viscous dog he bought
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-20-2012, 21:11
Actually the Kel Tec 9mm pistol is double-action only and has internal safeties that make it mechanically impossible for the gun to fire without the trigger being pulled. Having a round in the chamber in a gun like that is pretty standard...
It's still the wrong thing to do, and this case shows why.
It explains why Zimmerman can claim Martin was a "lethal threat" - he was afraid of being shot with his own gun.
That, to my mind, demonstrates the problem with concealed carry for the purposes of self defence - all the firearm seems to have done is turn a violent altercation into a lethal one.
a completely inoffensive name
05-21-2012, 05:46
I've got multiple school suspensions, I'm hardly what you call a thug.
That is just what some punk kid would say. What did you do to get suspended, punk? Did you wear some satanic symbols on your shirt in defiance of the dress code or did you just decide that talking back to the teacher was the way to live your life?
The Stranger
05-21-2012, 10:16
That is just what some punk kid would say. What did you do to get suspended, punk? Did you wear some satanic symbols on your shirt in defiance of the dress code or did you just decide that talking back to the teacher was the way to live your life?
No I got suspended for defending my liberty.
Sir Moody
05-21-2012, 14:29
PS: also, in the midst of a discussion of definitions, this bit made my day:
yeah my spelling isn't the best...
Productivity
05-25-2012, 01:56
Legalities aside, am I the only one who finds it disgusting that a young man can walk to the store, be trailed by someone who then calls emergency services and is recommended to not do anything themselves. This man then takes it upon themselves to not do that and instead confronts (in some undetermined manner) the first person resulting in a confrontation and a shooting.
Regardless of how the actual confrontation played out, unless Martin went up to Zimmerman's car and started attacking Zimmerman or his property, I fail to see how Zimmerman has any moral high ground. He might get off on lack of evidence or because of the way the laws in Florida are structured, but ultimately but for his action to tail and then confront Martin, Martin would be alive today. And at the time of confrontation, Martin had done absolutely nothing wrong.
People need to take a long hard look at this case and ask is this the society they want. Because I sure as hell would hate for it to be my society.
Regardless of how the actual confrontation played out, unless Martin went up to Zimmerman's car and started attacking Zimmerman or his property, I fail to see how Zimmerman has any moral high ground.
Yes, well, if you think shooting an unarmed man dead is morally questionable this is because you are a race-baiting bad person. Or so I have learned from this thread.
Sir Moody
05-25-2012, 10:06
Legalities aside, am I the only one who finds it disgusting that a young man can walk to the store, be trailed by someone who then calls emergency services and is recommended to not do anything themselves. This man then takes it upon themselves to not do that and instead confronts (in some undetermined manner) the first person resulting in a confrontation and a shooting.
Regardless of how the actual confrontation played out, unless Martin went up to Zimmerman's car and started attacking Zimmerman or his property, I fail to see how Zimmerman has any moral high ground. He might get off on lack of evidence or because of the way the laws in Florida are structured, but ultimately but for his action to tail and then confront Martin, Martin would be alive today. And at the time of confrontation, Martin had done absolutely nothing wrong.
People need to take a long hard look at this case and ask is this the society they want. Because I sure as hell would hate for it to be my society.
I agree entirely that Morally what Zimmerman did was VERY wrong - the problem is one of Legality.
He has been charged with Murder which means it does matter how the confrontation played out - its only murder if he started the fight.
Vladimir
05-25-2012, 13:51
And it also calls into question the otherwise good "stand your ground" law, which this is on the edge of.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-27-2012, 10:37
It's not that easy. Say you've got a gun, and you get attacked by someone who's unarmed. In the course of this attack, you realize you are not going to win this fight--should you accept an ass-beating and possibly worse? Or should you shoot the bastard?
The bias is far too strong in this thread, from everyone.
1. He's unarmed, he's highly unlikely to kill you with his bare hands, so you can't reasonably claim "self defence" for killing him.
2. Guns are made for killing people, at close range especially you can't really claim to be "shooting to wound" if he then dies.
3. If you have a gun and you are being beaten up the greatest threat, as in Zimmerman's case, is that your assailant uses your gun against you before you use it against him.
In summary: Guns are bad things to have on your person unless you plan on killing someone.
Greyblades
05-27-2012, 10:57
1. He's unarmed, he's highly unlikely to kill you with his bare hands, so you can't reasonably claim "self defence" for killing him.Ah yes, this argument, the same one I encountered when I considered knives, the fight would get lethal if you used a weapon so the smart thing it to take your beating and hope that you dont get irreversably maimed before you tell on him later.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-27-2012, 11:10
Ah yes, this argument, the same one I encountered when I considered knives, the fight would get lethal if you used a weapon so the smart thing it to take your beating and hope that you dont get irreversably maimed before you tell on him later.
More than that, drawing a knife or a gun is dumb because then you either have to use it before the guy can hit you or pull his own weapons. Zimmerman's claim on lethal threat is more understandable when you realise his piece was a nasty little pocket weapon wihtout a safety catch he kept loaded.
Major Robert Dump
05-27-2012, 11:22
Fact: No one ever suffers permanent damage from getting hit with just fists and feet.
Concealed weapons permits are inherently racist because most minorities cannot afford to legally carry a gun, or an ID, for that matter.
I saw a picture of Treyvon the other day, he was only 3 years old. I cannot believe Zimmerman shot a 3 year old. Zimmerman is a white devil.
Greyblades
05-27-2012, 11:59
Fact: No one ever suffers permanent damage from getting hit with just fists and feet.
You obviously havent heard of the curb stomp, concussion related brain damage, realized that most thugs dont restrict themselves to fists and feet and havent read shamo.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-27-2012, 12:54
You obviously havent heard of the curb stomp, concussion related brain damage, realized that most thugs dont restrict themselves to fists and feet and havent read shamo.
And you still have your sarcasm detector off, I see.
MRD isn't wrong - but it's a matter of balance in the legislation.
Greyblades
05-27-2012, 13:27
How anyone cant detect sarcasm on a medium without tone of voice and a precident of people saying absurd things and believing it, eludes me.
Tellos Athenaios
05-27-2012, 13:41
How anyone cant detect sarcasm on a medium without tone of voice and a precident of people saying absurd things and believing it, eludes me.
Though, to be fair the 3 year old part was a bit of a give away. Anyway, Philip's basic point is sound: guns are not made for "measured response", guns are made for killing. That's why competent police forces train give their staff a good bit of training on "how to use a gun without killing".
Centurion1
05-27-2012, 23:23
How anyone cant detect sarcasm on a medium without tone of voice and a precident of people saying absurd things and believing it, eludes me.
We really have to wok on your detection of sarcasm. Did you not read the part he called Zimmerman a white devil and said that tray on was a three year old?
You should Always read everyone's entire post
Greyblades
05-27-2012, 23:27
Dude, I've been reading vuk's posts for about a year now, I cant tell anymore.
Major Robert Dump
05-28-2012, 05:14
Dude, I've been reading vuk's posts for about a year now, I cant tell anymore.
HAHAHAH
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-28-2012, 11:01
Not that easy. Plenty of people die every day from unarmed beatings. Nobody has the presence of mind to say "Well, i've got a gun and he doesn't so I guess I should just take it." That's absurd.
No - the point is people shouldn't really be carrying guns in an urban environment. It is very unlikely that anyone would have died if Zimmerman had not had a weapon. However, if Martin had got ahold of the weapon he might have killed Zimmerman (we don't know though - he might have thrown it away).
The gulf in opinion here is (largely) between Europeans who have no culture of carrying weapons in an an Urban environment and Americans who do have such a culture where it is permissable, if not actually acceptable.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-28-2012, 14:04
You shouldn't be using this case to advance your gun-control agenda. Nobody should. Just like nobody should be using this case to inflame racial tensions.
There is an issue regarding the law here. In the same way that I can legitimately have an issue with the "stand your ground" law I can have an issue with concealed carry.
Bottom line is that you don't know what Martin would have done to Zimmerman, and Zimmerman can only guess. If Martin attacked Zimmerman then this is clear-cut self-defense according to the law as it is written where this took place.
I don't entirely dissagree, but I think it also depends on how hard Martin really was hitting Zimmerman - we will have to wait to see what the witnesses suddenly remember under oath (the main reason to have a trial). It may be that Martin ceased his attack and Zimmerman shot him, or that Zimmerman started to get the better of it and ended it by shooting him.
Either of those call into question "lethal intent".
The real murky water is that it seems like Zimmerman may well have instigated this entire conflict, which is not something a responsible gun-owner and member of the neighborhood watch should be doing. If Martin attacked after Zimmerman brandished the weapon then it becomes the farthest thing from self-defense, and judging from the evidence available (the conversation with the 911 dispatcher, for example) it seems like Zimmerman is guilty of negligence or recklessness at least.
There is a question worth considering that you don't want to: Did Zimmerman instigate the conflict because he had the gun?
This case is one that comes down to motivation and intent. Leave your gun politics out of it. It never ceases to amaze me how Europeans think they can comment on such an incredibly complex issue as gun control without having the faintest idea why its so complex. There are cultural factors at work that you simply haven't been exposed to. There's no shame in being ignorant of another culture's nuances, but its insulting when you pretend you know better.
Europeans are not ignorant of the American context - but you want to be condescending I shall return the favour.
In Europe we have fully professional Police Forces, Courts and we consider our nations to be civilised and stable, not Frontiers. We have given up the habit of going armed except in the wilds precisely because things like this happen and good people can end up dead through misunderstanding.
What we have never had, however, is a culture of carrying concealed weapons respectably.
Rappers should be able to run a country just fine, there just haven't been any good onces since Gilles de la Tourrette
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-28-2012, 18:05
This is where I really disagree with you. How hard he was being hit doesn't matter. Have you ever been in a fight? A real fight, with someone who had no reason to go easy on you? At the very least, the shock of being attacked is enough to warrant a deadly response. How hard he was being hit is a totally niggling and irrellevant factor. It was hard enough to leave marks, which is hard enough to have possibly made zimmerman afraid for his life.
In a word - yes, one time I thought I was going to die, one time the other guy did and the third fight ended with me going flying backwards into my seat on a public buss as my nose and lip exploded with blood.
However, had I crushed that 15 year old's neck with my bare hands I would now be in gaol for all the bruses he inflicted upon me, and rightly so. The reason I didn't kill him is it takes much longer to throttle someone to death than it takes to pull his assailant off him.
I think that's exactly what happened. However, this is a problem with Zimmerman; not the gun. For every privilage and right that exists, there's always someone willing to spoil the party. Punish the individual, not the privilage he was abusing.
In this case I think it's a problem with the type of gun Zimmerman had. The weapon has no safety catch and is supposedly designed to not misfire - as a result he was probably carrying it in an unsafe condition and it's design means that all Marin would need to do is get his hands on the trigger and pull while it was in its holster to harm Zimmerman.
I wasn't being condescending, but you can take it however you want. Our society is old and stable compared to most of the nation-states of Europe, who constantly rise and fall even within the span of America's existence. Its long past time Europeans realized they don't have us figured out.
Well, not really - many of your US states have only existed as states for ~150 years and even then they contained wilds and lawless areas unlike anything in Europe. The point, however, is that even if our political arrangment smay be relatively modern our cities and municipal institutions are very old.
Then again - you're talking to an Englishman, my country is one of the oldest and most politically stable in Europe anyway.
Montmorency
05-28-2012, 23:01
Morality, ethics [...] are not concepts where you can find a one-size-fits-all.
:grin:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-28-2012, 23:08
All it takes one good lucky punch in the right spot to kill someone. Proportionality doesn't exist. If you're attacked and overwhelmed by an assailant, then whatever measures you take to reverse your fortune are fair game. They are in the heat of the moment, and no court can say at what point logic is supposed to take over while you are defending yourself. There's a reason the laws on self-defense in the US are vague.
This is one of the most striking ways in which UK and US law conflict - in the UK the principle of proportionality most definately exists and is canted away from the defendant - you would have a hard time avoiding manslaughter in this country if the other guy was unarmed. Despite what Whacker may think that is significant to the case because American judges will look to UK precedent and vice versa.
The principle of proportionality is also clearly present in the Florida statute where it says you may use "reasonable" force but not "lethal" unless you reasonably percieve a serious of lethal threat to yourself.
A moot point. There's two scenarios: Zimmerman went hunting after Martin with the intent to kill him, he got dinged up a little, but he killed him. OR! Zimmerman went hunting after Martin for less sinister reasons (but still against the advice of the 911 Dispatcher), Martin attacked him, and Zimmerman defended himself. The gun is irrelevant. For all your speculation, we may as well assume that had Zimmerman been unarmed he would have been beaten to death--it's just as likely.
It is less likely that unarmed Martin would kill Zimmerman than vice versa, it is less likely Martin would have died etc. - bear in mind the police arrived on the scene quite quickly.
Another interesting point viz differences with the UK: The second officer on the scene was the first one to examine Martin.
Well, yeah. But in that 150 years Europe's entire landscape and political balance has changed umpteen thousand times. The English are, culturally and politically, the closest to us--but the differences are still huge. IMO, one of the most important steps towards a more enlightened world is recognizing that you can't push you values on other cultures.
This is true at the national level, but not so much at the municipal level in many countries. You will find many cities still have governmental structures which are reformed versions of their medieval antecessors. Napoleon did a fair number on a lot of countries, but even so there has been probabbly more continuity than change.
England, and the wider UK is a very special case.
The English are culturally and politically the most historically stable people in Europe - all changes since 1066 have been purely changes of management team, even before that there is striking continuity. Since the revolution the US and UK have diverged - but the key point is this, 300 years ago we all tended to carry swords if we could afford them, even 50 years ago most men in rural arears would own longarms and possibly handguns. The suggestion that the US is in some way a society fundamentally unable to cope with restrictions on the ownership of weaponry is therefore untenable because the UK manages not to collapse with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world.
Needlessly restrictive I might add, although there are admittedly few reasons to need a handgun, except possibly here in the South West where we have Wild Boar and there's a possibility of being gored to death.
The US has a love affair with guns, and handguns particularly, but that's all it is. The US is a modern nation with modern law enforcement (in Urban areas at least) and if we can manage without concealed handguns in large cities here you can too.
I don't condone it when we do it to others, and I don't condone it when others try to do it to us. Morality, ethics, and government are not concepts where you can find a one-size-fits-all.
Ah, so you would impose the doctrine of non-imposition on others?
See - it's tricky to make statements like that. The fact is, the US is either a civilised country which has the rule of law - in which case citizens should not need to carry concealed weapons - or it isn't, and if the latter is true you should be working towards the former. That's not to say you should ban people from owning or using firearms at all - but concealed carry is an idea mostly restricted to the US, as is the idea od purchasing a fireamr for self-defence.
My point is not that the US "must" change it's gun laws, I think you should enact some restrictions though, but you do not really have any particular right of special cultural appeal.
Centurion1
05-29-2012, 00:17
Phillips your notion on self defense is naive and childish and if your views mirror that of the UK's than they are as well and merely serve to protect the criminals. If you are assaulted and are being beaten up the you have the right to kill that human being. You do not know how that fight will end. Suggesting an individual should sit there and take a beating that for all you know could end up with you dead or crippled is probably the most absurd and childish thing you have ever said.
Would I have necessarily shot someone if I was in a fist fight? Probably not. Then again I have been in a few altercations and while i've "lost" a few I have never been pinned on the ground and had the crap beaten out of me. I have done it too someone else before though and I couldn't blame them if they had escalated the force under no circumstances shoud an individual be forced to endure that to preserve their assailants life....
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-29-2012, 01:06
Phillips your notion on self defense is naive and childish and if your views mirror that of the UK's than they are as well and merely serve to protect the criminals. If you are assaulted and are being beaten up the you have the right to kill that human being. You do not know how that fight will end. Suggesting an individual should sit there and take a beating that for all you know could end up with you dead or crippled is probably the most absurd and childish thing you have ever said.
Hardly - personally I do not value my own life enough to be willing to take someone else's, legally even in the US you do not have carte blanche to kill someone if they attack you.
Labelling my views "naive and childish" is itself hardly mature, is it? There is a legitimate question of how far you allow the citizen to go in protecting himself and others and at what stage he is legally excused when he takes another's life.
The idea that you have the "right" to kill a human being in anathema in most Western countries and all of Europe - if anything it is America which is out of step with the consensus on this as it is with Capital punishment.
Tony Martin is the most recent example of the debate in the UK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer) Martin ran afoul of "proportionality" because the burglers were leaving when he fired in their direction. #THe question of his conviction remains vexed.
Would I have necessarily shot someone if I was in a fist fight? Probably not. Then again I have been in a few altercations and while i've "lost" a few I have never been pinned on the ground and had the crap beaten out of me. I have done it too someone else before though and I couldn't blame them if they had escalated the force under no circumstances shoud an individual be forced to endure that to preserve their assailants life....
Here the Law, even in the US, is against you. You need to be in serious danger of death or permenant injury. Zimmerman might be able to claim that because of his firearm and the fact he was having his head slammed into either concrete or tarmac.
Major Robert Dump
05-29-2012, 15:44
Would I be justified in killing someone who was trying to eat my face off?
Man, I been telling the politicians for years that where there are teeth, there will be death, I am honestly surprised this doesn't happen more often, especially in communities with good dental plans
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2151098/Naked-man-high-LSD-eats-face-victim-police-shoot-Miami.html
Vladimir
05-29-2012, 16:02
the guy just stood his head up like that with a piece of flesh in his mouth and growled.'
Looks premeditated to me.
Major Robert Dump
05-29-2012, 17:18
Well, the guy who ate the other dudes face was a minority so obvious this was a race related crime. I'm no sure what race the victim was but that doesn't matter we can just make something up about "white meat" and go with it. I heard the victim was also homeless, so it surprises me that he was not better prepared with a handgun or mace or a shank made of a chicken bone or something, I saw that once on the mean streets of Salt Lake City. Homeless people usually think ahead, which is why they drink wine because it iis good for the heart and they live longer, which is why you never see homeless guys with like martinis and crap. The problem with wine is that it does nothing to keep your face from beain eaten off.
The thing about this guy using his teeth as a weapon is I wonder if he was using normal teeth, or upgraded "cop killer" teeth made of bling. Hilary tried to outlaw cop killer teeth when she was a governor but the American League of Dentists lobbied against her and the AARP too, because a lot of old people get gold teeth now because it is a safer investment than 401k, they just cash in a tooth whenever they need money, like they learned from the Drudge ads.
People with teeth should at least be required to wear a tooth lock so they cannot harm others, if they need to use their teeth in self defense, like you do when you fight with a tiger, then there is plenty of time to take off the tooth lock TBH because you can do that on the drive to africa.
ajaxfetish
05-30-2012, 04:55
Easy there, MRD. I'm not used to getting that many belly laughs from a single post. Throw down another one of those and I may need to go see a doctor.
Ajax
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-04-2012, 09:25
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/03/george-zimmerman-turns-himself-in-florida
So, lied to a judge?
Twice?
Major Robert Dump
06-04-2012, 14:57
Lie is such a strong word. Was he misleading? Yes. Is his reason for doing so legitimate, bleh.
If we apply typical washington dc standards to him, he did not lie and his plausible deniability about not knowing if the money was his or not is perfectly valid. Now if you will excuse me, I am going to watch highlights of the John Edwards trial followed by some Rep Willaim Jefferson (D-La) anectdotes.
Whenever I think this case couldn't get more messed up ... it does.
Oh well. Forget justice, forget truth, it's over to full-on media circus and ritual sacrifice.
I had hoped for a fair trial, but now I guess I was being criminally naive.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-04-2012, 15:41
Lie is such a strong word. Was he misleading? Yes. Is his reason for doing so legitimate, bleh.
If we apply typical washington dc standards to him, he did not lie and his plausible deniability about not knowing if the money was his or not is perfectly valid. Now if you will excuse me, I am going to watch highlights of the John Edwards trial followed by some Rep Willaim Jefferson (D-La) anectdotes.
What about the second passport?
Major Robert Dump
06-04-2012, 16:03
What about the second passport?
Not disclosing something is not the same as lying if answering a vague question.
It also has nothing to do with his credibility in the actual murder testimony if we apply typical, non-racial, explosive, media-circus standards.
Did the judge say "turn in your passport."?? If so, then he did nothing wrong. He turned in his passport. Did she say "turn in all passports?" I don't know, thats why I am asking. This could just be clever lawyering.
Again, just because it isn't right, doesn't make it illegal. That's who it works for congress, the police, everything else, so why not george zimmernan? Oh yeah, because it's a race war, there are special rules here.
To be honest, if I were Zimmerman and if I were innocent (i dont know the facts), and things transpired for me the way they have for him, I would secretly be planning an escape. This whole thing has been an utter sideshow, starting the second they didn't at least arrest him.,
Whenever I think this case couldn't get more messed up ... it does.
Oh well. Forget justice, forget truth, it's over to full-on media circus and ritual sacrifice.
I had hoped for a fair trial, but now I guess I was being criminally naive.
You are forgiven. Here, I've saved you a room at the Hotel of Broken Dreams that we reside in. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
Here, I've saved you a room at the Hotel of Broken Dreams that we reside in.
I loved you until you brought the Eagles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8dSoL13qpY) into this. Uncalled-for, man!
Question for Orgahs with a legal background/knowledge: Will there be any repercussions for the leaking of the discovery material? Is there a statute that says, "Please don't give all of the pretrial discovery material to your favorite blogger"?
Major Robert Dump
06-04-2012, 17:08
I am no expert, and I don't know who leaked what, but prosecutors do it with the media all the time, although it is usually vague like "we have dna evidence" etc
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-04-2012, 20:34
Not disclosing something is not the same as lying if answering a vague question.
It also has nothing to do with his credibility in the actual murder testimony if we apply typical, non-racial, explosive, media-circus standards.
Did the judge say "turn in your passport."?? If so, then he did nothing wrong. He turned in his passport. Did she say "turn in all passports?" I don't know, thats why I am asking. This could just be clever lawyering.
Again, just because it isn't right, doesn't make it illegal. That's who it works for congress, the police, everything else, so why not george zimmernan? Oh yeah, because it's a race war, there are special rules here.
To be honest, if I were Zimmerman and if I were innocent (i dont know the facts), and things transpired for me the way they have for him, I would secretly be planning an escape. This whole thing has been an utter sideshow, starting the second they didn't at least arrest him.,
If the Judge says "turn in your passport" and you keep back a valid passport - that is lying by ommission. The judge wants to know you aren't a flight risk, so he's making sure you can't leave the country.
The money would be less suspect if not for the passport.
Generally - given that he lied to a judge in court, is damages his credability at the scene of the shooting with the detectives. Doing that makes me think he's an idiot - which makes me think he's stupid enough to follow Martin and try to confront him. Or just say something stupid/wave his gun around.
The prosecution can build a circumstancial case if it's big engough and heavy enough - right now Zimmerman is helping them do that.
I loved you until you brought the Eagles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8dSoL13qpY) into this. Uncalled-for, man!
WHAT IS THIS WHAT HAVE YOU DONE
Question for Orgahs with a legal background/knowledge: Will there be any repercussions for the leaking of the discovery material? Is there a statute that says, "Please don't give all of the pretrial discovery material to your favorite blogger"?
IANAL. I would wager that the odds of there being any repercussions are slim to more likely none. Much more sensitive crap gets leaked to the press at the gub'mint level all day long, and other than some angry posturing and calls for blood by the affected parties, pretty much nothing ever happens. Every once in a blue moon you'll get the authorities go after the journalist in question depending on the content and severity of the information, who it affects, etc, but the only real instance of this that comes to mind was some vague saga a few years or more ago. A woman journalist had some information leaked to her, she was subpoenaed and refused to name her sources, and spent some time in jail on contempt of court. I think they eventually let her out. Maybe this rings a bell?
Every once in a blue moon you'll get the authorities go after the journalist in question depending on the content and severity of the information, who it affects, etc, but the only real instance of this that comes to mind was some vague saga a few years or more ago. A woman journalist had some information leaked to her, she was subpoenaed and refused to name her sources, and spent some time in jail on contempt of court. I think they eventually let her out. Maybe this rings a bell?
Yah, I vaguely remember that case. Anyway, coming at it through the journo strikes me as the wrong way around. You can't go after them without getting into some very dicey territory around the free press.
But the sheer volume of discovery material leaking out of this case seems to be putting the final nails in the coffin of any hope for a fair trial. Which is a bloody shame. I guess it pointless to hope for clarity from something that has been bungled and muddled from the get-go. How to count the bad judgments in this case? Seems like the only people with no cause to be ashamed are those who never came near it.
Major Robert Dump
06-05-2012, 06:03
I heard before Treyvon died he was also raped by the Duke Lacrosse team. Man, this country has problems.
Centurion1
06-05-2012, 07:19
I heard before Treyvon died he was also raped by the Duke Lacrosse team. Man, this country has problems.
I heard Kobe Bryant got a piece of the action too.
Major Robert Dump
06-05-2012, 22:57
If the Judge says "turn in your passport" and you keep back a valid passport - that is lying by ommission. The judge wants to know you aren't a flight risk, so he's making sure you can't leave the country.
The money would be less suspect if not for the passport.
Generally - given that he lied to a judge in court, is damages his credability at the scene of the shooting with the detectives. Doing that makes me think he's an idiot - which makes me think he's stupid enough to follow Martin and try to confront him. Or just say something stupid/wave his gun around.
The prosecution can build a circumstancial case if it's big engough and heavy enough - right now Zimmerman is helping them do that.
Unless the judge said to hand over all passports -- as in plural -- and anything related, then the law is on his side.
Judge says give me passport.
Z gave him passport. Just didn't mention there was another.
This happens all the time and people get away with it. Judge is simply gonna raise his bond and let him out again. People are acting like the dude went on a rape spree or something, and really he did the same crap that happens court all the time.
I am curious if he already had two, or if he ordered another, or whatever. I have no idea what the judge told him to do. The US Embassy sent me an extra passport after I left Afghanistan and it got sent to my house. I think this is why I am so fascinated with the matter, because when I eventually have to flee the country I can use this trick that Zimmerman used.
I think this is why I am so fascinated with the matter, because when I eventually have to flee the country I can use this trick that Zimmerman used.
I'm under the impression that tricks like this do not play well in court, so maybe you should go back to your original plan and craft an alternate identity (http://www.about-the-web.com/shtml/reports/new_personal_identity.shtml).
Major Robert Dump
06-07-2012, 19:54
Interesting link.
Was amused by this in the comments section:
Hello my name isnt really jim tayler i have made it up but i need your help with every thing else
my email is evan_ragan_1997@yahoo.com
and my real name is not evan ragan i will tell you my name when you email me...
Stand your ground laws: What could possibly go wrong?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0hzt1saKsY
Strike For The South
06-14-2012, 16:56
Becuase Texas
Major Robert Dump
06-14-2012, 22:44
Those dudes were bullies
But that guy did not have to stand in the street with a gun, he could have gone back indoors any time, the cops were on their way
Him stating "I'm gonna have to defend myself" as they walk away, presumably to get their own guns, does not sound good at all
But yes, this law has always been a problem.
It would be, by most accounts, and without witnesses, fairly easy to simply execute someone of lesser credibiility/social status and then claim self defense after the fact. It has probably been done in absense of the stand your ground law I am sure )where they made the case retreat was impossible) and now it is even more likely. Not gonna lie, there are some very bad people I know who sometimes fantasize about "defending myself" against
Major Robert Dump
06-18-2012, 20:48
Ok well they released the jailhouse phone call tapes. Zimmerman really is an idiot.
He basically disproved his defense that he was "unsure" of or how or if he had access to the paypal funds (which was imo an acceptable argument) when he made phone calls to his wife from jail and caoched her on what to do with the money and what to spend it on.
I imagine that this turn of events is probably what led to his initial set of lawyers resigning the case. Sounds like he doesn't listen to anyone, not police dispatchers not his defense team.
Ok well they released the jailhouse phone call tapes.
For crying out loud, is ANYTHING in this case being kept confidential for the trial? Each new leak makes me forehead-smack harder.
PanzerJaeger
06-19-2012, 20:21
Correlation obviously does not equal causation, but in the midst of all the screaming and whining over America's gun laws, it is important to take a broader perspective (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/18/gun-ownership-up-crime-down/).
Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced that violent crime decreased 4 percent in 2011. The number of murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults all went down, continuing a pattern.
“This is not a one-year anomaly, but a steady decline in the FBI’s violent-crime rates,” said Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the National Rifle Association. “It would be disingenuous for anyone to not credit increased self-defense laws to account for this decline.”
Mr. Arulanandam pointed out that only a handful of states had concealed-carry programs 25 years ago, when the violent-crime rate peaked. Today, 41 states either allow carrying without a permit or have “shall issue” laws that make it easy for just about any noncriminal to get a permit. Illinois and Washington, D.C., are the only places that refuse to recognize the right to bear arms. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence did not respond to requests for comment.
Correlation obviously does not equal causation, but in the midst of all the screaming and whining over America's gun laws, it is important to take a broader perspective (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/18/gun-ownership-up-crime-down/).
I'd like to see a real statistician work on that, and not trust the word of a one-issue advocacy group. Last I heard, the strongest correlation with the drop in violent crime was abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime), not gun ownership. But I am not a statistician, and I'd love to hear from one.
Tellos Athenaios
06-19-2012, 23:52
Wrong. Socialism. See you've dropping crime since big gubmint spenders came in, so it is obviously socialism.
Sorry. :shame:
I'd like to see a real statistician work on that, and not trust the word of a one-issue advocacy group. Last I heard, the strongest correlation with the drop in violent crime was abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime), not gun ownership. But I am not a statistician, and I'd love to hear from one.
Don't forget the benefits of outlawing of lead-based paint...
And now the police chief has been fired (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/20/justice/florida-martin-case-police-chief/index.html). I'm increasingly of the opinion that anyone who touched this case should find a new career, maybe in dogwalking or hairdressing. But the heaviest burden of blame has to fall on those who did not investigate the situation properly in the first place.
Bungle bungle bungle.
Wait a minute, you mean to tell me that public disclosure of all this evidence is legal? For reals? What the hell is wrong with Florida (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/george-zimmerman-evidence-police-doubt-self-defense_n_1628209.html)?
This latest Zimmerman disclosures are the latest in a series of releases of formerly sealed evidence, made public under pressure from media companies, who have argued that full disclosure of the evidence is in the public's interest. The prosecution and the defense both objected.
Judge Kenneth Lester had earlier made clear his reluctance, writing that full disclosure of information in the racially charged case could "irreparably harm" the prospects of a fair trial for both sides.
"Despite this Court's feelings about the reality of the situation, the Court may not rely solely on common sense," Lester added. "Florida statutes cannot be ignored."
Florida has some of the country's strongest open-records laws, which give the public an unusually detailed look into court cases.
Transparency is fine.
A lovely slogan, but when you have a highly charged case and you're leaking every grain of evidence to the public, transparency doesn't seem like such a great idea. How on earth is a fair trial supposed to occur?
One of Zimmerman's cousins claims he molested (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/zimmerman-witness-sexual-molestation-160900334.html) her as a child. Naturally, her interview with investigators was released to the public.....
Now, I don't know whether he did or not, but I do know that this sort of accusation could be pretty prejudicial to a potential juror. Wouldn't revealing something like this in court be cause for a mistrial? It's almost as though the prosecutors are deliberately trying to sabotage their case.
Presenting the facts to a public that was acting reasonable wouldn't be a problem.
This is a case of the system working fine, but the people being unable to handle it.
Sorry GC, but this seems like a criminal level of naïveté. You are saying that trial by mob is fine so long as the mob is reasonable. So let's not blame really bad laws for putting all of the details of a difficult, politicized case before the public; let's blame the rabble-rousers and the mob. 'Cause, uh, if we could just all be reasonable ...
Remember, if people were not short-sighted, unreasonable, lying, difficult, self-destroying idiotas, we wouldn't need laws or government. It's because a percentage of people will always work against their own self-interest and their neighbor's interest that we need things like cops and judges and laws.
Xiahou, apparently the law in Florida is such that everything can and will be released, no matter how damaging, no matter how tenuous. It's a Florida thing. It's legal. Go figure. I would think the frequent hurricanes would have gotten the message across, but if anybody's missing it, God hates Florida.
Major Robert Dump
07-17-2012, 18:24
He was not molesting that girl. He was searching her for stolen goods because she matched the profile of a neighborhood robbist. If she doesn't like to be frisked, maybe she shouldn't be at suspicious gatherings like a family reunion.
a completely inoffensive name
07-18-2012, 03:44
Why do you people still care about this case? It's a tragic story degenerated into a series of talking points on either side asserting the notion that a trial win/loss is evidence of the validity of their larger ideology.
Major Robert Dump
07-18-2012, 04:30
Why do you people still care about this case? It's a tragic story degenerated into a series of talking points on either side asserting the notion that a trial win/loss is evidence of the validity of their larger ideology.
Because it started not unlike the Duke LaCrosse case, and cases like this go a long way in highlighting a double standard with "hate crimes" in general
Also, I like shooting people
And again I say, stand your ground laws (http://www.news-press.com/article/20120725/CRIME/120725029/), what could possibly go wrong?
A man selling frozen lobster tails and steaks door to door Wednesday afternoon in Cape Coral was fatally shot by a homeowner before the gunman was ordered to the ground by an off-duty Collier County corrections deputy, according to Cape police and witnesses. [...] “He was telling the officer, ‘he stepped on my property, he trespassed, I’ll kill anybody that steps on my property,’ somewhere along them lines. It was just unbelievable,” Snyder said.
Cape Police Chief Jay Murphy said it’s too early to say whether Roop was defending himself under the parameters of Florida’s justifiable use of force statute.
“Until all the facts are known, it would be premature to discuss how stand your ground law applies to this particular incident,” Murphy said in an emailed statement.
Centurion1
07-31-2012, 20:17
I would rather that than this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-man-convicted-of-killing-man-during-home-invasion-robbery-sentenced-to-life-in-prison/2012/07/21/gJQAAJdD0W_story.html
because people are afraid of this
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-03-28/news/ct-met-senior-shooting-arrested-20120328_1_homer-wright-illinois-gun-convictions
Major Robert Dump
07-31-2012, 21:03
And again I say, stand your ground laws (http://www.news-press.com/article/20120725/CRIME/120725029/), what could possibly go wrong?
A man selling frozen lobster tails and steaks door to door Wednesday afternoon in Cape Coral was fatally shot by a homeowner before the gunman was ordered to the ground by an off-duty Collier County corrections deputy, according to Cape police and witnesses. [...] “He was telling the officer, ‘he stepped on my property, he trespassed, I’ll kill anybody that steps on my property,’ somewhere along them lines. It was just unbelievable,” Snyder said.
Cape Police Chief Jay Murphy said it’s too early to say whether Roop was defending himself under the parameters of Florida’s justifiable use of force statute.
“Until all the facts are known, it would be premature to discuss how stand your ground law applies to this particular incident,” Murphy said in an emailed statement.
But this also happened before SYG laws. I am curious to see if this guy had a misinterpetation of the law, or if he was some redneck hillbilly who just thought thats what was right.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who have the wrong idea about SYG and castle laws. I hear them all the time. But in terms of the castel laws, I have been hearing and reading about people doing stupid things (like in the above case) for a couple of decades now
Major Robert Dump
07-31-2012, 21:07
Okay, yeah, I just read the article
I would be surprised if that old man listens to anything other than Glen Beck and Art Bell, much less knows about state laws. This would have happened regardless of STG, and it's a shame that nobody intervened with this old loon before.
His mailbox is at the curb, so I gess there was never any reason for anyone to appraoch his porperty.
I would also be curious of the race and dress of the victim
** also the victim was shot in the back. Again, not STG**
Major Robert Dump
07-31-2012, 21:15
I would rather that than this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-man-convicted-of-killing-man-during-home-invasion-robbery-sentenced-to-life-in-prison/2012/07/21/gJQAAJdD0W_story.html
because people are afraid of this
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-03-28/news/ct-met-senior-shooting-arrested-20120328_1_homer-wright-illinois-gun-convictions
Now now, Centurion, he did break the law. Felons cannot own guns. And it was a gun felony. If he wanted to own a gun again, he could have gotten his record expunged.
Stand your ground: What could possibly go wrong? (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/man-shot-at-st-pete-pizza-joint-had-been-complaining-about-slow-service/1266589)
Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law has been cited in hundreds of cases. People have used it to justify shooting, stabbing, killing and maiming would-be intruders, romantic competitors and rival gang members.
And on Sunday, at a pizza joint in St. Petersburg, a man tried to use it as justification for shooting another customer who was yelling at workers because he wasn't getting his order fast enough.
Police said the incident unfolded about 4 p.m. inside the Little Caesars, 3463 Fourth St. N, after Randall White, 49, got mad about his service.
Another man in line, Michael Jock, 52, of St. Petersburg admonished White.
That "prompted them to exchange words and it became a shoving match," said police spokesman Mike Puetz.
White raised a fist. Jock, a concealed-weapons permit holder, pulled out a .38 Taurus Ultralight Special Revolver.
He fired one round, hitting White in the lower torso. The men grappled and the gun fired again, hitting White in roughly the same spot, police said.
One bullet lodged in a wall in the restaurant, which was occupied by at least two other people.
After the shooting, both men went outside and waited for police. Jock told officers the shooting was justified under "stand your ground," Puetz said.
"He felt he was in his rights," Puetz said. "He brought it up specifically and cited it to the officer."
Crazed Rabbit
12-20-2012, 03:25
Stand your ground: What could possibly go wrong? (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/man-shot-at-st-pete-pizza-joint-had-been-complaining-about-slow-service/1266589)
Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law has been cited in hundreds of cases. People have used it to justify shooting, stabbing, killing and maiming would-be intruders, romantic competitors and rival gang members.
And in how many of those cases the article lists did that defense actually work?
CR
Seamus Fermanagh
12-20-2012, 15:07
...I would be surprised if that old man listens to anything other than Glen Beck and Art Bell....
I thought Art joined the majority a while back? Or is THAT what you are suggesting...?
EDIT:
Okay, apparently Art is still among the minority, living in the Phillipines with his family. He has not been broadcasting since 2010 and apparently no longer supports/likes what his old program -- Coast to Coast -- has morphed into under new host Noory.
I needn't worry much longer, of course, as it all wraps up in about 10 hours. Now where did I put that palette of .228?
Major Robert Dump
12-20-2012, 17:59
I don't even remember what this thread was about. I seem to recall seeing that the Guam Capsizing guy said later that he was being sarcastic. I don't know anything about Art Bell anymore, other than his wife is a babe and I cannot blame him for cashing out and moving to the PI
Stand your ground: What could possibly go wrong? (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/man-shot-at-st-pete-pizza-joint-had-been-complaining-about-slow-service/1266589)I bet you he thinks twice before starting a shoving match with someone over slow service at a pizza joint again.
"There are arguments every day, but how many people pull out a gun? When you pull a gun out and shoot somebody, your life better be in danger," White said. "He was in my face and I pushed him. His life was not being threatened." Next time someone is "in his face", maybe he'll do the right thing and walk away. I'm kind of surprised White wasn't charged with anything either. Maybe the police figure he paid enough by getting shot twice.
Personally, I know how quickly an altercation can spiral out of control. Someone yelling at you is not a good reason to assault them. Don't escalate something like that to violence- you don't know where it will stop.
It's hard to feel bad for either of the two knuckle-heads in this story.
Aquitted of all charges. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/14/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE96C07420130714)
An appropriate end to a politically motivated prosecution.
2nd degree murder was an overreach, but I'm surprised the defendant was acquitted of manslaughter.
-edit-
As for this being a "politically motivated prosecution," I find that a strange assertion. The media circus and political chest-thumping are sad, agreed, but the prosecution had to happen. You don't get to gun somebody down in very unclear circumstances and prance off like a show pony. Not in the USA. Or as one poster put it earlier in the thread:
I find it hard to believe that even if there was an assault, that it was completely unprovoked. Zimmerman had no reason I can conceive of to leave his vehicle and confront Martin. As a private citizen, carrying a firearm is a serious responsibility- not a license to play cop.
2nd degree murder was an overreach, but I'm surprised the defendant was acquitted of manslaughter.
-edit-
As for this being a "politically motivated prosecution," I find that a strange assertion. The media circus and political chest-thumping are sad, agreed, but the prosecution had to happen. You don't get to gun somebody down in very unclear circumstances and prance off like a show pony. Not in the USA. The local authorities looked at the evidence and decided there was no point in arrested or charging Zimmerman. The story breaks in the national media and it becomes "racially motivated". Politicians, under pressure, force the prosecution on trumped up charges. Apparently the original authorities were right.
Maybe the circumstances weren't "unclear". We were fed a narrative as news consumers, the initial people responsible for this were not. They didn't think there was a case. The second degree murder charge was a farce- the manslaughter charge was a bit more reality based, but there was little hope of passing the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Every legal concept of "self defense" I've read or heard discussed involved being able to demonstrate that you had no alternative. When you actively instigate a confrontation, you've pretty much thrown self-defense out the window.
Eh, maybe this is where that incredibly creepy Stand Your Ground law comes into play; perhaps under Florida law self-defense has been broadened to Wild West values of vague.
But I agree with the Xiahou from earlier in the thread: Zimmerman clearly played some role in provoking whatever went down. And he wound up killing a fellow citizen. At the absolute bottom-of-the-barrel minimum, this should have been reckless endangerment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangerment).
Yeah yeah, I'm clearly racist. From what I read the kid was a thug, multiple school suspensions and a bad track record. The shooter claims the kid punched and assaulted him, but this is all yet to be seen. I didn't say the kid deserved to be shot, going to wait and find out what comes out in court and see if I believe it first and it was true self defense. Either way, I'm definitely leaning towards his character was less than stellar and that he was a little thug.
I gotta agree with PJ's post for the most part, I'm utterly sick and tired of the race card being pulled all the damn time. It's got to the point where I develop this almost instinctive immediate counter-reaction and whenever a situation arises and the race card comes out, I start to believe the opposite party in the conflict.
Trial's over, verdict is in. I stand by my original assessments. This post has an excellent summary on Reddit that is 90-95% in agreement with all of my understandings: http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hcjtn/eli5_the_whole_zimmermanmartin_issue/cat97s2 . Kid was unfortunately a thug and a punk, and he earned that dirt nap. It's unfortunate when people die, in this case I'd probably lay a good part of the blame at the feet of Treyvon's parents. Raising one's kids to do the right thing and be good persons isn't easy, but it's a need, and I think Americans in generally are doing an increasingly lousy job at it.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Every legal concept of "self defense" I've read or heard discussed involved being able to demonstrate that you had no alternative. When you actively instigate a confrontation, you've pretty much thrown self-defense out the window.The self-defense standard is generally when you reasonably are in fear of serious bodily harm or death. The beating Zimmerman took included a broken nose and multiple lacerations. I think that standard was met.
Eh, maybe this is where that incredibly creepy Stand Your Ground law comes into play; perhaps under Florida law self-defense has been broadened to Wild West values of vague.The chief of police said the Stand Your Ground law had nothing to do with it- it was self-defense.
But I agree with the Xiahou from earlier in the thread: Zimmerman clearly played some role in provoking whatever went down. And he wound up killing a fellow citizen. At the absolute bottom-of-the-barrel minimum, this should have been reckless endangerment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangerment).Sure he played a role. He decided to do neighborhood watch. He got out of his car and tried to follow Martin. That doesn't mean he's criminally liable though.
Also, I don't think reckless endangerment is a crime on the books in Florida.
Here's a HLN timeline/map (http://www.hlntv.com/interactive/2013/06/17/zimmerman-trayvon-map-interactive) that outlines what went down that night.
Edit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikei..._issue/cat97s2 (http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hcjtn/eli5_the_whole_zimmermanmartin_issue/cat97s2)
I think that does a fair job too. :yes:
Also, I don't think reckless endangerment is a crime on the books in Florida.
Seems you are correct.
It gets better: Apparently under Florida law, you can use self-defense as an exoneration even if you started the fight. Lovely.
Kid was unfortunately a thug and a punk, and he earned that dirt nap.
Tasteless.
Tasteless.
I had one last sentence in my previous post I removed in anticipation, I will share that now.
I eagerly await the self-righteous, flaming, rage-filled responses, and the snide, condescending ones as well.
Thank you for delivering.
I have objected to your relentless use of the word "thug" since page 1 of this thread. So ... you've been awaiting what I delivered last March?*
How does that work? Is this one of those crazy time travel stories?
-edit-
*Correction: March 2012, which just makes Whacker's time-travel powers EVEN MORE AWESOME.
I have objected to your relentless use of the word "thug" since page 1 of this thread. So ... you've been awaiting what I delivered last March?
How does that work? Is this one of those crazy time travel stories?
I've been waiting for this situation to play out. He was a punk and a thug, and cry me a damn river for my calling it like it is, which was apparent enough early on even through all the media misdirection, hype, and BS. Walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, must be a duck. I think the sad part is that Zimmerman essentially needs to move, change his name and identity if he wants anything approaching a normal life now.
I think the sad part is that Zimmerman essentially needs to move, change his name and identity if he wants anything approaching a normal life now.
Oh, I dunno, if Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson are any guide, he'll be fine if he keeps his nose clean from now on.
And I'm very disappointed this has nothing to do with time travel. You got me all nerd-excited when you declared that a long-standing point of contention was now new and revealing wickedness that shows how anyone who disagrees with you is, um, bad.
Oh, I dunno, if Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson are any guide, he'll be fine if he keeps his nose clean from now on.
And I'm very disappointed this has nothing to do with time travel. You got me all nerd-excited when you declared that a long-standing point of contention was now new and revealing wickedness that shows how anyone who disagrees with you is, um, bad.
That's not my perspective, my dear prosimian.
You know how dogs like to find piles of poop and roll in them, because they like the scent? That's kinda what I'm doing with your responses and the additional condemnation that I hope will ensue. Sweet, delicious tears of rage, because I was right to begin with. The whole anti-gun, self-defense, think of the children, or whatever anyone thinks up is what I'm looking forward to here. He was a punk. He earned his dirt nap. Zimmerman is the victim here, not the punk. I feel worst for him at the end of all this for the reasons I stated previously. You want to rage at me for my choice of words, go right ahead.
condemnation [...] tears of rage[...] rage at me [...]
Sadly, I don't think this thread is going to live up to your Cartman-esque hope (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owzhYNcd4OM) for, uh, I think "rage" is the word you keep using?
My more rightwing friends on Facebook are all going on about how there will be riots. They seem kinda gleeful at the prospect. Maybe that will scratch the itch a little better?
Anyway, good luck with finding all of that rage. I think this was a nasty bit of business on multiple levels, and I find the thuggification of the dead man questionable, just as I find Zimmerman The Victim questionable. (And in fairness, I also find Trayvon The Martyred Saint questionable, as well as Zimmerman The Cold-Blooded Killer.) I agree with one of the conclusions of the Redditor you quoted, that this situation involved two hot-blooded men low on good sense, either of whom could have walked away.
a completely inoffensive name
07-14-2013, 07:03
I think the only good thing to come from this is that I learned from the media that a hispanic man is actually white.
Sadly, I don't think this thread is going to live up to your Cartman-esque hope for, uh, I think "rage" is the word you keep using?
Don't kill my troll boner here. I'm really hoping for some dismissive anti-gun vitriol, preferable from a non-American. Bonus points for passive-aggressive.
My more rightwing friends on Facebook are all going on about how there will be riots. They seem kinda gleeful at the prospect. Maybe that will scratch the itch a little better?
No, because I'm not parasitically feeding off of Fartbook posts. I do hope there won't be riots, but it wouldn't entirely surprise me. If there's one thing we aren't in short supply of here it's ignorance.
Anyway, good luck with finding all of that rage. I think this was a nasty bit of business on multiple levels, and I find the thuggification of the dead man questionable, just as I find Zimmerman The Victim questionable. (And in fairness, I also find Trayvon The Martyred Saint questionable, as well as Zimmerman The Cold-Blooded Killer.) I agree with one of the conclusions of the Redditor you quoted, that this situation involved two hot-blooded men low on good sense, either of whom could have walked away.
That's the part I don't agree with really at all, about two hot blooded men. Following someone from a good distance isn't provocative, period. End of story. Doesn't pass common sense, the laugh test, or legal muster. Everything I read thus far tells me that not only was Zimmerman non-provocative, but the Punk (as he shall be henceforth dubbed) made a point to go BACK to find Zimmerman AGAIN to teach him a lesson, at which point most of the shizzle ensues. I believe absolutely that all of the blame for the actual conflict can be laid at the feet of the Punk. He earned every last bit of what happened to him. If someone's sitting on my chest in the middle of the street at 9am punching my face into the concrete, you can bet your sweet NRA-member tookiss I'm going to give said individual a 9mm injection.
Bonus points for passive-aggressive.
I don't think that word means what you think it means (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive-aggressive_behavior).
Following someone from a good distance isn't provocative, period. End of story. Doesn't pass common sense, the laugh test, or legal muster.
Fat boys with guns shouldn't be tracking people in the dark, in violation of their own self-made neighborhood watch rules. And when a 911 dispatcher advises you to stay in the car, maybe you stay in the car?
Even if you choose (from the beginning) to read all evidence as exonerating Zimmerman, he was still guilty of being an gobsmacking idiot. I still object to declaring him the "real" victim.
I predict there will be no riots. File this under "exonerations most Americans find weird," just like OJ and Casey Anthony. The racial angle is just a bonus cherry on top of the fecal sundae.
I don't think that word means what you think it means (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive-aggressive_behavior).
No, it means what I think it means. Thanks for the link though.
Fat boys with guns shouldn't be tracking people in the dark, in violation of their own self-made neighborhood watch rules.
Thankfully your opinion about who can be where and when has zero bearing on what's actually reasonable from a common sense or legal standpoint.
And when a 911 dispatcher advises you to stay in the car, maybe you stay in the car?
911 dispatchers aren't directly on the scene and don't have a complete picture of what's going on, as well as Zimmerman's own ability to decide for himself what's reasonable, coupled with my above statement. Not provocative. Thanks for playing. If I'm following you from about 3 feet that's one thing. If I'm following you from someone's yard or more then no, but thanks for playing.
Even if you choose (from the beginning) to read all evidence as exonerating Zimmerman, he was still guilty of being an gobsmacking idiot.
Nope.
I still object to declaring him the "real" victim.
Noted. Rejected.
I predict there will be no riots. File this under "exonerations most Americans find weird," just like OJ and Casey Anthony. The racial angle is just a bonus cherry on top of the fecal sundae.
In all of this, my good man, we are in violent (har!) agreement.
a completely inoffensive name
07-14-2013, 07:31
Will you two just kiss already?
Will you two just kiss already?
SIGH. http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/9476243/athletes-react-george-zimmerman-found-not-guilty-trayvon-martin-case
And when a 911 dispatcher advises you to stay in the car, maybe you stay in the car?This was another misconception. Zimmerman got out of his car to find an address and the dispatcher then asked if he was following Martin. He said he was and the dispatcher told him he didn't need to do that. Zimmerman said he stopped at that point and headed back towards his vehicle when he claims Martin jumped him.
We'll never know for certain what happened, but he wasn't told to stay in his vehicle and then left over the dispatchers objections.
Call transcript (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html).
Honestly, looking at the maps and reading timelines and testimony- It looks like it was likely that Martin did circle back around to confront Zimmerman. But we're all just speculating.
The important take-away is that the evidence never had any hope of reaching a "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold that Zimmerman acted criminally. The investigators apparently realized this. The original DA apparently realized this. The media and then politicians got involved and Zimmerman found himself called everything from a racist to a child molester finally getting a bogus second-degree murder charge that had no basis in reality... bordering on malicious prosecution.
a completely inoffensive name
07-14-2013, 07:55
I feel like actually typing a big post about this, but I really don't know if it will just fall on deaf ears. These media trials are nothing but toxic for our culture.
I really don't know if it will just fall on deaf ears.
You should type that big post. If you look at the exchanges so far, you will see that even as we disagree, we do listen to one another.
That fact alone elevates this little forum above 99% of the internet. It's the reason I keep coming back.
-edit-
A pretty good analysis (http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/12/66986/) of why no manslaughter charge was reached. Looks as though there was just a general lack of hard facts; too little evidence, not enough witnesses.
Fair enough, if distasteful all around.
All in all, I find the saint-ification (hagiography (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hagiography) for word nerds) or demonization of either man to be unsupported by what little hard evidence exists. Note that on this board, in this context, nobody has been saying that Martin was a shining example of innocent youth. But to leap to "thug" and "punk" is unsupported, and says more about the person saying it than the subject of their attentions. Likewise, to declare Zimmerman "the real victim" is about as much of an overreach as, say, charging someone with 2nd degree murder when you have few hard facts and fewer witnesses.
A pretty good analysis (http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/12/66986/) of why no manslaughter charge was reached. Looks as though there was just a general lack of hard facts; too little evidence, not enough witnesses.That link about sums up my thinking.... "In the end, the only way I could see a conviction would be to discard the standard of a presumption of innocence and embrace the invitation of the prosecution to assume every fact against Zimmerman"
There was no case against Zimmerman. There never was and the local authorities knew it. That's why I say this case was politically driven.
a completely inoffensive name
07-14-2013, 08:51
This type of trial is what honestly makes me concerned for the health of the country as a whole and in particular as a culture. I made the choice a year or two back to become completely ignorant in all regards to what the current buzz is in today's media. I used to be a complete political junkie thinking that I could remain an independent mind if I only sampled enough sources and kept my head, but at some point during the last presidential debates I realized that the cumulative effects of following the media even for the four years between the ages of 16-20 made me a complete fool and utterly biased in favor of one side (Obama's). In particular I have Sasaki and RVG to thank for unabashedly beating me down in the Backroom thread about those debates. Now I am even further removed from all my political updates and social media websites, I can't help but feel that the necessary and prudent course of action for all criminal cases that by chance grab the attention of the media should result in an immediate acquittal.
I am honestly proud to claim ignorance on a large number of cases that became national travesties.
1. The Duke Lacrosse Scandal
2. Casey Anthony
3. George Zimmerman
I am sure there are few others I don't even remember because I cared not to spend a single moment reading about it.
The nation as a whole suffers from the same disease that I suffered. It's the Big Lie that the truth lies somewhere in the aggregate. Those who simply follow the cases from one source (The Fox News/Nancy Grace type followers) are already a lost cause. But the average person will hear about it first on CNN complete with the first twitter reactions by blacks you have heard of and random people living in Minnesota. They will also read an article they saw on their Yahoo! front page and hear Brian Williams talk about it on NBC later that day. This is what people think is a diversity of sources but in reality they are all saying the same thing or they are deliberately fabricating a story to sell you. Some sources even go so far as to fabricate evidence to keep the story intact. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/apr/2/nbc-news-starts-probe-edited-zimmerman-911-call/) There is nothing good to be found from combing through all of them hoping that the bigger picture will become crystal clear. They are are all poisons and the only progress you make is in concocting your own personal blend of mind killing cocktail.
What is more evident than ever is that our institutions of news are no longer trying to sell us entertainment, they have crossed the line and are now actively provoking us into generating content for them, with our vitriol and our hatred fueled by preconceived notions that were planted in our heads by media companies to begin with. I find no other way to remedy the two obvious facts that the average american is absolutely sick of the partisan politics and yet partisanship is at an all time high. We see the decline in membership among both major parties in favor of that "harmonious" middle position we call "independent" which seems to encompass people of all views, commonly united only in their disgust of the system as a whole. And yet, we easily fall back onto labels when we become agitated. So obviously, in order for any story to be truly newsworthy it must be divisive, it must cause strife. Zimmerman wasn't a hispanic, he was white, if only because we need the white vs. black angle to make this story controversial.
Even talking about it all is so mind numbing, because its very nature is to make your emotions overcome you and to make sure you keep tuning in for more. Adrenaline junkies getting their fix with every interview from a controversial figure with controversial things to say. The very nature of television has become a monster that Edward R. Murrow could never have imagined.
This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and even it can inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it's nothing but wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.
This weapon has been actively turned against the public, as always, for profit in someones pocketbooks. If the United States does not realize what is being done to them inside of their own house, the United States as a country will remain as a people divided. Unable to achieve anything good for the commons, unable to prevent the united interests from achieving what is commonly good for the few.
Fisherking
07-14-2013, 10:02
Racial and Religious bigotry are political tools to politicians and the media today.
It is only reported on when it meets their political agenda.
The News is used as a weapon of psychological warfare much more than to inform the populous.
What ever outlet you use, they seek to influence you and bring you to their way of thinking.
It is all part of “Bread and Circuses“ in the end.
The filter I try to use is Will this give people more liberty or does it give government more power.
It does not rob you of compassion for others or co-opt your views of what is just or unjust. It only means you can‘t always take things at face value.
PanzerJaeger
07-14-2013, 19:34
I am pleased with the verdict only because it represents a loss for the black community and the leftist race baiters (www.salon.com) who have consistently sought to use this case to incite racial animus throughout the nation regardless of all fact and reason as I profiled in the OP.
I have no sympathy for Zimmerman and it is a tragedy that the young man is dead. However, the self-serving insistence that this case was about American racism and not the poor decisions of two individuals should not be vindicated.
I'm just glad that common sense won the day and America has managed to restore some of my trust in the power and righteousness of gun ownership. I just wish we had more guns in Europe. Videos like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvPoncNYF5g) are a national disgrace. Down with the bleeding heart terrorism!
Justice for Trayvon!!!!1!!!!!!1111!
Greyblades
07-15-2013, 01:57
I'm just glad that common sense won the day and America has managed to restore some of my trust in the power and righteousness of gun ownership. I just wish we had more guns in Europe. Videos like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvPoncNYF5g) are a national disgrace. Down with the bleeding heart terrorism!
Not sure if sarcstic...
Also someone was paid to make a computer generated video of H&K factory getting encased in cement. That there's a talented programmer somewhere who was so hard up he agreed to do that makes me very sad for humanity.
Strike For The South
07-15-2013, 02:26
They way everything shook out, you couldn't convict him. I'm much more inclined to believe the defense and the body compared to Trayvons girlfriend (please watch the testimony). I do think Zimmerman is on a power trip and bit off more than he could chew but that's not illegal. I feel the same way about Joe Horn (American Hero). It's mindboggling that he's seen as a champion of the right, I suppose that's just sensationalism but cheering on a dumbass who follows 17 year old kids around at night is setting the bar pretty low. Of course, then again, so is asking "when is darkie going to riot?" The post ciotus bliss out of the "established" right is something I can't wrap my head around.
It's sad this is getting co opted to represent the institutional failings that plague the justice system when they deal with black men. This is a terrible "show" case and there are real failings. Zimmerman is not guilty under Florida law. Talk about the 0000s of black men in the south whom have been exoneratied with DNA testing or the massive disparty in sentencing. Don't martyr some 17 year old kid who left trouble and then went back looking for it. The only place I see his race having an issue is with his moral failings, moral failings that many other boys have. There is nothing on Trayvons "rap" sheet that moves my meter, he would've grown out of that petty stuff.
Strike For The South
07-15-2013, 04:23
Black kids die in droves everyday, they just happen to do it to eacthother.
Go to Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, Or Memphis. You can camp out in some neighborhoods of Chicago and see people get shoot nearly ever night. Where is the mobilzation then? Where is the outrage?
Zimmerman is suing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/07/14/zimmerman-lawyer-to-move-asap-against-nbc-news/) NBC. Good.
If you remember, NBC was the outlet responsible for the indefensible editing of Zimmerman's call to the police. They edited this:
Zimmerman: "We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy. It’s Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about."
911 Dispatcher: “Okay. And this guy, is he white black or Hispanic?”
Zimmerman: “He looks black.”
To this:
“This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”
They should be held to account. :yes:
Fisherking
07-15-2013, 16:56
There is no outrage when one black person kills another by the media. They might air it as a gun crime but they are not too concerned. Black on Black or even Black on White crime is not big for ratings.
Race on the other hand can be used to incite and generate more news. They will keep this going and milk the hate as long as they can. It shows that Rich Liberal White people care deeply for the black community. It takes away peoples minds and puts them into Group Think.
They have been fooling people a long time and it is not yet time to give it up. They don’t care about the poor, black or white, they just want to be seen to care.
The media and talking heads still seem to be distorting the facts of the case and even though an FBI investigation found no evidence of racial motives the DOJ is still considering bringing a Civil Rights case. Just as many in the media are hoping for a wrongful death suite.
It is racially charged because the media is making it racially charged.
What makes them think it is only them who care about equality and rights?
There are the ignorant and hateful on both sides and it needs to be stamped out!
The media portrait of them as the only friends of ethnic groups is hogwash.
PanzerJaeger
07-16-2013, 00:56
Black kids die in droves everyday, they just happen to do it to eacthother.
Go to Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, Or Memphis. You can camp out in some neighborhoods of Chicago and see people get shoot nearly ever night. Where is the mobilzation then? Where is the outrage?
Black on black violence is so common here in Memphis that it does not even make the headlines. It's just what they do, and it is best to leave them to it as long as they keep it among themselves. I won't speculate on the nature versus nurture argument as to why that is. That's what makes the faux-outrage about this topic coming from the self-declared black community so disingenuous. It's easier to create a common enemy than look within.
Really? After I agree with your last post, you gotta go make me look like an idiot? White kids get killed by white kids every day too. People of all colors get profiled by the police based on class, clothing, or other distinctive signs of non-conformity. What is your point? It seems like you, Panzer, and some others are going out of their way to say something along the lines of "Eh, he was black, quit being outraged."
I cannot speak for Strike, and I am sure that we do not share the same views on race and its role in American society.
I tire of the black outrage and victimhood. This was a single case involving the actions of two individuals. To suggest that this case is about the system and not the standard of reasonable doubt is farcical. Elevating this case into an indictment of American society and expecting reasonable adults to buy into that narrative is insulting to our collective intelligence. And quite frankly, the constant whinging about the "system" should be called out for the BS that it is. There is a reason that a disproportionate number of blacks are incarcerated, and it has nothing to do with institutional racism (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324436104578578083038725610.html).
Strike For The South
07-16-2013, 02:49
Really? After I agree with your last post, you gotta go make me look like an idiot? White kids get killed by white kids every day too. People of all colors get profiled by the police based on class, clothing, or other distinctive signs of non-conformity. What is your point? It seems like you, Panzer, and some others are going out of their way to say something along the lines of "Eh, he was black, quit being outraged."
It's true, white kids do kill white kids everyday. It's also true that some white kids grow up with out fathers. Neither of those rates are anywhere near those of black kids. There are real problems with the justice system, there are real problems with the black community and there are real problems with hoity toidy white liberals who like the idea of black people but have never actually seen one. These things all feed off each other. In no community in the world is a 72% absentee father rate a good thing.
Trayvon Martin is the worst outlet for a real grievance. He is not what people talk about when they say the justice system is stacked against blacks. You could possibly shoehorn something about police indifference in there, but going by the facts of the case, there wasn't much to arrest him with in the first place. Now, if that upsets you please be my guest and elect a rep. whom will change the law. The court is for the law, not for someones feelings. To find Zimmerman guilty in this case would be the same legislating from the bench that gives guys like Xiahou and CR heart palpation's
I believe Zimmermans story. When Martin doubled backed and started a fight, Zimmerman is (and should be) justified in shooting him. In the beginning I didn't, if only because the butchered NBC "911" call makes it seem like Zimmerman got out of his car and ran down Martin (absolute shit by NBC). This doesn't make Zimmerman a hero or Trayvon a thug. Zimmerman is a busybody HOA lackey and Trayvon was a 17 year old kid who did what 17 year old kids do.
Me and Panzer could go back and forth on the numbers all day and as much as I love a good roll in the mud, I just don't have the energy for it. I think we could both agree that the sense of frustrated hopelessness in these communities is palpable, depressing, and infectious. It's even more depressing that the only time the "black community" or their out of touch white friends can mobilize is when a "white" man shoots a black kid (how that whole narrative fell apart is another story)
http://wearenottrayvonmartin.tumblr.com/ depraved populism. Sasaki once commented on the obsession with being on the "right" side of history. Right in the sense of progress. I labeled him as a misanthrope, I am beginning to wonder if he was right. I shook the majority my whigishness long ago, I guess the last of it is being extinguished.
ICantSpellDawg
07-16-2013, 03:23
He should have been charged, that's what happens in a civil society when unarmed people are killed and there are legitimate points being made by both sides. I'm glad, however, that he was acquitted. If he was assaulted in the way suggested, he had a right to use deadly force. Should he have been in that situation, following someone in the dark? I don't believe so. Should the victim have opted to assault him instead of attempting to de-escalate? Absolutely not.
Civil case likely sought by the victims family, they will likely get a settlement or take it to trial and get some compensation. The DOJ line of inquiry is baseless double jeopardy abuse of the justice system.
In reality, this will show people that following someone whom you believe to be dangerous is a terrible idea. It will also show people that if you look like a thug, are walking around in the middle of the night and pre-emptively assault someone rather than use your words, you can be killed for it. Will anyone learn anything? I have.
a completely inoffensive name
07-16-2013, 03:51
http://wearenottrayvonmartin.tumblr.com/ depraved populism. Sasaki once commented on the obsession with being on the "right" side of history. Right in the sense of progress. I labeled him as a misanthrope, I am beginning to wonder if he was right. I shook the majority my whigishness long ago, I guess the last of it is being extinguished.
Progress is a meaningless word. Young, white liberals think that they are the future because they are the youth, thus their personal struggles and the struggles of their buddies are the battles which progress is to be measured by.
I'm glad he got off. No real case against him, and the race card had no part to play in this. It is appalling that it went to a national level.
Fisherking
07-16-2013, 09:44
He should have been charged, that's what happens in a civil society when unarmed people are killed and there are legitimate points being made by both sides. I'm glad, however, that he was acquitted. If he was assaulted in the way suggested, he had a right to use deadly force. Should he have been in that situation, following someone in the dark? I don't believe so. Should the victim have opted to assault him instead of attempting to de-escalate? Absolutely not.
Civil case likely sought by the victims family, they will likely get a settlement or take it to trial and get some compensation. The DOJ line of inquiry is baseless double jeopardy abuse of the justice system.
In reality, this will show people that following someone whom you believe to be dangerous is a terrible idea. It will also show people that if you look like a thug, are walking around in the middle of the night and pre-emptively assault someone rather than use your words, you can be killed for it. Will anyone learn anything? I have.
From what I understood, the Martin family had no intent to pursue a civil case. Whether they can be convinced by the Media or lawyers to do so is up for speculation.
Suing Zimmerman is not going to make anyone rich. He is not OJ Simpson and doesn’t have millions in the bank.
If you want to know who is the cause of the black massacre then blame well intended and misinformed Government programs and ignorant white do-gooders.
The destruction of the black family and an education system that can not deal with the problems, is the root.
Sure there is the matter of racist views but they are minor in comparison.
Jim Crow was dismantled 49 years ago this month. A great victory for individual rights, not just black. But that is also about the time the real problem began. But rather than recognizing and attempting to reverse the problem we have just normalized it.
ICantSpellDawg
07-16-2013, 12:19
I'm not saying that they should file suit, but I am saying that the civil bar is much lower. There is no "reasonable doubt" threshold for the plaintiff. The fact that nearly everyone suggests that Zimmermans actions were not usual in that he got out of his vehicle to watch or follow can place some contribution on him. It sucks, but the victim was unarmed and killed. In a liability breakdown, I would place 80% on the plaintiff and 20% on the defendant.
Fisherking
07-16-2013, 12:31
A Civil Rights case would be even harder to prove. The standard is even higher than the second degree murder one.
It would be stupid to try and the only way to get the verdict is through jury nullification IMO. There are places that could happen, however. And it is hard to say to what lengths this justice department would go to.
ICantSpellDawg
07-16-2013, 13:42
A Civil Rights case would be even harder to prove. The standard is even higher than the second degree murder one.
It would be stupid to try and the only way to get the verdict is through jury nullification IMO. There are places that could happen, however. And it is hard to say to what lengths this justice department would go to.
I agree. I'm talking about a negligence case. The civil rights case would be abusive and a waste of resources in this situation.
I agree. I'm talking about a negligence case. The civil rights case would be abusive and a waste of resources in this situation.
Pretty sure that no case can go forward; under Florida law, you cannot initiate a civil case when a killing has been found to be self-defense (which is the net result of the verdict—once self-defense was invoked, it put the burden on the prosecution to prove that the killing was not self-defense, and they failed). So Martin's family has no avenue for further litigation in the great state of Florida (http://www.reddit.com/r/FloridaMan).
Likewise, I cannot see a civil rights case being brought. Several reasons why that dog won't hunt.
For good or ill, this case is over.
For good or ill, this case is over.
now to wait for the heat to die down.....
10418
ICantSpellDawg
07-16-2013, 17:49
A strong reminder of how everything you think you know about being a tough guy can result in the loss of the only life that you get. It is important to know that violence can and often will result in unnecessary death. America needs to grow up and use words to solve conflict. When words fail and danger persists, it can destroy everything. Every law abiding American has a "nuclear" deterent.
I havent been in fight since I was 16. Fighting is for kids. Adults are polite and courteous or they are shooting to stop conflict. There is no middle ground. If your laws allow you to be armed, arm. If not, fight the unjust law.
Greyblades
07-16-2013, 18:44
If your laws allow you to be armed, arm. If not, fight the unjust law. wow, never have I seen such a strange breed of logic. "Everyone here doesn't know how to sort disputes out with non violent means and the use of firearms is the absolute last resort and should never be used in anger". Putting that together you somehow get: "I think we should fight for the right to give all these people who can't deal with disputes without violence these dangerous last resort weapons. "
ICantSpellDawg
07-17-2013, 00:08
wow, never have I seen such a strange breed of logic. "Everyone here doesn't know how to sort disputes out with non violent means and the use of firearms is the absolute last resort and should never be used in anger". Putting that together you somehow get: "I think we should fight for the right to give all these people who can't deal with disputes without violence these dangerous last resort weapons. "
People who assault others should be barred from firearm ownership until they have shown themselves able to avoid that activity.
Greyblades
07-17-2013, 00:28
'Still lets everyone get one free rampage, not exactly an improvement and ultimately it would still not prevent near as many gun deaths as an all out ban.
ICantSpellDawg
07-17-2013, 02:32
'Still lets everyone get one free rampage, not exactly an improvement and ultimately it would still not prevent near as many gun deaths as an all out ban.
All out ban. Give me a break. Come and take them. We are expanding gun rights in this country.
Greyblades
07-17-2013, 03:26
Ok then, you want to wallow in your astronomical murder, suicide and fatal accident rates for the chance to pretend to be a man for 5 minutes at a firing range, be my guest.
Strike For The South
07-17-2013, 03:29
I've never handled a gun thinking it made me more manly
They were just there.....Not all of us are New York City boys like Tuffstuff.
Greyblades
07-17-2013, 03:41
Meh just my compulsion to use stereotypes and preconceptions leaking through instead of reasoned argument.
Regardless, the only proven method to put a serious and meaningful decline in those rates is abolition among civillians, and I have yet to find a reason to keep them that is not only relevant (second amendment might as well be a shopping list for all it's relevance today) and not a symptom of how screwed up society is.
ICantSpellDawg
07-17-2013, 12:36
Our suicide rates are not astronomical. You are making that up. In fact, as a limey, you are 4 countries away from us in rate (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate). France is higher than the US, so is Japan, Belgium and many other modern, developed countries. You'd think that, since we own nearly 50% of all privately owned firearms and they are so much more effective for suicide, that it would be much higher, but you'd be completely wrong. Ironically, as much as minorities drive our high homicide rate, they also drive our lower suicide rate. Black Americans risk and use of suicide is dramatically lower than most other modern nations. Why? Who knows, maybe they are classed in the homicide rates as a sort of "death by cop"
I want every law abiding American to own at least 5 firearms. Black, White, etc. I take people to the range, we are doing quite well in reestablishing gun culture here in the suburbs of NYC, where Bloomberg is invited to eat complimentary turd sandwiches. The internet is amazing for it. Then, we are coming to Europe to spread their lawful use. Guns and self control make men and women free. Sound crazy? Good. Its a revolutionary idea. The old idea is that we should be coddled and protected from ourselves by our mommy, the State.
As an aside, I try not to carry during the day or around the house with a round chambered. It helps to reduce risk of fatal accident. At night, in an unusual area, you are probably better off carrying condition 1. greyblades, you should come to the US and I will take you to the range. It is a new world here and Americans who never really had the right are starting to grab it due to equal protections and stare decisis.
Greyblades
07-17-2013, 15:42
Our suicide rates are not astronomical. You are making that up. In fact, as a limey, you are 4 countries away from us in rate (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate). France is higher than the US, so is Japan, Belgium and many other modern, developed countries. You'd think that, since we own nearly 50% of all privately owned firearms and they are so much more effective for suicide, that it would be much higher, but you'd be completely wrong. Ironically, as much as minorities drive our high homicide rate, they also drive our lower suicide rate. Black Americans risk and use of suicide is dramatically lower than most other modern nations. Why? Who knows, maybe they are classed in the homicide rates as a sort of "death by cop"Firstly, yes you caught me in a bit of hypebolye it is not astronomical and I need to realign my argument to the actual data: your prevalence of firearms is making suicide an easier proposition to act on as exhibited by harvard's study (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/). I also argue that due the variation of gun restrictions throughout the USA along state and county lines that the USA's overall suicide rate is being equalized by those states with greater gun restrictions as exhibited here (http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html),(the table right at the bottom of the page under "U.S. Suicide Statistics (2005)"), in it I see the high suicide rate states are the ones with the most lax gun restrictions as exhibited here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state) (montana , nevada, alaska etc) and the low rates in states with high gun restriction (like new york, new jersy, rhode island etc).
I want every law abiding American to own at least 5 firearms. Black, White, etc. I take people to the range, we are doing quite well in reestablishing gun culture here in the suburbs of NYC, where Bloomberg is invited to eat complimentary turd sandwiches. The internet is amazing for it. Then, we are coming to Europe to spread their lawful use. Guns and self control make men and women free. Sound crazy? Good. Its a revolutionary idea. The old idea is that we should be coddled and protected from ourselves by our mommy, the State.
As an aside, I try not to carry during the day or around the house with a round chambered. It helps to reduce risk of fatal accident. At night, in an unusual area, you are probably better off carrying condition 1. greyblades, you should come to the US and I will take you to the range. It is a new world here and Americans who never really had the right are starting to grab it due to equal protections and stare decisis. "Revolutionary" is one word for it, making an army of suicide squirrels is "revolutionary", it's just not a good idea. That idea might help with the accident rate as teaching everyone gun safety will help prevent it, but I see that definitely exacerbating the suicide and homicide rates, if someone wants to kill themselves a gun is the easiest solution and making suicide harder to do makes it more likely prospective suicides will reconsider.
As for murderers they aren't exactly going to be deterred by sessions at rifle ranges, its more likely to give them experience to make murderer's eventual exploits even more damaging.
As for the invite, I've been to america twice, I used a gun range once, I wasnt really enthused by the idea of a society where everyone having the capacity to do such easy damage to one another.
Tellos Athenaios
07-17-2013, 22:35
"Revolutionary" is one word for it, making an army of suicide squirrels is "revolutionary", it's just not a good idea.
On the contrary, it is a classic (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?47080-so-what-bartix-and-what-faction-replaces-armenia-go-then-!!) example of an excellent idea (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?49401-Count-down-to-open-beta-Bartix):
The Bartix Kamikazix Squirrel unit, that stroms the enemy before being exploded by the Mind Rays from the Bartix King and thus splattering all over the enemy units making them all sticky and stuff and thus sabotaging their fighting effeciency!
Papewaio
07-17-2013, 23:02
I've never handled a gun thinking it made me more manly
They were just there.....Not all of us are New York City boys like Tuffstuff.
Thanks I was trying to figure out iCSD original handle based on posting pattern alone.
ICantSpellDawg
07-17-2013, 23:56
Firstly, yes you caught me in a bit of hypebolye it is not astronomical and I need to realign my argument to the actual data: your prevalence of firearms is making suicide an easier proposition to act on as exhibited by harvard's study (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/). I also argue that due the variation of gun restrictions throughout the USA along state and county lines that the USA's overall suicide rate is being equalized by those states with greater gun restrictions as exhibited here (http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html),(the table right at the bottom of the page under "U.S. Suicide Statistics (2005)"), in it I see the high suicide rate states are the ones with the most lax gun restrictions as exhibited here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state) (montana , nevada, alaska etc) and the low rates in states with high gun restriction (like new york, new jersy, rhode island etc).
"Revolutionary" is one word for it, making an army of suicide squirrels is "revolutionary", it's just not a good idea. That idea might help with the accident rate as teaching everyone gun safety will help prevent it, but I see that definitely exacerbating the suicide and homicide rates, if someone wants to kill themselves a gun is the easiest solution and making suicide harder to do makes it more likely prospective suicides will reconsider.
As for murderers they aren't exactly going to be deterred by sessions at rifle ranges, its more likely to give them experience to make murderer's eventual exploits even more damaging.
As for the invite, I've been to america twice, I used a gun range once, I wasnt really enthused by the idea of a society where everyone having the capacity to do such easy damage to one another.
Long story short, your assumption that suicide rates in America are driven by firearms as opposed to everywhere else do not play out. Accessibility of firearms, while providing a more effective way to commit suicide, does not drive our rate to be any higher than any other country. In fact, Western nations have the same or higher rate across the board with almost no access to firearms. Give me a break. What percentage of gun suicides are done with "assault weapons", where you tend to only need 1 bullet? Probably even fewer than gun murders. Stick to banning kitchen knives (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm) and over cooking your meat in your own day-care center masquerading as a nation.
Firearms are great, you guys are boring, Strike for the South wont know a good thing until it is gone. He effectively played the manliness card with me - I'm interested in guns for manly purposes whereas he is so manly that he doesn't even notice it. I play pokemon, hate beer and sports and look at pictures of cuddley puppies. I don't care about manliness. Trannies, women, nuns and cheerleaders should own firearms, too.
Greyblades
07-18-2013, 01:09
Long story short, your assumption that suicide rates in America are driven by firearms as opposed to everywhere else do not play out. Accessibility of firearms, while providing a more effective way to commit suicide, does not drive our rate to be any higher than any other country. In fact, Western nations have the same or higher rate across the board with almost no access to firearms. Which I've already explained with my "states shoring up (or down) the overall suicide rate" theory
Give me a break. What percentage of gun suicides are done with "assault weapons", where you tend to only need 1 bullet? Probably even fewer than gun murders ...assault weapons? Your argument sounds like you think I'm advocating only the removal of rifles.
Stick to banning kitchen knives (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm) and over cooking your meat in your own day-care center masquerading as a nation.Yes that is ridiculous because knives are a tool with many different uses and violence is a perversion of the maker's intended use. Banning guns isnt ridiculous because their only purpose is to kill, their only reason for being is to kill.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
07-18-2013, 01:34
Long story short, your assumption that suicide rates in America are driven by firearms as opposed to everywhere else do not play out. Accessibility of firearms, while providing a more effective way to commit suicide, does not drive our rate to be any higher than any other country. In fact, Western nations have the same or higher rate across the board with almost no access to firearms. Give me a break. What percentage of gun suicides are done with "assault weapons", where you tend to only need 1 bullet? Probably even fewer than gun murders. Stick to banning kitchen knives (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm) and over cooking your meat in your own day-care center masquerading as a nation.
Firearms are great, you guys are boring, Strike for the South wont know a good thing until it is gone. He effectively played the manliness card with me - I'm interested in guns for manly purposes whereas he is so manly that he doesn't even notice it. I play pokemon, hate beer and sports and look at pictures of cuddley puppies. I don't care about manliness. Trannies, women, nuns and cheerleaders should own firearms, too.
Your rate of murder and mass killings is much higher - part of that is access and glorification of firearms.
Oh - and we overcook the meat to make sure we don't get parasites that make us crazy, risk prone, and cause stillborns.
Strike For The South
07-18-2013, 02:13
Firearms are great, you guys are boring, Strike for the South wont know a good thing until it is gone. He effectively played the manliness card with me - I'm interested in guns for manly purposes whereas he is so manly that he doesn't even notice it. I play pokemon, hate beer and sports and look at pictures of cuddley puppies. I don't care about manliness. Trannies, women, nuns and cheerleaders should own firearms, too.
I don't want anyone to take anyone's guns away, I played the "joke" card in reference to Greyblades post.
I do think the idea that a tyrant would be stopped by privately owned firearms is a delusional fantasy, which assumes the tyrant doesn't have numbers and a militarized police force. Fascism/Communism/Tiddlywinks will come to America with most people thinking it's a good thing. A gun is only as good at safeguarding liberty as the brain behind it. To quote an oft repeated trope " a gun is just a tool". The same tool can just as easily be used to oppress .
I'm all for guns in personal safety. The lack of manners in the public sphere is appalling and would be better served by more guns. I would like to warn every would be hero out there though. You're much more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than an intruder. You are also statistically not likely to hit the intruder when you fire. So I guess that falls in the delusional fantasy camp as well.
ICantSpellDawg
07-18-2013, 02:18
I don't want anyone to take anyone's guns away, I played the "joke" card in reference to Greyblades post.
I do think the idea that a tyrant would be stopped by privately owned firearms is a delusional fantasy, which assumes the tyrant doesn't have numbers and a militarized police force. Fascism/Communism/Tiddlywinks will come to America with most people thinking it's a good thing. A gun is only as good at safeguarding liberty as the brain behind it. To quote an oft repeated trope " a gun is just a tool". The same tool can just as easily be used to oppress .
I'm all for guns in personal safety. The lack of manners in the public sphere is appalling and would be better served by more guns. I would like to warn every would be hero out there though. You're much more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than an intruder. You are also statistically not likely to hit the intruder when you fire. So I guess that falls in the delusional fantasy camp as well.
I do agree with you on those points. Zimmerman was wrong and negligent for his own safety and that of others when he pursued a lone individual in the night. Basic understanding of any animals is that when they feel threatened, they will become more threatening. The initial action led to a chain of events, compounded by the extremely poor decision of Martin to assault Zimmerman which was the proximate cause of Zimmermans self defence action which resulted in Martin's death. This could have been avoided so easily one would hope if everyone would rely less on machismo and more on "the lizard brain" (http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/activeshooter.html)
Guns are not a stop-measure for tyranny. Much better would be an educated, reasonably compassionate and engaged populace. With that type of a populace, guns are not as much of a threat either, so in a Utopia, guns are still not a bad thing.
Your rate of murder and mass killings is much higher - part of that is access and glorification of firearms.
Oh - and we overcook the meat to make sure we don't get parasites that make us crazy, risk prone, and cause stillborns.
+1 for properly cooking your meat.
a completely inoffensive name
07-18-2013, 11:56
Just to clarify, does medium rare count as properly cooked? Because that's how I order my steaks.
IIRC if it's still pink inside, there's a chance of parasite.
I just found a website that deals with the subject (Warning, contains potentially offensive language but also useful links): http://www.ihaveabrainparasite.com
a completely inoffensive name
07-18-2013, 12:17
Oh I remember that parasite. God damn it, I was really paranoid about it for a long time.
The wikipedia page suggests that you need to cook slabs of beef at least to medium in order to ensure it is safe. Thanks for scaring me again. Good thing I don't really eat meat unless I am at my parents house.
Well, even in the US where we love our red meat, it seems that there is relatively little risk that I am infected with the parasite.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2725979/table/T1/
At worst, there is a 16% chance I am infected. If I happen to be one of those 16%, that's just bad luck that I could not do anything about. I have been more or less vegetarian since I went off to college, I only eat meat when I go home. Obviously there was little say I had in the matter when I was young about eating whats on my plate.
ICantSpellDawg
07-18-2013, 12:40
Listen, I order my meat medium-well, because at every restaurant that means Medium. Over cooking increases you risk of gastrointestinal carcinoma, a hallmark of the nanny state. I'm gonna go into Manhattan, open carrying, while smoking a bowl, riding up and down an escalator for hours, eating rare meat and beef chugging a 90 ounce slurpee, in a thong. F thr state. Obviously not because I don't want to get arrested, but you can imagine what it it would be like if I did, right? No? Everybody on the bus.
a completely inoffensive name
07-18-2013, 12:55
Listen, I order my meat medium-well, because at every restaurant that means Medium. Over cooking increases you risk of gastrointestinal carcinoma, a hallmark of the nanny state. I'm gonna go into Manhattan, open carrying, while smoking a bowl, riding up and down an escalator for hours, eating rare meat and beef chugging a 90 ounce slurpee, in a thong. F thr state. Obviously not because I don't want to get arrested, but you can imagine what it it would be like if I did, right? No? Everybody on the bus.
Dude, it is 8am on the East Coast right now, how are you STILL drunk?
The trick is to simply cut the meat into smaller pieces and then cook it until it's done, not black (which is what I'd call overcooked) but not raw anymore either. The smaller the pieces, the easier to do that. Noone forces you to to cook an entire animal in one piece, you cut or bite pieces off to eat it anyway.
Here's some positive news, via Gallup polling...
Fewer Blacks in U.S. See Bias in Jobs, Income, and Housing (http://www.gallup.com/poll/163580/fewer-blacks-bias-jobs-income-housing.aspx)
The poll asked "On the average, blacks have worse jobs, income and housing than whites. Do you think this is mostly due to discrimination against blacks, or is it mostly due to something else?"
In 1993, the poll was almost even split. Now 37/60- with 60% sayings something other than discrimination is the main reason. The younger demographics are much more likely to say "something else" (30/68), while blacks 55+ are split (47/51).
To me, this is somewhat reassuring to see. Younger generations are less likely to blame discrimination- and this trend will probably continue. Maybe things are getting better, despite the best efforts of many civil rights leaders to convince them otherwise.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.