And you still have your sarcasm detector off, I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
MRD isn't wrong - but it's a matter of balance in the legislation.
Printable View
And you still have your sarcasm detector off, I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
MRD isn't wrong - but it's a matter of balance in the legislation.
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
You should Always read everyone's entire post
Dude, I've been reading vuk's posts for about a year now, I cant tell anymore.
HAHAHAHQuote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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.Quote:
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.
Either of those call into question "lethal intent".
There is a question worth considering that you don't want to: Did Zimmerman instigate the conflict because he had the gun?Quote:
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.
Europeans are not ignorant of the American context - but you want to be condescending I shall return the favour.Quote:
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Then again - you're talking to an Englishman, my country is one of the oldest and most politically stable in Europe anyway.
:grin:Quote:
Morality, ethics [...] are not concepts where you can find a one-size-fits-all.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Another interesting point viz differences with the UK: The second officer on the scene was the first one to examine Martin.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
Ah, so you would impose the doctrine of non-imposition on others?Quote:
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.
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.
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....
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
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.
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.Quote:
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....
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/arti...oot-Miami.html
Looks premeditated to me.Quote:
the guy just stood his head up like that with a piece of flesh in his mouth and growled.'
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.
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
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...elf-in-florida
So, lied to a judge?
Twice?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
What about the second passport?
Not disclosing something is not the same as lying if answering a vague question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.,
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I loved you until you brought the Eagles into this. Uncalled-for, man!Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
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"?
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
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.
WHAT IS THIS WHAT HAVE YOU DONEQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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?Quote:
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"?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
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.
I heard before Treyvon died he was also raped by the Duke Lacrosse team. Man, this country has problems.