Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Trayvon Martin]'s Violent Attack on George Zimmerman

1102103105107108147

Posts

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I've been involved in at least four altercations over the years. One resulted in non-judicial punishment for assault. So now I wonder, if I were involved in a self-defense shooting, how the media would frame all of those incidents. Yes, I do have an agenda. My agenda is that I don't think it's legitimate to pretend you know all the relevant information, then throw around assumptions based on it, just so you can feel good in the judgment that you'd have settled on regardless of how little information you may have had. Shit isn't always what it seems.

    <3

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    I should point out I am speaking only in the context of the law, and the courts, here. And don't try to pretend, Bhaalen, that you aren't...you've already said he should do at least four years or so, so clearly you are talking in terms of what should happen in court.

    Your making the assumption that Treyvon turned on Zimmerman. I'm not. It would be reckless if Treyvon turned on him out of anger. Your not even willing to entertain the idea that he was afraid for his life. It's kinda strange really.

    Actually, this motive isn't required for recklessness. You can act recklessly out of fear. Maybe this is where the confusion lies?

    I'm also not making the assumption as to who attacked who.

    I'm make a presumption of innocence in a court of law, that's it. If Trayvon were here to stand trial for this alleged assault, I'd give him the same.

    Spoiler:
  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    How many total previous incidents? Of those, how many total victims involved? Were multiple altercations with the same person? These are all relevant.

    You can't tell that your stretching to fit some agenda or world view you have? We know how many victims and how many altercations. On top of that, none were with the same person. That just makes your argument here even worse.

    So four previous incidents, with four previous victims. Good. Now we just need circumstances.

    Of course, who are we going to trust as a source for a complete view of the circumstances in all four incidents?

    Or maybe we should not play amateur juror using the media as the prosecution (and introducing evidence that would never be admissible anyway).

    I've been involved in at least four altercations over the years. One resulted in non-judicial punishment for assault. So now I wonder, if I were involved in a self-defense shooting, how the media would frame all of those incidents. Yes, I do have an agenda. My agenda is that I don't think it's legitimate to pretend you know all the relevant information, then throw around assumptions based on it, just so you can feel good in the judgment that you'd have settled on regardless of how little information you may have had. Shit isn't always what it seems.

    Especially in cases as charged as this one.

    The same could be said for everything you've said as well. We can't discuss this without some common ground. I'm not saying I'm right about what happened. I'm saying what I think most likely happened. Not to mention, theres a REALLY big difference between non judicial punishment for assault, and 4 full on assault charges with one being a police officer, and an eyewitness stating Zimmerman threw a woman on the ground, and is like Jekyll and Hyde. Last time I checked eyewitness testimony is admissable in a trial.

    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    How many total previous incidents? Of those, how many total victims involved? Were multiple altercations with the same person? These are all relevant.

    You can't tell that your stretching to fit some agenda or world view you have? We know how many victims and how many altercations. On top of that, none were with the same person. That just makes your argument here even worse.

    So four previous incidents, with four previous victims. Good. Now we just need circumstances.

    Of course, who are we going to trust as a source for a complete view of the circumstances in all four incidents?

    Or maybe we should not play amateur juror using the media as the prosecution (and introducing evidence that would never be admissible anyway).

    I've been involved in at least four altercations over the years. One resulted in non-judicial punishment for assault. So now I wonder, if I were involved in a self-defense shooting, how the media would frame all of those incidents. Yes, I do have an agenda. My agenda is that I don't think it's legitimate to pretend you know all the relevant information, then throw around assumptions based on it, just so you can feel good in the judgment that you'd have settled on regardless of how little information you may have had. Shit isn't always what it seems.

    Especially in cases as charged as this one.

    The same could be said for everything you've said as well. We can't discuss this without some common ground. I'm not saying I'm right about what happened. I'm saying what I think most likely happened. Not to mention, theres a REALLY big difference between non judicial punishment for assault, and 4 full on assault charges with one being a police officer....

    I hit a kid repeatedly in the face with a blunt object, with the intent of harming him greatly. Trust me, the reason it wasn't pressed as an assault is because NJP is what the military uses for discipline except as a last resort.

    And one being on a police officer? Says he shoved the officer, who was undercover. And alcohol was involved, IIRC? Like the officer was arresting a friend who was underage? I forget. Sounds to me like it could easily be a misunderstanding, or a routine scuffle that plenty of relatively normal people could wind up in, except that this time a cop was there.

    Or not. I don't know. But you're pretending to.

    ...and an eyewitness stating Zimmerman threw a woman on the ground, and is like Jekyll and Hyde. Last time I checked eyewitness testimony is admissable in a trial.

    So throw a woman on the ground one time, ever, and that's it? You're assumed to be the bad guy in any incident unless you can prove otherwise? Like, I get it, you don't hit women. I'm a civilized dude. But...that in and of itself doesn't say much about how he'd react in the situation at hand. Again, you're taking a handful of data points, and extrapolating. And you don't even have great measurements of those data points.


    Also, you notice how I don't even have a real firm grasp on the incidents you're talking about? That's because I'm not about to use a handful of news stories of questionable bias* to try and form a complete understanding of the history and character of George fucking Zimmerman. Because that would make me a silly goose.

    * - In either direction...to include that one fluff piece that was linked.

    Spoiler:
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    The same could be said for everything you've said as well. We can't discuss this without some common ground. I'm not saying I'm right about what happened. I'm saying what I think most likely happened. Not to mention, theres a REALLY big difference between non judicial punishment for assault, and 4 full on assault charges with one being a police officer, and an eyewitness stating Zimmerman threw a woman on the ground, and is like Jekyll and Hyde. Last time I checked eyewitness testimony is admissable in a trial.

    You're talking about character evidence.
    In the United States, character evidence is inadmissible in a criminal trial if first offered by the prosecution as circumstantial evidence to show that a defendant is likely to have committed the crime with which he or she is charged

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_evidence#Character_witness

  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    edited May 2012
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I should point out I am speaking only in the context of the law, and the courts, here. And don't try to pretend, Bhaalen, that you aren't...you've already said he should do at least four years or so, so clearly you are talking in terms of what should happen in court.

    Your making the assumption that Treyvon turned on Zimmerman. I'm not. It would be reckless if Treyvon turned on him out of anger. Your not even willing to entertain the idea that he was afraid for his life. It's kinda strange really.

    Actually, this motive isn't required for recklessness. You can act recklessly out of fear. Maybe this is where the confusion lies?

    I'm also not making the assumption as to who attacked who.

    I'm make a presumption of innocence in a court of law, that's it. If Trayvon were here to stand trial for this alleged assault, I'd give him the same.

    Your twisting my words. I never said he should do 4 yrs. Bowen asked if I thought that was enough time for him in prison, and I said that would be enough for a coward like Zimmerman. You might think I'm saying Zimmerman is guilty when I call him a coward, but I'm not. I think anyone who stalks someone like that, and the minute they turn on him in a fistfight they KILL the other person is a coward. That doesn't mean Treyvon is isn't either.

    I'm just sooooo mad at this Zimmerman guy for going out of his way to be a vigilante. Treyvon is dead now. Forever dead, and for what? So some guy could feel like a hero? No matter whether you think Zimmerman murdered him , accidently killed him, or truly acted in self defense, the death of Treyvon is on his hands. It never should of happened plain and simple.

    That's all I'm looking to discuss really. How selfish and stupid a man Zimmerman is for being Mr. Vigilante and it leading to a young mans death.



    Bhaalen on
    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    I think anyone who stalks someone like that, and the minute they turn on him in a fistfight they KILL the other person is a coward.

    And are they being a coward when they're having their head slammed into the ground?

    I mean really, how much more than anyone else is Zimmerman obligated to risk his life? What if there were fewer assault charges?

  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    Oh, okay. So if I trip a guy does gravity become my deadly weapon?

    If you bash his skull against it it is. So how about we stick with what Zimmerman claimed happened rather than whatever made up case you're clinging to.
    Derrick wrote: »
    As to your second point (if you can call it that), it's really not worthy of a response. I'm asking, if the situation is reversed, is it still okay to kill someone?

    It wasn't because it wasn't what happened. Work with the actual situation and justify your argument. As much trouble as you seem to have doing that.

    Ah apparently your mind isn't strong enough to simply swap out a variable in a single incident in order to gauge actions. I'm sorry for your disability.

    We don't stick to what Zimmerman claimed happened, because the man is a killer trying to beat a case.

    While I'm on the subject, it doesn't matter what Zimmerman thought about the altercation. The law goes by what a reasonable person would think in that situation. Reasonable able-bodied men at 30 years of age don't think skinny 17 year olds are willing and capable of beating them to death. We're not talking star jock of the Football team here so let's not pretend we are.

    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    edited May 2012
    Derrick wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    Oh, okay. So if I trip a guy does gravity become my deadly weapon?

    If you bash his skull against it it is. So how about we stick with what Zimmerman claimed happened rather than whatever made up case you're clinging to.
    Derrick wrote: »
    As to your second point (if you can call it that), it's really not worthy of a response. I'm asking, if the situation is reversed, is it still okay to kill someone?

    It wasn't because it wasn't what happened. Work with the actual situation and justify your argument. As much trouble as you seem to have doing that.

    Ah apparently your mind isn't strong enough to simply swap out a variable in a single incident in order to gauge actions. I'm sorry for your disability.

    We don't stick to what Zimmerman claimed happened, because the man is a killer trying to beat a case.

    While I'm on the subject, it doesn't matter what Zimmerman thought about the altercation. The law goes by what a reasonable person would think in that situation. Reasonable able-bodied men at 30 years of age don't think skinny 17 year olds are willing and capable of beating them to death. We're not talking star jock of the Football team here so let's not pretend we are.

    Your talking common sense. Their talking pedantry. Even if some person actually saw this all go down, they would have some excuse for why that might not mean anything. You can't win, so I'm throwing in the towel.

    Bhaalen on
    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote: »
    We don't stick to what Zimmerman claimed happened, because the man is a killer trying to beat a case.

    Excellent you have actual proof then? Seriously Martin's family and probably Florida's court system would appreciate it if you'd bring it forward.
    Derrick wrote: »
    While I'm on the subject, it doesn't matter what Zimmerman thought about the altercation. The law goes by what a reasonable person would think in that situation. Reasonable able-bodied men at 30 years of age don't think skinny 17 year olds are willing and capable of beating them to death. We're not talking star jock of the Football team here so let's not pretend we are.
    And quite a number of these men have likely gotten their ass kicked by a skinny teenager. At which point it's quite possible they've found their head being beaten in to the ground by them afterward.

    Unless, you know, you have proof that it's impossible for that to have happened in this situation.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Your talking common sense. Their talking pedantry. Even if some person actually saw this all go down, they would have some excuse for why that might not mean anything.

    I'm sorry? Was citing the fact that your evidence you suggested was in fact not usable not using common sense?

    I didn't realize that common sense was adjusting the law to fit your whims.

    And no, I wouldn't have some excuse for your other scenario. But that is not the scenario here. The fact that you and Derrick need to create wholly separate scenarios is incredibly telling.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Your talking common sense. Their talking pedantry. Even if some person actually saw this all go down, they would have some excuse for why that might not mean anything. You can't win, so I'm throwing in the towel.

    Eyewitness testimony would probably be better than what we have.

    Though there are notorious problems with eyewitness testimony, too.

    This is something we often bring up around here when we think somebody is being, or has been, prosecuted unjustly. Easy to forget when the eyewitness testimony agrees with our own desired judgment.

    mcdermott on
    Spoiler:
  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    Quid wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Your talking common sense. Their talking pedantry. Even if some person actually saw this all go down, they would have some excuse for why that might not mean anything.

    I'm sorry? Was citing the fact that your evidence you suggested was in fact not usable not using common sense?

    I didn't realize that common sense was adjusting the law to fit your whims.

    And no, I wouldn't have some excuse for your other scenario. But that is not the scenario here. The fact that you and Derrick need to create wholly separate scenarios is incredibly telling.

    Quid, what's your personal belief about what happened that day. No BS about not enough evidence. There's plenty out there. Trials have been won and lost on more then we have to go on. So tell me, what's your personal take.

    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    We don't stick to what Zimmerman claimed happened, because the man is a killer trying to beat a case.

    Excellent you have actual proof then? Seriously Martin's family and probably Florida's court system would appreciate it if you'd bring it forward.
    Derrick wrote: »
    While I'm on the subject, it doesn't matter what Zimmerman thought about the altercation. The law goes by what a reasonable person would think in that situation. Reasonable able-bodied men at 30 years of age don't think skinny 17 year olds are willing and capable of beating them to death. We're not talking star jock of the Football team here so let's not pretend we are.
    And quite a number of these men have likely gotten their ass kicked by a skinny teenager. At which point it's quite possible they've found their head being beaten in to the ground by them afterward.

    Unless, you know, you have proof that it's impossible for that to have happened in this situation.

    Maybe, but both parties would still be alive, which is kind of important on the decent human being scale.

    Also, Zimmerman is a killer. He's admitted it. The question is, does the law think it's okay for an able bodied grown man of 30 years to kill a 17 year old unarmed kid for losing a fight? Especially considering the events that led up to said altercation are all, admittedly, in Zimmerman's court. Playing night stalker is going to lead to altercations, news at 11.

    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Quid, what's your personal belief about what happened that day. No BS about not enough evidence. There's plenty out there. Trials have been won and lost on more then we have to go on. So tell me, what's your personal take.

    I personally think Zimmerman's probably guilty of actually starting a fight that escalated. But I obviously can't say for sure as I was not there.

    However that's also entirely irrelevant as it's not about what I think, it's about the prosecutor can prove to the court. And something I value far more than whether or not Zimmerman killed Martin is due process. Which means that sometimes assholes are going to get off the hook. It also means that people who only seem guilty as Hell are saved by the system.

  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    Derrick wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    We don't stick to what Zimmerman claimed happened, because the man is a killer trying to beat a case.

    Excellent you have actual proof then? Seriously Martin's family and probably Florida's court system would appreciate it if you'd bring it forward.
    Derrick wrote: »
    While I'm on the subject, it doesn't matter what Zimmerman thought about the altercation. The law goes by what a reasonable person would think in that situation. Reasonable able-bodied men at 30 years of age don't think skinny 17 year olds are willing and capable of beating them to death. We're not talking star jock of the Football team here so let's not pretend we are.
    And quite a number of these men have likely gotten their ass kicked by a skinny teenager. At which point it's quite possible they've found their head being beaten in to the ground by them afterward.

    Unless, you know, you have proof that it's impossible for that to have happened in this situation.

    Maybe, but both parties would still be alive, which is kind of important on the decent human being scale.

    Also, Zimmerman is a killer. He's admitted it. The question is, does the law think it's okay for an able bodied grown man of 30 years to kill a 17 year old unarmed kid for losing a fight? Especially considering the events that led up to said altercation are all, admittedly, in Zimmerman's court. Playing night stalker is going to lead to altercations, news at 11.

    <3

    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote: »
    Maybe, but both parties would still be alive, which is kind of important on the decent human being scale.
    So is not slamming someone's head in to the ground.
    Also, Zimmerman is a killer. He's admitted it. The question is, does the law think it's okay for an able bodied grown man of 30 years to kill a 17 year old unarmed kid for losing a fight? Especially considering the events that led up to said altercation are all, admittedly, in Zimmerman's court. Playing night stalker is going to lead to altercations, news at 11.
    So you'll assault anyone who follows you with deadly force?

    That's really not a decent thing to do there, buddy.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    I ain't Quid, but I'll say straight up that I don't even have a personal take. There's no scenario that I think is probable enough, compared to the others, to say that's "what I think happened."

    Simply not enough information.

    I'm willing to say I think this much happened:


    1) Zimmerman followed Martin
    2) ???
    3) Zimmerman and Martin were locked in a physical altercation
    4) ???
    5) Zimmerman shot Martin.


    Even (3) isn't definite, but I feel pretty confident that this happened.


    (2) could either be Zimmerman trying to stop and detain Martin through an implied or explicit physical threat. It could also be Martin taking offense to being followed, and starting an altercation with Zimmerman. Or it could be some combination of the two.

    (4) could be that Zimmerman was being beaten badly enough he feared for his safety (not necessarily life, and that's not required...just great bodily harm). So he shot. It could also be that he thought Martin might get ahold of his gun, so he shot. Or it could be that he's just an asshole that didn't want to lose a fight, so he shot.


    I consider any combination of (2) and (4) to be pretty damn plausible. There are other options, like Zimmerman intentionally killing Martin to cover up a possible "false arrest" gone bad. That's somewhat plausible as well. I place it well below the others, though.

    EDIT: If you're willing to say with any level of confidence more than the above, then I think you're probably reaching to satisfy a bias. Which includes if you're willing to fill in (2) or (4).

    mcdermott on
    Spoiler:
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Quid, what's your personal belief about what happened that day. No BS about not enough evidence. There's plenty out there. Trials have been won and lost on more then we have to go on. So tell me, what's your personal take.

    I personally think Zimmerman's probably guilty of actually starting a fight that escalated. But I obviously can't say for sure as I was not there.

    However that's also entirely irrelevant as it's not about what I think, it's about the prosecutor can prove to the court. And something I value far more than whether or not Zimmerman killed Martin is due process. Which means that sometimes assholes are going to get off the hook. It also means that people who only seem guilty as Hell are saved by the system.

    <3

    (am i doing this right)

    Spoiler:
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Also, Zimmerman is a killer. He's admitted it. The question is, does the law think it's okay for an able bodied grown man of 30 years to kill a 17 year old unarmed kid for losing a fight? Especially considering the events that led up to said altercation are all, admittedly, in Zimmerman's court. Playing night stalker is going to lead to altercations, news at 11.

    Playing night stalker shouldn't lead to altercations.

    People should be fucking civilized and be much less quick to assault each other.

    Spoiler:
  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    Maybe, but both parties would still be alive, which is kind of important on the decent human being scale.
    So is not slamming someone's head in to the ground.
    Also, Zimmerman is a killer. He's admitted it. The question is, does the law think it's okay for an able bodied grown man of 30 years to kill a 17 year old unarmed kid for losing a fight? Especially considering the events that led up to said altercation are all, admittedly, in Zimmerman's court. Playing night stalker is going to lead to altercations, news at 11.
    So you'll assault anyone who follows you with deadly force?

    That's really not a decent thing to do there, buddy.

    I'll be afraid if a grown man is stalking me at night in the rain, yes. Maybe that's not super macho, but you had better believe that I'd feel I was in danger. Apparently, feeling you're in danger (or Great Bodily Harm, whatever vague notion that is) is enough to kill someone in Florida. So while no, *I* wouldn't kill someone for stalking me, maybe Florida thinks that's okay.

    Maybe the law in Florida is idiotic and was written by Conservatives yanking off to the NRA. That seems likely to me, considering the demographics.

    I just find this whole counter argument to be *wonderfully* inept. First of all, you pretend that everything Zimmerman is accused of "isn't provable!" but everything Martin is accused of must have happened. Newsflash Einstein- People fall down in fights. People hit their head on the ground in fights. You're making a little blood on Zimmerman to be Martin recreating the curb stomp scene from American History X.

    If you're going to argue the case by throwing out any and all notions that are not 100% provable, do it HONESTLY and throw out assumptions about Martin's behavior as well. Otherwise, you're just being a goose.



    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, Zimmerman is a killer. He's admitted it. The question is, does the law think it's okay for an able bodied grown man of 30 years to kill a 17 year old unarmed kid for losing a fight? Especially considering the events that led up to said altercation are all, admittedly, in Zimmerman's court. Playing night stalker is going to lead to altercations, news at 11.

    Playing night stalker shouldn't lead to altercations.

    People should be fucking civilized and be much less quick to assault each other.

    Holy....o....m....g. How about being civilized enough to not stalk each other? Oh, and would you look at that. You're doing the same thing you've accused me of this entire time. My brother in law spit milk out of his nose at this post.

    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, Zimmerman is a killer. He's admitted it. The question is, does the law think it's okay for an able bodied grown man of 30 years to kill a 17 year old unarmed kid for losing a fight? Especially considering the events that led up to said altercation are all, admittedly, in Zimmerman's court. Playing night stalker is going to lead to altercations, news at 11.

    Playing night stalker shouldn't lead to altercations.

    People should be fucking civilized and be much less quick to assault each other.

    Holy....o....m....g. How about being civilized enough to not stalk each other? Oh, and would you look at that. You're doing the same thing you've accused me of this entire time. My brother in law spit milk out of his nose at this post.

    To my knowledge, being night-stalked alone has never lead to permanent injury or death. Maybe that's a difference? But yes, is is also uncivilized. As is burglary, which apparently led to the night stalking. As is possession of what is likely stolen property, which while not directly related is ironic to me. Or maybe that's not irony. Fucking Alanis messing with my head.


    I've actually been permanently injured by a minor and short altercation with somebody. I've had friends that have been as well. So yeah, I consider physically assaulting somebody to be on a different level of uncivilization than mere "night stalking."

    Spoiler:
  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, Zimmerman is a killer. He's admitted it. The question is, does the law think it's okay for an able bodied grown man of 30 years to kill a 17 year old unarmed kid for losing a fight? Especially considering the events that led up to said altercation are all, admittedly, in Zimmerman's court. Playing night stalker is going to lead to altercations, news at 11.

    Playing night stalker shouldn't lead to altercations.

    People should be fucking civilized and be much less quick to assault each other.

    And maybe kicking in somebody's door at 3am shouldn't lead to altercations either. However, in the real world, both are highly threatening behaviors that WILL lead to altercations.

    If you can't handle the consequences, don't do the action. In plain English, if you're too pussy to lose a fight and not kill somebody over it, don't go around starting shit.

    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Derrick wrote: »
    I'll be afraid if a grown man is stalking me at night in the rain, yes. Maybe that's not super macho, but you had better believe that I'd feel I was in danger. Apparently, feeling you're in danger (or Great Bodily Harm, whatever vague notion that is) is enough to kill someone in Florida. So while no, *I* wouldn't kill someone for stalking me, maybe Florida thinks that's okay.

    Imminent.

    mcdermott on
    Spoiler:
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, Zimmerman is a killer. He's admitted it. The question is, does the law think it's okay for an able bodied grown man of 30 years to kill a 17 year old unarmed kid for losing a fight? Especially considering the events that led up to said altercation are all, admittedly, in Zimmerman's court. Playing night stalker is going to lead to altercations, news at 11.

    Playing night stalker shouldn't lead to altercations.

    People should be fucking civilized and be much less quick to assault each other.

    And maybe kicking in somebody's door at 3am shouldn't lead to altercations either. However, in the real world, both are highly threatening behaviors that WILL lead to altercations.

    If you can't handle the consequences, don't do the action. In plain English, if you're too pussy to lose a fight and not kill somebody over it, don't go around starting shit.

    If you don't want to take a bullet for starting a fight, don't go around hitting people...

    ...round and round we go


    I also find it amusing that you're trying to equate simply following somebody on a public street (nighttime or no) with kicking their damn door down. That's....that's something, I guess.

    Spoiler:
  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, Zimmerman is a killer. He's admitted it. The question is, does the law think it's okay for an able bodied grown man of 30 years to kill a 17 year old unarmed kid for losing a fight? Especially considering the events that led up to said altercation are all, admittedly, in Zimmerman's court. Playing night stalker is going to lead to altercations, news at 11.

    Playing night stalker shouldn't lead to altercations.

    People should be fucking civilized and be much less quick to assault each other.

    And maybe kicking in somebody's door at 3am shouldn't lead to altercations either. However, in the real world, both are highly threatening behaviors that WILL lead to altercations.

    If you can't handle the consequences, don't do the action. In plain English, if you're too pussy to lose a fight and not kill somebody over it, don't go around starting shit.

    If you don't want to take a bullet for starting a fight, don't go around hitting people...

    ...round and round we go


    I also find it amusing that you're trying to equate simply following somebody on a public street (nighttime or no) with kicking their damn door down. That's....that's something, I guess.

    I didn't say they were equivalent, I said they were both threatening behaviors likely to start an altercation.

    Please address the arguments given. Thank you.

    [edit] Also, again, no evidence NONE for Martin starting that fight. So your round doesn't work.

    More like, don't go around buying skittles in your own neighborhood or you might end up getting stalked, assaulted and shot.

    Yeah, real Kosher.



    Derrick on
    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, Zimmerman is a killer. He's admitted it. The question is, does the law think it's okay for an able bodied grown man of 30 years to kill a 17 year old unarmed kid for losing a fight? Especially considering the events that led up to said altercation are all, admittedly, in Zimmerman's court. Playing night stalker is going to lead to altercations, news at 11.

    Playing night stalker shouldn't lead to altercations.

    People should be fucking civilized and be much less quick to assault each other.

    And maybe kicking in somebody's door at 3am shouldn't lead to altercations either. However, in the real world, both are highly threatening behaviors that WILL lead to altercations.

    If you can't handle the consequences, don't do the action. In plain English, if you're too pussy to lose a fight and not kill somebody over it, don't go around starting shit.

    If you don't want to take a bullet for starting a fight, don't go around hitting people...

    ...round and round we go


    I also find it amusing that you're trying to equate simply following somebody on a public street (nighttime or no) with kicking their damn door down. That's....that's something, I guess.

    I didn't say they were equivalent, I said they were both threatening behaviors likely to start an altercation.

    Please address the arguments given. Thank you.

    Kicking in a door at 3am is a much more overtly threatening act. Orders of magnitude more, even.

    There, that was easy.

    Spoiler:
  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, Zimmerman is a killer. He's admitted it. The question is, does the law think it's okay for an able bodied grown man of 30 years to kill a 17 year old unarmed kid for losing a fight? Especially considering the events that led up to said altercation are all, admittedly, in Zimmerman's court. Playing night stalker is going to lead to altercations, news at 11.

    Playing night stalker shouldn't lead to altercations.

    People should be fucking civilized and be much less quick to assault each other.

    Holy....o....m....g. How about being civilized enough to not stalk each other? Oh, and would you look at that. You're doing the same thing you've accused me of this entire time. My brother in law spit milk out of his nose at this post.

    To my knowledge, being night-stalked alone has never lead to permanent injury or death. Maybe that's a difference? But yes, is is also uncivilized. As is burglary, which apparently led to the night stalking. As is possession of what is likely stolen property, which while not directly related is ironic to me. Or maybe that's not irony. Fucking Alanis messing with my head.


    I've actually been permanently injured by a minor and short altercation with somebody. I've had friends that have been as well. So yeah, I consider physically assaulting somebody to be on a different level of uncivilization than mere "night stalking."

    ... I think there are plenty of murder victims who would love to agree with you, if they were still alive.

    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, Zimmerman is a killer. He's admitted it. The question is, does the law think it's okay for an able bodied grown man of 30 years to kill a 17 year old unarmed kid for losing a fight? Especially considering the events that led up to said altercation are all, admittedly, in Zimmerman's court. Playing night stalker is going to lead to altercations, news at 11.

    Playing night stalker shouldn't lead to altercations.

    People should be fucking civilized and be much less quick to assault each other.

    And maybe kicking in somebody's door at 3am shouldn't lead to altercations either. However, in the real world, both are highly threatening behaviors that WILL lead to altercations.

    If you can't handle the consequences, don't do the action. In plain English, if you're too pussy to lose a fight and not kill somebody over it, don't go around starting shit.

    If you don't want to take a bullet for starting a fight, don't go around hitting people...

    ...round and round we go


    I also find it amusing that you're trying to equate simply following somebody on a public street (nighttime or no) with kicking their damn door down. That's....that's something, I guess.

    I didn't say they were equivalent, I said they were both threatening behaviors likely to start an altercation.

    Please address the arguments given. Thank you.

    [edit] Also, again, no evidence NONE for Martin starting that fight. So your round doesn't work.

    More like, don't go around buying skittles in your own neighborhood or you might end up getting stalked, assaulted and shot.

    Yeah, real Kosher.

    And no evidence for Zimmerman starting that fight either. So we don't know how the Skittles->shot chain works.

    Spoiler:
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, Zimmerman is a killer. He's admitted it. The question is, does the law think it's okay for an able bodied grown man of 30 years to kill a 17 year old unarmed kid for losing a fight? Especially considering the events that led up to said altercation are all, admittedly, in Zimmerman's court. Playing night stalker is going to lead to altercations, news at 11.

    Playing night stalker shouldn't lead to altercations.

    People should be fucking civilized and be much less quick to assault each other.

    Holy....o....m....g. How about being civilized enough to not stalk each other? Oh, and would you look at that. You're doing the same thing you've accused me of this entire time. My brother in law spit milk out of his nose at this post.

    To my knowledge, being night-stalked alone has never lead to permanent injury or death. Maybe that's a difference? But yes, is is also uncivilized. As is burglary, which apparently led to the night stalking. As is possession of what is likely stolen property, which while not directly related is ironic to me. Or maybe that's not irony. Fucking Alanis messing with my head.


    I've actually been permanently injured by a minor and short altercation with somebody. I've had friends that have been as well. So yeah, I consider physically assaulting somebody to be on a different level of uncivilization than mere "night stalking."

    ... I think there are plenty of murder victims who would love to agree with you, if they were still alive.

    Bolded, for her pleasure.

    Under Florida law or any other, you have to wait until physical harm is imminent to physically attack somebody. Otherwise, you're nothing but another violent criminal.

    Spoiler:
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Also, can I suggest something?

    Can we just argue under the assumption that Martin attacked Zimmerman? Now wait a second, backspace those exclamation points. Pretty much all of you seem to want to argue the "even if" scenario, that is "even if Martin attacked Zimmerman, since Zimmerman was night stalkin' he is still at fault." Right? But then when you have posts like Derrick's above which is all "zomg there's no evidence that Martin attacked first" [true!] it gets all stupid, because we have to do the dance again pointing out that there's no evidence either fucking way.

    But one side seems content to argue that Zimmerman is guilty regardless. Like, in-court should-go-to-jail guilty. Because no matter who attacked first, he was unjustified. Right?

    So let's just stick to that, so every two pages we don't have to do this dance over who has evidence when I'm the one freely admitting I have none. Because my entire position is based around the legal presumption of innocence, and any argument I make regarding potential justification are in response only to the "even if" scenario.

    Spoiler:
  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, Zimmerman is a killer. He's admitted it. The question is, does the law think it's okay for an able bodied grown man of 30 years to kill a 17 year old unarmed kid for losing a fight? Especially considering the events that led up to said altercation are all, admittedly, in Zimmerman's court. Playing night stalker is going to lead to altercations, news at 11.

    Playing night stalker shouldn't lead to altercations.

    People should be fucking civilized and be much less quick to assault each other.

    Holy....o....m....g. How about being civilized enough to not stalk each other? Oh, and would you look at that. You're doing the same thing you've accused me of this entire time. My brother in law spit milk out of his nose at this post.

    To my knowledge, being night-stalked alone has never lead to permanent injury or death. Maybe that's a difference? But yes, is is also uncivilized. As is burglary, which apparently led to the night stalking. As is possession of what is likely stolen property, which while not directly related is ironic to me. Or maybe that's not irony. Fucking Alanis messing with my head.


    I've actually been permanently injured by a minor and short altercation with somebody. I've had friends that have been as well. So yeah, I consider physically assaulting somebody to be on a different level of uncivilization than mere "night stalking."

    ... I think there are plenty of murder victims who would love to agree with you, if they were still alive.

    Bolded, for her pleasure.

    Under Florida law or any other, you have to wait until physical harm is imminent to physically attack somebody. Otherwise, you're nothing but another violent criminal.

    I'm pretty sure most murderers work alone, so I'm not sure what your point is?

    Also, at what point do we consider physical harm to be imminent? Is it when the night stalker openly displays his knife and tells you that you're about to die, or after he's slit your throat? Some point before that?

    And while we're on the subject of great bodily harm, I tend to interpret that as loss of a limb or major irrecoverable damage. Not a fucking nose bleed.

    I also think that if Martin were white and female, they'd be warming up the gas chamber right about now because all of the assumptions that Martin was somehow responsible for Zimmerman's behavior would go up in smoke.

    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote: »
    I'll be afraid if a grown man is stalking me at night in the rain, yes. Maybe that's not super macho, but you had better believe that I'd feel I was in danger. Apparently, feeling you're in danger (or Great Bodily Harm, whatever vague notion that is) is enough to kill someone in Florida. So while no, *I* wouldn't kill someone for stalking me, maybe Florida thinks that's okay.

    This fails to address the point. Do you believe it is reasonable to respond to someone following you by attacking them with deadly force? Yes or no?
    Derrick wrote: »
    I just find this whole counter argument to be *wonderfully* inept. First of all, you pretend that everything Zimmerman is accused of "isn't provable!" but everything Martin is accused of must have happened.
    Nope!

    You know what they say about making assumptions, right?

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, Zimmerman is a killer. He's admitted it. The question is, does the law think it's okay for an able bodied grown man of 30 years to kill a 17 year old unarmed kid for losing a fight? Especially considering the events that led up to said altercation are all, admittedly, in Zimmerman's court. Playing night stalker is going to lead to altercations, news at 11.

    Playing night stalker shouldn't lead to altercations.

    People should be fucking civilized and be much less quick to assault each other.

    Holy....o....m....g. How about being civilized enough to not stalk each other?

    Are you justifying attacking someone with deadly force because they followed you?

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure most murderers work alone, so I'm not sure what your point is?

    Also, at what point do we consider physical harm to be imminent? Is it when the night stalker openly displays his knife and tells you that you're about to die, or after he's slit your throat? Some point before that?

    Probably at about the "displays knife" point, yup. That's what "imminent" means in this context. Don't need to wait 'til he stabs you, though.

    Up until then, he may well just be a creepy guy who happens to be walking the same way as you. So don't go punching him.

    And while we're on the subject of great bodily harm, I tend to interpret that as loss of a limb or major irrecoverable damage. Not a fucking nose bleed.

    The law disagrees. Not just in Florida, either. There's a whole spectrum between "loss of limb" and "nose bleed" that qualifies.

    I also think that if Martin were white and female, they'd be warming up the gas chamber right about now because all of the assumptions that Martin was somehow responsible for Zimmerman's behavior would go up in smoke.

    This would be a good thing?

    Spoiler:
  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    This would be a good thing?

    What would be a good thing is if people on the counter argument side argued in good faith. One step to that is using different variables to test assumptions. There's a LOT of assumption on your side of the fence that Martin attacked Zimmerman and thus deserved to die. I find both the assumption and the logic disgusting, but I think if you're going to be honest with yourself and with this forum, you need to drop that assumption.

    The hilarious thing that neither you nor Quid has been able to discern is that I have, in essence, turned your argument against you and you're just clamoring at how silly a notion it is. If it's not okay to kill someone for stalking you (a threatening behavior favored by many serial killers and other mass murderers), it's not okay to kill someone for losing a fight.

    Now, back to point one, let's drop the assumption that Martin started the fight, as that is not provable. By the evidence, it's not even logical but let's drop it all together.

    Now, is it okay for a willing combatant to get into a fight with another willing combatant and then one kill the other for losing?

    Remember, we're talking extremely minor injuries here, not loss of limb.


    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Derrick wrote: »
    Now, is it okay for a willing combatant to get into a fight with another willing combatant and then one kill the other for losing?

    Is that what happened? You have proof?

    Quid on
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    The same could be said for everything you've said as well. We can't discuss this without some common ground. I'm not saying I'm right about what happened. I'm saying what I think most likely happened. Not to mention, theres a REALLY big difference between non judicial punishment for assault, and 4 full on assault charges with one being a police officer, and an eyewitness stating Zimmerman threw a woman on the ground, and is like Jekyll and Hyde. Last time I checked eyewitness testimony is admissable in a trial.

    You're talking about character evidence.
    In the United States, character evidence is inadmissible in a criminal trial if first offered by the prosecution as circumstantial evidence to show that a defendant is likely to have committed the crime with which he or she is charged

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_evidence#Character_witness

    From your same link:

    "Character evidence must be distinguished from habit evidence, which is generally admissible, and which is evidence submitted for the purpose of proving that an individual acted in a particular way on a particular occasion in question based on that person's tendency to reflexively respond to a particular situation in a particular way."

    Also, FFS. Prior criminal acts are not "character evidence". Character evidence is trying to introduce evidence that Zimmerman is a hothead because he swears a lot or writes angry posts about Final Fantasy XIV on the Internet.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    What would be a good thing is if people on the counter argument side argued in good faith. One step to that is using different variables to test assumptions. There's a LOT of assumption on your side of the fence that Martin attacked Zimmerman and thus deserved to die. I find both the assumption and the logic disgusting, but I think if you're going to be honest with yourself and with this forum, you need to drop that assumption.

    I make no such assumption. I've already explained that I am unwilling to say that I think this is what happened. Nor have I even made a "more likely" claim as to what happened. I make presumption of innocence, because we're talking about a criminal trial. That's it.

    The hilarious thing that neither you nor Quid has been able to discern is that I have, in essence, turned your argument against you and you're just clamoring at how silly a notion it is. If it's not okay to kill someone for stalking you (a threatening behavior favored by many serial killers and other mass murderers), it's not okay to kill someone for losing a fight.

    Attacking somebody absent an imminent threat on your person is on its face an unlawful act. Merely following them is not. This is pertinent. So yes, it is generally more okay to kill somebody who has proven themselves to be a violent criminal (with you as their victim) than somebody who totes may be.

    Now, back to point one, let's drop the assumption that Martin started the fight, as that is not provable. By the evidence, it's not even logical but let's drop it all together.

    Kay.

    Now, is it okay for a willing combatant to get into a fight with another willing combatant and then one kill the other for losing?

    I fail to see the relevance. Are you suggesting that both combatants in this case were willing? Or that Zimmerman's choice to follow made him willing? Please say you're treading down the "by doing X, he clearly consented to Y" road. That's fun stuff, I see good things happening if you go there.

    But I'll take you at face value. Given only the bolded as a question, in a vacuum, the answer is it depends. If at any time one of these two willing combatants clearly signals a withdrawal of consent? And given a reasonable belief (judged based on their perception at the time) that they cannot get the other combatant to stop attacking them any other way? Yup.

    Remember, we're talking extremely minor injuries here, not loss of limb.

    Anytime somebody else engages you unwillingly in physical violence (or in your example continues to engage after consent is withdrawn), we are talking about more than that. This is a silly statement, and you know it. And it's not just about "loss of limb." I have pain right now, as I type this, from an altercation that occurred in 1999. I don't consider that a minor injury. It's minor compared to loss of limb, but it's not minor in that it's permanent. In our PM conversation, I told you about a friend who had to have facial reconstructive surgery after a short fight with another teenager. We may be talking about minor injuries. We may not.

    Given that, why should it be up to violent criminals to dictate the terms?

    Spoiler:
This discussion has been closed.