I have a nagging suspicion that, having no knowledge of your race, that you are severely emotionally attached to this topic because you are black. So much so that no matter what proof or logical reason is thrown your way it's too bad, he's black, he got treated in a racist fashion (allegedly not the case).
Jesus Christ dude, even as a white Hispanic (OMG!) I think what Zimmerman did was wrong. He profiled a black teenager and pursued him because of it, shortly before shooting said unarmed teenager. He may not be legally culpable under a terrible law, but let's not imply you can only sympathize with Trayvon if you are black.
I gotta say, the fact that this statement can exist and actually apply to current reality is beyond fucking repugnant and speaks incredibly poorly of the human race as a whole.
Seriously, shooting and killing an unarmed anyone, let alone a teenager, is fucking horrible and should never be justifiable in ANY context of law in a civilized society.
Fuck that statement and fuck us as a society for making it valid.
I disagree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a person defending themselves from permanent injury or death. If you do not want to get shot do not start physical fights. Telling the victims that they should not be able to defend themselves because it is "never justifiable in any context" is just foolhardy. We can easily create several contexts where it is perfectly reasonable to shoot and killed someone, even if they are unarmed. Unarmed does not mean unable to injure or kill.
Ultimately it is a self solving problem, when you can create a society where no one has to fear being attacked and suffering serious injury at the hand of others then you really do not need to worry about people defending themselves. Until you can create said society, blaming the victims for defending themselves is just silly goosery.
If she didnt want to shoot and kill someone she wouldnt have been dressed like that in this part of town and carrying a concealed firearm.
Someone has a knife to your throat and is threatening to kill you. Or someone is bashing your head against the ground and you're starting to feel light headed.
Did they do either because I have done something that seriously gave them the notion that their own life was in danger?
If that's the case, yeah, I'll probably defend myself.
But that doesn't relinquish me of my responsibility.
Society doesn't protect a person who goes looking for trouble and ends up shooting a teenager because that person bit off more than they can chew.
I would think 40 pages of someone going "well golly gee the black dude only had skittles, sure deserved to get shot by the white hispanic (whitewash!!!!!!!!!11) didn't he?" back and forth between sheep and mcdermott is nearly as bad because both hardline on both sides of a gun debate. My only guffaw about this is that race is kept brought up over the shooting. Hell I tore through 67 some odd pages of 911 calls and race was mentioned twice. It's irritating.
yeah I understand dude, it's just that it never goes well when you say something like "you're gay, so you should know all about this," it makes people feel weird and they get reactionarily defensive because normally we don't have to talk about ourselves on the internet, especially in D&D which is mostly objective. The accepted method is to bring up personal issues about yourself instead of calling people out, like if a person brought up that he was gay, because the clear intention is to share his experience rather than deconstruct another guy, and it's by default okay to divulge information of your own free will rather than force people to define themselves or ignore your request, both of which reveal personal info that they might not want to divulge.
not a big issue but you can see how that little comment could unduly raise tensions and devolve into a locked thread
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
First that fact that he shot Martin and killed Martin is not automatically a crime. He could have been completely justified in doing so both legally and "morally".
I gotta say, the fact that this statement can exist and actually apply to current reality is beyond fucking repugnant and speaks incredibly poorly of the human race as a whole.
Seriously, shooting and killing an unarmed anyone, let alone a teenager, is fucking horrible and should never be justifiable in ANY context of law in a civilized society.
Fuck that statement and fuck us as a society for making it valid.
Someone has a knife to your throat and is threatening to kill you. Or someone is bashing your head against the ground and you're starting to feel light headed.
You really think they're going to stop because you would? If it were you you wouldn't even be doing that. Evil people aren't going anywhere, we have no idea how to solve this issue other than letting citizens arm and defend themselves and their property.
Oh, so shooting an unarmed person is ok and unpunishable, because the world sucks and life isn't fair so get used to it.
Gotcha.
Interesting side-thought: If Zimmerman was a cop and he shot an unarmed teenager, I'm willing to bet that the number of people willing to defend him in this subforum would be vastly decreased.
You'd be surprised how many people would defend him if he was, in fact, getting his head bashed into the ground (allegedly pavement), and was a cop. And yeah, the world fucking sucks, sorry, I'm going to shoot someone's dick off before I'll let them anally rape me.
Sucks for you I guess.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
It was a tangential response to "oh jeez I don't understand how self defense could ever be a thing, fuck that concept entirely."
You know, the question of "who was actually doing the self-defense" thing is still pretty much up in the air. Was it the guy who left his car to follow someone in the night, bolstered by the false strength lent to him by the gun in his pocket? Or was it the unarmed teenager out to buy some snacks who was being followed by someone they didn't know who had left their truck to pursue them in the dark?
Too bad we'll only ever hear one side of it. Y'know, because the one side of the argument was unarmed and shot dead by the other side.
But hey, history written by the victors, right? Might makes right, he with the biggest weapon holds the strongest argument, last man standing gets the prize, right?
Once again, the fact that the murder of a unarmed person can be justified implicates us as a society and reveals a disturbingly sociopathic streak in our culture.
If there is no ethical distinction then whats the problem?
With what I described there, nothing. I don't think there's a problem with charging someone on a bit more than you realistically expect you could ever convict.
The problem I described earlier is that the practice of having multple charges for the same offense, in sort of a "one cancels other" relationship, IME tends to push juries towards a compromise option that potentially no individual in the room actually believes is proper justice.
Anyway, this thread seems to be stuck on the same crap for a while now.
Generally speaking, when an armed and undeputized adult starts following a seemingly suspicious teenager in his neighborhood, he's already stepped over the line. Carrying a gun for protection is fine. Neighborhood watch is fine. Carrying a gun while on neighborhood watch, well, at that point you're walking the line. Actively tailing people you suspect? Sorry, in that case, you've crossed the line, and you are at least partially responsible when you shoot someone, no matter how it went down. Carrying a gun means carrying a high level of responsibility not to seek out trouble in any way. Actually, being a human being carries a high responsiblity not to seek out trouble. Having a gun on you just means that when you do start looking for trouble, you're doing it knowing that someone might get killed.
In my opinion, the above is what keeps nagging at people, no matter how hard we try to paint a rosey picture of Zimmerman. Obviously there is something wrong on Zimmerman's part with how all this went down. He should have never at any time been following him. He should have called police and stayed away.
But just how wrong was it? Well, that depends. If he really stopped following Martin when dispatch told him to, and if he never approached Martin, and if Martin approached him and started the fight, well, then the wrong committed by Zimmerman is not very significant to the overall moral calculus here, and also not criminal. If any of those aren't the case, if he continued to follow, approached, grabbed him, started the fight, etc., each of those ratchets up his culpability in this, as well as the crime he ought to be found guilty of.
And that's why, I think, a lot of people really need to believe that Zimmerman was a racist lunatic who stalked and murdered Martin in cold blood. Because they don't want to be left with the vague and intellectually challenging moral dilemma of a mostly decent guy, in a community where the police are failing, trying his best to help protect his neighbors within the law, who ends up with a gun facing down a difficult, aggressive, but innocent teenager.
Unfortunately there has been so much bad wrong in the public and media on this case. The most egregious media falsification and sensationalism that I've seen in my lifetime. Makes me wish there was a governing body with the power to shut MSNBC down completely for what they did, and CNN has a lot to answer for as well. But there isn't likely going to be any repairing that damage. The media instantly lept into action to feed the public's need to make this case simple and sensational, and screw any facts or truth or logic that get in the way. At this point, all I can say is that I'm somewhat encouraged by the fact that it seems now that many in the media wants everyone to forget about those days when they were treating hoodies and Skittles as if they were salient facts, and doctoring video and audio footage to keep fueling the race war. If only the public can follow suit.
EDIT: Please, really. There are no alleyways in this neighborhood. He didn't "profile" Martin, that word doesn't even make sense in that context. Stop trying to emotionalize past the facts you don't have.
It was a tangential response to "oh jeez I don't understand how self defense could ever be a thing, fuck that concept entirely."
You know, the question of "who was actually doing the self-defense" thing is still pretty much up in the air. Was it the guy who left his car to follow someone in the night, bolstered by the false strength lent to him by the gun in his pocket? Or was it the unarmed teenager out to buy some snacks who was being followed by someone they didn't know who had left their truck to pursue them in the dark?
Too bad we'll only ever hear one side of it. Y'know, because the one side of the argument was unarmed and shot dead by the other side.
But hey, history written by the victors, right? Might makes right, he with the biggest weapon holds the strongest argument, last man standing gets the prize, right?
Once again, the fact that the murder of a unarmed person can be justified implicates us as a society and reveals a disturbingly sociopathic streak in our culture.
If it is self defense it is not murder. It is not wrong to shoot someone who's slamming your head in to the ground, whether or not that is what actually happened in this case.
Nice writeup @Yar. I imagine I am viewed as a Zimmerman supporter but this is not the case. I think he is a dumb bastard. But after seeing what the media, supporters, parents, and even president did I feel that what has been done to him is not "justice". The Prosc might be sitting on witness that might damn Zimmerman but we wont know until the trial. At this point if there is any witness that has yet to step forward I would imagine it would actually be someone who saw Trayvon attack first. If you saw this would you come forward at this point to free someone who has a price on his head and a legion supporters of which some are taking the law into their own hands?
It was a tangential response to "oh jeez I don't understand how self defense could ever be a thing, fuck that concept entirely."
You know, the question of "who was actually doing the self-defense" thing is still pretty much up in the air. Was it the guy who left his car to follow someone in the night, bolstered by the false strength lent to him by the gun in his pocket? Or was it the unarmed teenager out to buy some snacks who was being followed by someone they didn't know who had left their truck to pursue them in the dark?
Too bad we'll only ever hear one side of it. Y'know, because the one side of the argument was unarmed and shot dead by the other side.
But hey, history written by the victors, right? Might makes right, he with the biggest weapon holds the strongest argument, last man standing gets the prize, right?
Once again, the fact that the murder of a unarmed person can be justified implicates us as a society and reveals a disturbingly sociopathic streak in our culture.
If it is self defense it is not murder. It is not wrong to shoot someone who's slamming your head in to the ground, whether or not that is what actually happened in this case.
Once again, you're assuming that only Zimmerman was defending himself. Not the teenager who was stalked in the dark by a man who had left his truck to pursue him on foot.
That isn't what you were saying. You were saying in no case is it ever acceptable to do that. You weren't saying "It shouldn't be acceptable to stalk someone and then shoot them." (which is still alleged) Flat out you said no one should ever be shot and killed over anything, ever.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
First that fact that he shot Martin and killed Martin is not automatically a crime. He could have been completely justified in doing so both legally and "morally".
I gotta say, the fact that this statement can exist and actually apply to current reality is beyond fucking repugnant and speaks incredibly poorly of the human race as a whole.
Seriously, shooting and killing an unarmed anyone, let alone a teenager, is fucking horrible and should never be justifiable in ANY context of law in a civilized society.
Fuck that statement and fuck us as a society for making it valid.
A 6'4", 250-lbs man is choking a 5'2", 100-lbs woman.
If the woman has a gun and shoots the man, that should "never be justifiable"? What exactly is the woman supposed to do without a weapon? Is she just supposed to morph into Bruce Lee and beat up her much larger, much stronger attacker? Is she just supposed to die?
If a woman of any size has a gun and is following someone around with the intent to confront them, knowing full well that she is armed, she's still morally in the wrong. It seems less likely that a person would be threatened by a tiny woman following them around, rather than someone of equal or greater size following them around at night though, and physical conflict is probably less likely to occur.
Legally Zimmerman is probably not in the wrong (or rather, if he is the investigation was cocked up so badly as to make determining that impossible), but morally? He started it, he intiated the encounter, and as the individual with the firearm he knew it could end with him shooting someone.
I continue to maintain that if you are concealed carrying you have a moral obligation to avoid conflict, if it is possible for you to do so. Whether that means ignoring an insult or avoiding a shady character. Furthermore if you wouldn't do something without your gun you sure as hell shouldn't do it just because you're carrying.
Forgive my ignorance, folks, I didn't even realise that white-Hispanic was a concept (bear in mind I'm Irish, from Ireland, so I wouldn't have the same exposure to as many cultures) - to fill me in on the full cultural aspect; would that make the case more or less racially charged than if he were... erm, Irish-Caucasian (as an example of somebody whiter than snow)?
At any rate, the case is a huge tragedy - I won't offer comment as to whether Mr. Zimmerman is guilty, but RIP Trayvon.
It's a political/racial shit-storm of a case, here's hoping justice is served, whatever the verdict.
If a woman of any size has a gun and is following someone around with the intent to confront them, knowing full well that she is armed, she's still morally in the wrong. It seems less likely that a person would be threatened by a tiny woman following them around, rather than someone of equal or greater size following them around at night though, and physical conflict is probably less likely to occur.
Legally Zimmerman is probably not in the wrong (or rather, if he is the investigation was cocked up so badly as to make determining that impossible), but morally? He started it, he intiated the encounter, and as the individual with the firearm he knew it could end with him shooting someone.
I continue to maintain that if you are concealed carrying you have a moral obligation to avoid conflict, if it is possible for you to do so. Whether that means ignoring an insult or avoiding a shady character. Furthermore if you wouldn't do something without your gun you sure as hell shouldn't do it just because you're carrying.
FFS go read what Chop said. He claimed it should never be acceptable to shoot an unarmed person. That is what people are responding to because it's nonsense.
If a woman of any size has a gun and is following someone around with the intent to confront them, knowing full well that she is armed, she's still morally in the wrong. It seems less likely that a person would be threatened by a tiny woman following them around, rather than someone of equal or greater size following them around at night though, and physical conflict is probably less likely to occur.
Legally Zimmerman is probably not in the wrong (or rather, if he is the investigation was cocked up so badly as to make determining that impossible), but morally? He started it, he intiated the encounter, and as the individual with the firearm he knew it could end with him shooting someone.
I continue to maintain that if you are concealed carrying you have a moral obligation to avoid conflict, if it is possible for you to do so. Whether that means ignoring an insult or avoiding a shady character. Furthermore if you wouldn't do something without your gun you sure as hell shouldn't do it just because you're carrying.
FFS go read what Chop said. He claimed it should never be acceptable to shoot an unarmed person. That is what people are responding to because it's nonsense.
Fine then. One small change and my point stands.
Seriously, shooting and killing an unarmed anyone, let alone a teenager, is fucking horrible and should never be justifiable in ANY context of law in a civilized society.
Murdering and killing are still not the same. If someone defend themselves with a gun, or he'll even a knife or a bat or whatever there's a real risk of killing the other person. There is no guaranteed way to stop someone without risking the life of one person or the other.
If a woman of any size has a gun and is following someone around with the intent to confront them, knowing full well that she is armed, she's still morally in the wrong. It seems less likely that a person would be threatened by a tiny woman following them around, rather than someone of equal or greater size following them around at night though, and physical conflict is probably less likely to occur.
That's all well and good, but the situation you've described is in a different context than the one I described.
What Johnny Chopsocky wrote is that shooting an unarmed person isn't justifiable in ANY context.
Seriously, shooting and killing an unarmed anyone, let alone a teenager, is fucking horrible and should never be justifiable in ANY context of law in a civilized society.
The "any" qualifier isn't just in there, it's in all caps. So in order for that to hold up, shooting an unarmed person not only has to be unjustifiable in the context you described, it has to be unjustifiable in the context I described as well.
And if shooting an unarmed attacker is to be unjustifiable in the context I described, I again ask: What is the woman to do? What is the proper and justifiable course of action she should take?
I agree with pretty much all of his posts in this thread, really.
I will however reiterate that if Trayvon started the physical violence, he was absolutely unjustified. Assaulting somebody for following you, or for profiling you, even for actively insulting you, is unacceptable. This in no way alters Zimmerman’s moral culpability for the choices he made leading to the incident. It's not a zero sum game, they may have both been wrong(though neither deserved death or permanent injury over it).
FFS go read what Chop said. He claimed it should never be acceptable to shoot an unarmed person. That is what people are responding to because it's nonsense.
Fine then. One small change and my point stands.
"Seriously, shooting and killing an unarmed anyone, let alone a teenager, is fucking horrible and should never be justifiable in ANY context of law in a civilized society. "
Any objections?
I don't think you've understood the nature of the objections. It has nothing to do with the method of killing the unarmed person.
It has everything to do with your blanket condemnation of ANY killing of an unarmed persons as unjustifiable.
FFS go read what Chop said. He claimed it should never be acceptable to shoot an unarmed person. That is what people are responding to because it's nonsense.
Fine then. One small change and my point stands.
"Seriously, shooting and killing an unarmed anyone, let alone a teenager, is fucking horrible and should never be justifiable in ANY context of law in a civilized society. "
Any objections?
I don't think you've understood the nature of the objections. It has nothing to do with the method of killing the unarmed person.
It has everything to do with your blanket condemnation of ANY killing of an unarmed persons as unjustifiable.
Yeah, regardless of whether it applies in this specific instance, far too many people are killed or maimed by unarmed attackers for me to buy that as a blanket statement.
I think the odds that Martin attacked Zimmerman completely unprovoked to be astronomical. Utterly beyond a reasonable doubt.
I further think that if the question is who made it a physical confrontation, I consider Zimmerman to be far more likely because he's the one with an actual motive. And in the absence of any witnesses or physical evidence, I consider it appropriate to make a judgment on that basis.
Finally, even if we consider the best case scenario for Zimmerman that is at all realistic, which I think is Martin being the first to make a physical move after Zimmerman started a verbal altercation, that should still mean 5-10 for some level of manslaughter because he fucking started it with his irresponsible behavior.
And if that's not the law then the law is wrong.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
Bit of a crossover with the election threads, but what the US needs more than anything else right now is a modern Justinian.
I think the odds that Martin attacked Zimmerman completely unprovoked to be astronomical. Utterly beyond a reasonable doubt.
I further think that if the question is who made it a physical confrontation, I consider Zimmerman to be far more likely because he's the one with an actual motive. And in the absence of any witnesses or physical evidence, I consider it appropriate to make a judgment on that basis.
Finally, even if we consider the best case scenario for Zimmerman that is at all realistic, which I think is Martin being the first to make a physical move after Zimmerman started a verbal altercation, that should still mean 5-10 for some level of manslaughter because he fucking started it with his irresponsible behavior.
With what I described there, nothing. I don't think there's a problem with charging someone on a bit more than you realistically expect you could ever convict.
The problem I described earlier is that the practice of having multple charges for the same offense, in sort of a "one cancels other" relationship, IME tends to push juries towards a compromise option that potentially no individual in the room actually believes is proper justice.
Anyway, this thread seems to be stuck on the same crap for a while now.
Generally speaking, when an armed and undeputized adult starts following a seemingly suspicious teenager in his neighborhood, he's already stepped over the line. Carrying a gun for protection is fine. Neighborhood watch is fine. Carrying a gun while on neighborhood watch, well, at that point you're walking the line. Actively tailing people you suspect? Sorry, in that case, you've crossed the line, and you are at least partially responsible when you shoot someone, no matter how it went down. Carrying a gun means carrying a high level of responsibility not to seek out trouble in any way. Actually, being a human being carries a high responsiblity not to seek out trouble. Having a gun on you just means that when you do start looking for trouble, you're doing it knowing that someone might get killed.
In my opinion, the above is what keeps nagging at people, no matter how hard we try to paint a rosey picture of Zimmerman. Obviously there is something wrong on Zimmerman's part with how all this went down. He should have never at any time been following him. He should have called police and stayed away.
But just how wrong was it? Well, that depends. If he really stopped following Martin when dispatch told him to, and if he never approached Martin, and if Martin approached him and started the fight, well, then the wrong committed by Zimmerman is not very significant to the overall moral calculus here, and also not criminal. If any of those aren't the case, if he continued to follow, approached, grabbed him, started the fight, etc., each of those ratchets up his culpability in this, as well as the crime he ought to be found guilty of.
And that's why, I think, a lot of people really need to believe that Zimmerman was a racist lunatic who stalked and murdered Martin in cold blood. Because they don't want to be left with the vague and intellectually challenging moral dilemma of a mostly decent guy, in a community where the police are failing, trying his best to help protect his neighbors within the law, who ends up with a gun facing down a difficult, aggressive, but innocent teenager.
Unfortunately there has been so much bad wrong in the public and media on this case. The most egregious media falsification and sensationalism that I've seen in my lifetime. Makes me wish there was a governing body with the power to shut MSNBC down completely for what they did, and CNN has a lot to answer for as well. But there isn't likely going to be any repairing that damage. The media instantly lept into action to feed the public's need to make this case simple and sensational, and screw any facts or truth or logic that get in the way. At this point, all I can say is that I'm somewhat encouraged by the fact that it seems now that many in the media wants everyone to forget about those days when they were treating hoodies and Skittles as if they were salient facts, and doctoring video and audio footage to keep fueling the race war. If only the public can follow suit.
EDIT: Please, really. There are no alleyways in this neighborhood. He didn't "profile" Martin, that word doesn't even make sense in that context. Stop trying to emotionalize past the facts you don't have.
I think the odds that Martin attacked Zimmerman completely unprovoked to be astronomical. Utterly beyond a reasonable doubt.
I further think that if the question is who made it a physical confrontation, I consider Zimmerman to be far more likely because he's the one with an actual motive. And in the absence of any witnesses or physical evidence, I consider it appropriate to make a judgment on that basis.
Finally, even if we consider the best case scenario for Zimmerman that is at all realistic, which I think is Martin being the first to make a physical move after Zimmerman started a verbal altercation, that should still mean 5-10 for some level of manslaughter because he fucking started it with his irresponsible behavior.
And if that's not the law then the law is wrong.
I'm quite curious how you can say that Martin starting a verbal altercation is "unrealistic."
like, belligerent teenagers are beyond your imagination?
Come on. It's a black person who didn't acquiesce to a white mans inherited authority.
Thug.
Joke aside, that gives him the go ahead to beat the shit out of him?
I have a nagging suspicion that, having no knowledge of your race, that you are severely emotionally attached to this topic because you are black. So much so that no matter what proof or logical reason is thrown your way it's too bad, he's black, he got treated in a racist fashion (allegedly not the case).
But because you're white your point of view is always objective?
It was a tangential response to "oh jeez I don't understand how self defense could ever be a thing, fuck that concept entirely."
You know, the question of "who was actually doing the self-defense" thing is still pretty much up in the air. Was it the guy who left his car to follow someone in the night, bolstered by the false strength lent to him by the gun in his pocket? Or was it the unarmed teenager out to buy some snacks who was being followed by someone they didn't know who had left their truck to pursue them in the dark?
Too bad we'll only ever hear one side of it. Y'know, because the one side of the argument was unarmed and shot dead by the other side.
But hey, history written by the victors, right? Might makes right, he with the biggest weapon holds the strongest argument, last man standing gets the prize, right?
Once again, the fact that the murder of a unarmed person can be justified implicates us as a society and reveals a disturbingly sociopathic streak in our culture.
If it is self defense it is not murder. It is not wrong to shoot someone who's slamming your head in to the ground, whether or not that is what actually happened in this case.
What if the shooter started the fight? I start a fight, I start losing, I shoot the guy beating me up. Is that ok morally? Is it ok legally?
I think everyone can basically agree Zimmerman is in the wrong here morally, that he is responsible, at least in part, for Trayvon Martin's death, self defense or not. Whether he will be punished for it legally (whether he even should be) is another story.
I also think that when he's found not guilty, there will be a rash of violence. I don't necessarily condone it, but I won't take the elitist asshole position and wag my finger at the minorities lashing out at a biased system.
Sorry, but that's crap.
When this reactionary violence happens, it isn't going to happen against "the system". It's going to happen to random, innocent people (if it hasn't already) who have done nothing to earn the enmity of their attackers.
I lived in LA in 1992. Cops beat up Rodney King, and were acquitted. Minorities lashed out, supposedly against "the system". But who did they actually attack?
- They didn't attack cops.
- They didn't attack prosecutors.
- They didn't attack the jurors.
- They didn't attack politicians.
- They didn't attack judges.
- They didn't attack defense attorneys.
- They didn't attack public sector bureaucrats.
- They didn't attack members of the Police Protective League (cops' union).
No, they attacked Korean liquor store owners. They pulled some random guy out of his truck and smashed him in the head with a brick. Were Korean liquor store owners "the system"? Was Reginald Denny "the system"?
If you're not going to wag your finger at shit like this, at attacks on random, innocent people, then what will you wag it at?
Heck, what if George Zimmerman was mad at "the system" too, and he killed Martin as a form of "lashing out"? Would that make people elitist assholes for wagging their fingers at Zimmerman?
I think the odds that Martin attacked Zimmerman completely unprovoked to be astronomical. Utterly beyond a reasonable doubt.
I further think that if the question is who made it a physical confrontation, I consider Zimmerman to be far more likely because he's the one with an actual motive. And in the absence of any witnesses or physical evidence, I consider it appropriate to make a judgment on that basis.
Finally, even if we consider the best case scenario for Zimmerman that is at all realistic, which I think is Martin being the first to make a physical move after Zimmerman started a verbal altercation, that should still mean 5-10 for some level of manslaughter because he fucking started it with his irresponsible behavior.
I think the odds that Martin attacked Zimmerman completely unprovoked to be astronomical. Utterly beyond a reasonable doubt.
I further think that if the question is who made it a physical confrontation, I consider Zimmerman to be far more likely because he's the one with an actual motive. And in the absence of any witnesses or physical evidence, I consider it appropriate to make a judgment on that basis.
Finally, even if we consider the best case scenario for Zimmerman that is at all realistic, which I think is Martin being the first to make a physical move after Zimmerman started a verbal altercation, that should still mean 5-10 for some level of manslaughter because he fucking started it with his irresponsible behavior.
And if that's not the law then the law is wrong.
I'm quite curious how you can say that Martin starting a verbal altercation is "unrealistic."
like, belligerent teenagers are beyond your imagination?
I find a scenario where Martin asks Zimmerman why he's following him, Zimmerman attempts to avoid an argument, and then Martin hounds after him about it to be pretty fantastical, yes.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Come on. It's a black person who didn't acquiesce to a white mans inherited authority.
Thug.
Joke aside, that gives him the go ahead to beat the shit out of him?
I have a nagging suspicion that, having no knowledge of your race, that you are severely emotionally attached to this topic because you are black. So much so that no matter what proof or logical reason is thrown your way it's too bad, he's black, he got treated in a racist fashion (allegedly not the case).
But because you're white your point of view is always objective?
It was a tangential response to "oh jeez I don't understand how self defense could ever be a thing, fuck that concept entirely."
You know, the question of "who was actually doing the self-defense" thing is still pretty much up in the air. Was it the guy who left his car to follow someone in the night, bolstered by the false strength lent to him by the gun in his pocket? Or was it the unarmed teenager out to buy some snacks who was being followed by someone they didn't know who had left their truck to pursue them in the dark?
Too bad we'll only ever hear one side of it. Y'know, because the one side of the argument was unarmed and shot dead by the other side.
But hey, history written by the victors, right? Might makes right, he with the biggest weapon holds the strongest argument, last man standing gets the prize, right?
Once again, the fact that the murder of a unarmed person can be justified implicates us as a society and reveals a disturbingly sociopathic streak in our culture.
If it is self defense it is not murder. It is not wrong to shoot someone who's slamming your head in to the ground, whether or not that is what actually happened in this case.
What if the shooter started the fight? I start a fight, I start losing, I shoot the guy beating me up. Is that ok morally? Is it ok legally?
I think everyone can basically agree Zimmerman is in the wrong here morally, that he is responsible, at least in part, for Trayvon Martin's death, self defense or not. Whether he will be punished for it legally (whether he even should be) is another story.
Then it would be an entirely different situation that Chop proposed already. He said in any situation. That's the concept I'm replying to. Not the countless other variations that we can come up with that would justify one party's or the other's actions.
I have a nagging suspicion that, having no knowledge of your race, that you are severely emotionally attached to this topic because you are black. So much so that no matter what proof or logical reason is thrown your way it's too bad, he's black, he got treated in a racist fashion (allegedly not the case).
Don't tell me: if he says "no, I'm white", then we can turn around and accuse him of harboring White Guilt. QED! Better have a backup plan in case he's Korean or something.
Look, race is an issue because of the very strong evidence that race influenced a) Zimmerman's perception that Martin was a criminal up to no good, and b) the police department's shitty non-investigation and stalling of the case. I doubt anyone but a tiny minority of people really believe that Zimmerman was leaping at the chance to shoot a black guy.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
You realize real life isn't TV, and if your higher ups tell you that they aren't pressing charges, you can't go out and Dirty Harry it yourself and try to collect evidence and question people and such, right?
You realize that higher-ups in the police department count as "police" too, right? And you realize that the DA's office does not perform the investigation of the crime - the police do? It's not as though the Sanford police department did an a by-the-book investigation and then got cockblocked by the prosecutor.
I mean for all the harping on the Sanford PD, it's been stated time and again by multiple sources that in the end the State Attorney's Office didn't give them the go ahead.
And, again, it's been stated time and time again by multiple sources that the Sanford PD did not perform any toxicology tests on Zimmerman, did not perform a criminal background check while he was in custody, delayed talking to witnesses and didn't bother to check Martin's cell-phone records for weeks. They refused to release 911 records until there was national attention on the case. Some witnesses stated that they were pressured to change their stories and told that their version of events was wrong.
Seriously? If you want to come across as credible and having points, shrieking like a goose doesn't help. Every time you go on about what a railroad job Zimmerman's getting, I don't think "man, he makes some good points", as I do with some other posts. I think "is he related to this guy or what"?
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Posts
Jesus Christ dude, even as a white Hispanic (OMG!) I think what Zimmerman did was wrong. He profiled a black teenager and pursued him because of it, shortly before shooting said unarmed teenager. He may not be legally culpable under a terrible law, but let's not imply you can only sympathize with Trayvon if you are black.
I disagree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a person defending themselves from permanent injury or death. If you do not want to get shot do not start physical fights. Telling the victims that they should not be able to defend themselves because it is "never justifiable in any context" is just foolhardy. We can easily create several contexts where it is perfectly reasonable to shoot and killed someone, even if they are unarmed. Unarmed does not mean unable to injure or kill.
Ultimately it is a self solving problem, when you can create a society where no one has to fear being attacked and suffering serious injury at the hand of others then you really do not need to worry about people defending themselves. Until you can create said society, blaming the victims for defending themselves is just silly goosery.
If she didnt want to shoot and kill someone she wouldnt have been dressed like that in this part of town and carrying a concealed firearm.
Did they do either because I have done something that seriously gave them the notion that their own life was in danger?
If that's the case, yeah, I'll probably defend myself.
But that doesn't relinquish me of my responsibility.
Society doesn't protect a person who goes looking for trouble and ends up shooting a teenager because that person bit off more than they can chew.
yeah I understand dude, it's just that it never goes well when you say something like "you're gay, so you should know all about this," it makes people feel weird and they get reactionarily defensive because normally we don't have to talk about ourselves on the internet, especially in D&D which is mostly objective. The accepted method is to bring up personal issues about yourself instead of calling people out, like if a person brought up that he was gay, because the clear intention is to share his experience rather than deconstruct another guy, and it's by default okay to divulge information of your own free will rather than force people to define themselves or ignore your request, both of which reveal personal info that they might not want to divulge.
not a big issue but you can see how that little comment could unduly raise tensions and devolve into a locked thread
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
There is no gun debate.
I carry a gun in my car. For protection. I have no problem with concealed carry or gun ownership.
Oh, so shooting an unarmed person is ok and unpunishable, because the world sucks and life isn't fair so get used to it.
Gotcha.
Interesting side-thought: If Zimmerman was a cop and he shot an unarmed teenager, I'm willing to bet that the number of people willing to defend him in this subforum would be vastly decreased.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
Sucks for you I guess.
Zimmerman wasn't randomly assaulted.
Zimmerman was attacked by some one Zimmerman profiled and then followed through dark alleyways. At night.
It was a tangential response to "oh jeez I don't understand how self defense could ever be a thing, fuck that concept entirely."
Nothing against you. Also I apologize for my earlier comments, @sheep, they were childish but that's how I felt, sorry.
You know, the question of "who was actually doing the self-defense" thing is still pretty much up in the air. Was it the guy who left his car to follow someone in the night, bolstered by the false strength lent to him by the gun in his pocket? Or was it the unarmed teenager out to buy some snacks who was being followed by someone they didn't know who had left their truck to pursue them in the dark?
Too bad we'll only ever hear one side of it. Y'know, because the one side of the argument was unarmed and shot dead by the other side.
But hey, history written by the victors, right? Might makes right, he with the biggest weapon holds the strongest argument, last man standing gets the prize, right?
Once again, the fact that the murder of a unarmed person can be justified implicates us as a society and reveals a disturbingly sociopathic streak in our culture.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
With what I described there, nothing. I don't think there's a problem with charging someone on a bit more than you realistically expect you could ever convict.
The problem I described earlier is that the practice of having multple charges for the same offense, in sort of a "one cancels other" relationship, IME tends to push juries towards a compromise option that potentially no individual in the room actually believes is proper justice.
Anyway, this thread seems to be stuck on the same crap for a while now.
Generally speaking, when an armed and undeputized adult starts following a seemingly suspicious teenager in his neighborhood, he's already stepped over the line. Carrying a gun for protection is fine. Neighborhood watch is fine. Carrying a gun while on neighborhood watch, well, at that point you're walking the line. Actively tailing people you suspect? Sorry, in that case, you've crossed the line, and you are at least partially responsible when you shoot someone, no matter how it went down. Carrying a gun means carrying a high level of responsibility not to seek out trouble in any way. Actually, being a human being carries a high responsiblity not to seek out trouble. Having a gun on you just means that when you do start looking for trouble, you're doing it knowing that someone might get killed.
In my opinion, the above is what keeps nagging at people, no matter how hard we try to paint a rosey picture of Zimmerman. Obviously there is something wrong on Zimmerman's part with how all this went down. He should have never at any time been following him. He should have called police and stayed away.
But just how wrong was it? Well, that depends. If he really stopped following Martin when dispatch told him to, and if he never approached Martin, and if Martin approached him and started the fight, well, then the wrong committed by Zimmerman is not very significant to the overall moral calculus here, and also not criminal. If any of those aren't the case, if he continued to follow, approached, grabbed him, started the fight, etc., each of those ratchets up his culpability in this, as well as the crime he ought to be found guilty of.
And that's why, I think, a lot of people really need to believe that Zimmerman was a racist lunatic who stalked and murdered Martin in cold blood. Because they don't want to be left with the vague and intellectually challenging moral dilemma of a mostly decent guy, in a community where the police are failing, trying his best to help protect his neighbors within the law, who ends up with a gun facing down a difficult, aggressive, but innocent teenager.
Unfortunately there has been so much bad wrong in the public and media on this case. The most egregious media falsification and sensationalism that I've seen in my lifetime. Makes me wish there was a governing body with the power to shut MSNBC down completely for what they did, and CNN has a lot to answer for as well. But there isn't likely going to be any repairing that damage. The media instantly lept into action to feed the public's need to make this case simple and sensational, and screw any facts or truth or logic that get in the way. At this point, all I can say is that I'm somewhat encouraged by the fact that it seems now that many in the media wants everyone to forget about those days when they were treating hoodies and Skittles as if they were salient facts, and doctoring video and audio footage to keep fueling the race war. If only the public can follow suit.
EDIT: Please, really. There are no alleyways in this neighborhood. He didn't "profile" Martin, that word doesn't even make sense in that context. Stop trying to emotionalize past the facts you don't have.
If it is self defense it is not murder. It is not wrong to shoot someone who's slamming your head in to the ground, whether or not that is what actually happened in this case.
Once again, you're assuming that only Zimmerman was defending himself. Not the teenager who was stalked in the dark by a man who had left his truck to pursue him on foot.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
A 6'4", 250-lbs man is choking a 5'2", 100-lbs woman.
If the woman has a gun and shoots the man, that should "never be justifiable"? What exactly is the woman supposed to do without a weapon? Is she just supposed to morph into Bruce Lee and beat up her much larger, much stronger attacker? Is she just supposed to die?
Legally Zimmerman is probably not in the wrong (or rather, if he is the investigation was cocked up so badly as to make determining that impossible), but morally? He started it, he intiated the encounter, and as the individual with the firearm he knew it could end with him shooting someone.
I continue to maintain that if you are concealed carrying you have a moral obligation to avoid conflict, if it is possible for you to do so. Whether that means ignoring an insult or avoiding a shady character. Furthermore if you wouldn't do something without your gun you sure as hell shouldn't do it just because you're carrying.
At any rate, the case is a huge tragedy - I won't offer comment as to whether Mr. Zimmerman is guilty, but RIP Trayvon.
It's a political/racial shit-storm of a case, here's hoping justice is served, whatever the verdict.
Black police officers are statistically more likely to be hostile toward black suspects - culture is often more powerful than your own background.
FFS go read what Chop said. He claimed it should never be acceptable to shoot an unarmed person. That is what people are responding to because it's nonsense.
When you say cultural, you mean the police's cultural view of how they view black suspects, as an institution?
Fine then. One small change and my point stands.
Any objections?
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
That's all well and good, but the situation you've described is in a different context than the one I described.
What Johnny Chopsocky wrote is that shooting an unarmed person isn't justifiable in ANY context.
The "any" qualifier isn't just in there, it's in all caps. So in order for that to hold up, shooting an unarmed person not only has to be unjustifiable in the context you described, it has to be unjustifiable in the context I described as well.
And if shooting an unarmed attacker is to be unjustifiable in the context I described, I again ask: What is the woman to do? What is the proper and justifiable course of action she should take?
I agree with pretty much all of his posts in this thread, really.
I will however reiterate that if Trayvon started the physical violence, he was absolutely unjustified. Assaulting somebody for following you, or for profiling you, even for actively insulting you, is unacceptable. This in no way alters Zimmerman’s moral culpability for the choices he made leading to the incident. It's not a zero sum game, they may have both been wrong(though neither deserved death or permanent injury over it).
Legally? It definitely matters.
I don't think you've understood the nature of the objections. It has nothing to do with the method of killing the unarmed person.
It has everything to do with your blanket condemnation of ANY killing of an unarmed persons as unjustifiable.
Yeah, regardless of whether it applies in this specific instance, far too many people are killed or maimed by unarmed attackers for me to buy that as a blanket statement.
I further think that if the question is who made it a physical confrontation, I consider Zimmerman to be far more likely because he's the one with an actual motive. And in the absence of any witnesses or physical evidence, I consider it appropriate to make a judgment on that basis.
Finally, even if we consider the best case scenario for Zimmerman that is at all realistic, which I think is Martin being the first to make a physical move after Zimmerman started a verbal altercation, that should still mean 5-10 for some level of manslaughter because he fucking started it with his irresponsible behavior.
And if that's not the law then the law is wrong.
I'm quite curious how you can say that Martin starting a verbal altercation is "unrealistic."
like, belligerent teenagers are beyond your imagination?
But because you're white your point of view is always objective?
What if the shooter started the fight? I start a fight, I start losing, I shoot the guy beating me up. Is that ok morally? Is it ok legally?
I think everyone can basically agree Zimmerman is in the wrong here morally, that he is responsible, at least in part, for Trayvon Martin's death, self defense or not. Whether he will be punished for it legally (whether he even should be) is another story.
Sorry, but that's crap.
When this reactionary violence happens, it isn't going to happen against "the system". It's going to happen to random, innocent people (if it hasn't already) who have done nothing to earn the enmity of their attackers.
I lived in LA in 1992. Cops beat up Rodney King, and were acquitted. Minorities lashed out, supposedly against "the system". But who did they actually attack?
- They didn't attack cops.
- They didn't attack prosecutors.
- They didn't attack the jurors.
- They didn't attack politicians.
- They didn't attack judges.
- They didn't attack defense attorneys.
- They didn't attack public sector bureaucrats.
- They didn't attack members of the Police Protective League (cops' union).
No, they attacked Korean liquor store owners. They pulled some random guy out of his truck and smashed him in the head with a brick. Were Korean liquor store owners "the system"? Was Reginald Denny "the system"?
If you're not going to wag your finger at shit like this, at attacks on random, innocent people, then what will you wag it at?
Heck, what if George Zimmerman was mad at "the system" too, and he killed Martin as a form of "lashing out"? Would that make people elitist assholes for wagging their fingers at Zimmerman?
I find a scenario where Martin asks Zimmerman why he's following him, Zimmerman attempts to avoid an argument, and then Martin hounds after him about it to be pretty fantastical, yes.
Then it would be an entirely different situation that Chop proposed already. He said in any situation. That's the concept I'm replying to. Not the countless other variations that we can come up with that would justify one party's or the other's actions.
Don't tell me: if he says "no, I'm white", then we can turn around and accuse him of harboring White Guilt. QED! Better have a backup plan in case he's Korean or something.
Look, race is an issue because of the very strong evidence that race influenced a) Zimmerman's perception that Martin was a criminal up to no good, and b) the police department's shitty non-investigation and stalling of the case. I doubt anyone but a tiny minority of people really believe that Zimmerman was leaping at the chance to shoot a black guy.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
You realize that higher-ups in the police department count as "police" too, right? And you realize that the DA's office does not perform the investigation of the crime - the police do? It's not as though the Sanford police department did an a by-the-book investigation and then got cockblocked by the prosecutor.
And, again, it's been stated time and time again by multiple sources that the Sanford PD did not perform any toxicology tests on Zimmerman, did not perform a criminal background check while he was in custody, delayed talking to witnesses and didn't bother to check Martin's cell-phone records for weeks. They refused to release 911 records until there was national attention on the case. Some witnesses stated that they were pressured to change their stories and told that their version of events was wrong.
Seriously? If you want to come across as credible and having points, shrieking like a goose doesn't help. Every time you go on about what a railroad job Zimmerman's getting, I don't think "man, he makes some good points", as I do with some other posts. I think "is he related to this guy or what"?
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.