User Tag List

First 81617181920 Last

Results 171 to 180 of 211

  1. #171
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    If your contention is that the fight or flight response is of a subconscious nature that divests the responding party of ownership of the action, then I heartily disagree.
    /facepalm I hate repeating myself. I thought I made this abundantly clear earlier when I said that both Martin and Zimmerman are responsible. Zimmerman is responsible for provoking and Martin is responsible for responding. Martin can't be punished because Zimmerman killed him. If Zimmerman had not killed him, Martin might be charged with assault.

    In any hypothetical scenario, both parties are responsible. All of us have frontal lobes, but they work to varying degrees. Some people would have very rational responses to being followed, some would not. The "follower" should be judged based upon the knowledge that not all people respond rationally to being followed. The "follower" is not blameless if he trolls someone into freaking out. Nor is the "followee" blameless if he responds violently to be followed.

    Is it ok with me... no a woman is dead and that sucks.

    But is Zimmerman guilty of murder... no.
    Well, I think the 4chan and EVE Online people would love a world that operates under your rules. Lots of lulz would ensue in your sociopath's utopia.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  2. #172
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Yea I'm still not seeing any reason for making following criminal.

    I thought I made this abundantly clear earlier when I said that both Martin and Zimmerman are responsible.
    Sorry for not remembering. It was a few pages back, and there are other things on my mind.

    Well, I think the 4chan and EVE Online people would love a world that operates under your rules. Lots of lulz would ensue in your sociopath's utopia.
    So a world in which it isn't a criminal offense to follow someone is a sociopaths utopia.

    A bit of a stretch if you ask me.

    If you are trying to make me out to be a sociopath, please don't.

    I'm not, and that is a tree you don't want to bark up.

    Unless the following can amount to stalking, it isn't generally speaking illegal.

    So we currently live in this sociopaths utopia you feel the need to warn us about.

    What point are you trying to make here. Because it seems to have been lost.

  3. #173
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Yea I'm still not seeing any reason for making following criminal.
    Jesus Christ, I never said following should be illegal. Read post #167. I said this: "I'm not saying that following someone should be illegal, but to say that it is harmless seems ridiculous to me."

    So a world in which it isn't a criminal offense to follow someone is a sociopaths utopia.

    A bit of a stretch if you ask me.
    Again, I did not say that it should be illegal.

    If you are trying to make me out to be a sociopath, please don't.

    I'm not, and that is a tree you don't want to bark up.
    Is this forum 4chan or EVE Online?

    Unless the following can amount to stalking, it isn't generally speaking illegal.
    Stalking laws are woefully inadequate. They might as well not even exist.

    So we currently live in this sociopaths utopia you feel the need to warn us about.

    What point are you trying to make here. Because it seems to have been lost.
    I can understand why it's lost on you since you can't even seem to read any of my posts correctly. You're trying to say that "following" is harmless. It's not. It's not necessarily criminal, but saying it's harmless is absolutely absurd.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  4. #174
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Fair enough it's ridiculous to you.

    You can use that as far as you can throw it.

    Stalking laws are woefully inadequate. They might as well not even exist.
    You reasoning being?

    Is this forum 4chan or EVE Online?
    What are you getting at here?

    Jesus Christ, I never said following should be illegal.

    I can understand why it's lost on you since you can't even seem to read any of my posts correctly.
    You can take that attitude and fuck yourself with it.

    I was trying to have a discussion here, but if you're going to require me to remember with a stenographers accuracy everything you said, you can forget it. I'm at work, and I've responded to many different folks in this thread, sorry if my level of thread omniscience isn't up to snuff.

    Why not just explain to me what you mean?

  5. #175
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    You reasoning being?
    Because they're too conservative. They generally require patterns and/or imminent threats for any action to be taken. There was no pattern of Zimmerman following Martin and there was no imminent threat, so stalking laws would not apply, even if Zimmerman was "terrorizing" Martin.

    What are you getting at here?
    I didn't call you a sociopath.

    You can take that attitude and fuck yourself with it.
    LOL

    I was trying to have a discussion here, but if you're going to require me to remember with a stenographers accuracy everything you said, you can forget it. I'm at work, and I've responded to many different folks in this thread, sorry if my level of thread omniscience isn't up to snuff.
    Well, like stenographers, you have the transcript. It's really difficult to have any sort of discussion with someone when they get everything you say wrong.

    Why not just explain to me what you mean?
    I did, 3 times now. If you still don't get it, you never will.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  6. #176
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Because they're too conservative. They generally require patterns and/or imminent threats for any action to be taken. There was no pattern of Zimmerman following Martin and there was no imminent threat, so stalking laws would not apply, even if Zimmerman was "terrorizing" Martin
    And a judicially feasible alternative would be?

    As I said earlier, I think that any lowering of the stalking threshold, or creating a new crime of "terrorizing" as you put it would put undue strain on an already overburdened legal system.

    More to the point, I can't even think how such a law could be crafted in such a way as to limit people mistakenly charging others with "terrorizing' (read following).

    I didn't call you a sociopath.
    You also didn't answer the question as to what you were getting at.


    Well, like stenographers, you have the transcript. It's really difficult to have any sort of discussion with someone when they get everything you say wrong.

    I did, 3 times now. If you still don't get it, you never will.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Fair enough it's ridiculous to you.

    You can use that as far as you can throw it.
    ^ that seems like an answer.

  7. #177
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    And a judicially feasible alternative would be?

    As I said earlier, I think that any lowering of the stalking threshold, or creating a new crime of "terrorizing" as you put it would put undue strain on an already overburdened legal system.

    More to the point, I can't even think how such a law could be crafted in such a way as to limit people mistakenly charging others with "terrorizing' (read following).
    I don't know and I didn't say those laws should be expanded. I only said that they might as well not exist.

    You also didn't answer the question as to what you were getting at.

    ^ that seems like an answer.
    I have 3 times, already. Your refusal to acknowledge my answer is just you trying to "win" some pointless forum argument. Good luck with that.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  8. #178
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I always find it interesting what names people use for the parties involved.
    "Martin" is much easier to type than "Zimmerman".

    Have you tried purposely putting yourself in the shoes of both Zimmerman and Martin while collecting information?
    I have been in both situations. Neither resulted in violence or even bad words.

    If someone was at one point chasing you and you ran. Then when you ask "Why are you following me?" the response was "What are you doing here?" and you come up on that same person later. Do you think you may be frightened enough to get physical just long enough to make sure you can get away?
    Unless he did more to give make me think that an attack was imminent, I would never get physical.

    He gave chase even after the professionals asked him not to do that. Murky situations like the one that came up is one of the reasons we want professionals to do this sort of thing.
    The dispatcher said he don't need to follow. He was not forbidden to follow. Z's actions might have been imprudent, but they were not negligent.

    A "concerned citizen" doing anything more than observing and reporting is being a vigilante.
    That's not true. The term implies going beyond what the law allows. If you attacked a mugger to protect the victim, you are not a vigilante unless the amount of force you used was far beyond what was necessary.

    You see the pattern of escalation, right? ...
    1) One person chases someone who looks suspicious to him despite warnings not to.
    2) The chased person decides to fight instead of continuing to flee
    3) The original chaser, loosing the last altercation, uses a firearm to kill the person who decided to fight him
    The person is not allowed to escalate the situation into a violent conflict it was reasonable to believe that there was imminent danger.

    The fact that he had followed others before without someone ending up dead doesn't make this decision right.
    That's not my argument. What I'm saying is that following does not usually lead to violence. Therefore, being followed is not sufficient reason to believe that an assault is imminent.

    I hope neither you nor DiscoBiscuit would ever make the types of decisions Zimmerman did.
    I hope you never decide to attack someone just because they followed you.

    I understand the frustration of not wanting more things stolen, and not wanting things vandalized. But it does not justify me taking law enforcement into my own hands.
    Delving out punishment is illegal. Taking action to prevent or stop a crime in progress is not.

    Following, let alone chasing, someone with a firearm on you without having the training or authority to make proper decisions in situations that may come up is not just stupid, it is wrong.
    That's your personal feelings. Others feel differently. Guns are allowed in many states.


    Also, I find it really odd that the eye-witness "John" told Zimmerman to "stop". What was that about? Perhaps he meant he was talking to Martin, but that sounded weird.
    His statement did not make sense. We will need to wait for the trial for clarification.

    I think you are exaggerating what the requirements are based of the wording ("depraved mind", "disregard for life", etc.)
    http://www.wgmorris.com/Articles/Its...cide-101.shtml
    My interpretation is that it there is an intent to cause injury, but it resulted in death instead.

    Taking Martin's point-of-view:
    But I certainly don't want to live someplace where if someone frightening was chasing/following me, and I shove and even take a couple of punches at him, that he can shoot and kill me and claim self-defense.
    This perspective is completely unreasonable. He is not and should not be allowed to initiate violence except to prevent imminent violence.

  9. #179
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I have 3 times, already. Your refusal to acknowledge my answer is just you trying to "win" some pointless forum argument. Good luck with that.
    Luckily my cup of care is empty at the moment.

    So I'll leave it there.

  10. #180
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    From Reason:

    Self-Defense Under Attack
    Critics of Florida's "stand your ground" law refuse to retreat, regardless of the evidence.

    Critics of Florida's self-defense law object to its recognition of a right to "stand your ground" in public places, which eliminated the duty to retreat from an assailant. Yet many of these critics seem to believe they have a duty to stand their ground and never retreat, using George Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon Martin as a weapon to attack Florida's law, no matter what the evidence shows.

    The emphasis on the right to stand your ground is puzzling in the context of the Martin case, since Zimmerman's defense does not seem to rely on it. The 28-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer, who was released on bail this week after being charged with second-degree murder in connection with the February 26 shooting in Sanford, told police the unarmed teenager knocked him down with a punch to the face and pinned him to the ground, repeatedly smacking his head against the pavement. By Zimmerman's account, then, he had no opportunity to retreat.

    Florida's law also has been blamed for delaying Zimmerman's arrest, and it did require that police have probable cause to believe the shooting was unlawful. But this is the same standard that applies to arrests for all other crimes, and whatever obstacle it may have posed proved temporary.

    One unusual aspect of Florida's law that will be apparent in this case is that Zimmerman has a right to pretrial hearing at which he can try to convince Judge Kenneth Lester, by "a preponderance of the evidence," that he acted in self-defense. If he can meet that standard of proof, which requires showing it is more likely than not that his use of force was appropriate, the charge against him will be dismissed. But even if he went to trial, he would be (or at least should be) acquitted with that much evidence in his favor, since the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self-defense—which, as Northern Kentucky University law professor Michael J.Z. Mannheimer has pointed out, would be true "in virtually every state."

    Zimmerman's defense under Florida's law is that he was attacked and "reasonably believe[d]" shooting Martin was "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." Contrary to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is leading a national campaign against Florida-style self-defense laws, that does not mean people "make their own decisions as to whether someone is threatening or not" and therefore have "a license to murder." The threat assessment has to be reasonable, meaning someone who uses deadly force has to show it was justified by the circumstances.

    Even if the Trayvon Martin case does not really illustrate the shortcomings of Florida's law, it is possible that eliminating the duty to retreat in public places, combined with reinforcing the "castle doctrine" (which applies to home invasions) and extending it to vehicles, has encouraged avoidable escalations of violence. The law's opponents note that the annual number of justifiable homicides in Florida (excluding police shootings) nearly tripled after the law was passed in 2005, from an average of 12 between 2000 and 2004 to an average of 35 between 2006 and 2010.

    Still, you would expect to see an increase in homicides deemed to be justified even if the law were working exactly as intended. The crucial question in assessing the law's impact, which the task force appointed last week by Gov. Rick Scott presumably will ask, is whether these homicides should be deemed justified.

    In the meantime, it is worth noting that Florida's violent crime rate, which fell by 12 percent in the five years before the "stand your ground" law was enacted, fell by 23 percent in the five years afterward. Since 1987, when Florida adopted a nondiscretionary carry permit law that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence blames for "year after year of carnage," the state's violent crime rate has been cut nearly in half.

Similar Threads

  1. Game of Thrones / G.R.R. Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire" (tv & book series)
    By nightwatcher in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 01-30-2017, 07:59 AM
  2. steve martin?
    By Lady_X in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 08-02-2010, 06:47 PM
  3. Villagers shoot down advertising balloon over country park
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-20-2008, 11:59 PM
  4. SHOOT TO KILL!
    By ByMySword in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 02-18-2008, 11:59 PM
  5. Iraq-Bound Soldier Hires Hitman To Shoot Him
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-24-2007, 07:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO