User Tag List

First 364445464748 Last

Results 451 to 460 of 473

  1. #451
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,860

    Default

    I suspect that Martin didn't know that Zimmerman had a gun until he was on top of him and had already punched him. Otherwise he would not have attacked him.
    So the deterrent quality was not in play. It couldn't be if he didn't know about it. And if you take that factor out, the gun is then only for killing or maiming. It can have no other function at that point.
    I think that Z postured like a tough guy, and probably said a lot of shit to Martin, which riled M up and created the confrontation, creating a sense of inequality for Martin. And by concealing the gun, I think Z either wanted to think that he was man enough for what might happen and expected Martin, as a 'punk' miscreant, to respect his authority, but when it turned against him, he shot in what he thought was justifiable self defense. So Z forced the issue by keeping the deterrent out of sight. He made M react to him man to man, a situation where Z would almost certainly lose, and made much worse for Z by the inequality he created in M’s mind, but then the gun came out.
    So I don't think this is a case of self defense. I think it's a sort of sociopathic bait-n-switch.
    But Z is a stupid sociopath. He wants to manipulate and control, but isn’t able to make it happen most times, as evidenced by this debacle. I don’t think he intended to kill Martin, but he made the whole thing happen through his law enforcement delusion and belief in his own superiority.
    I don’t imagine that most of the protestors have thought about this much, but they clearly sense a disconnect with reality here, and this is why his character and the molestation charge are relevant. The man is not a poster boy for SYG, or anything else except manipulation and ego, and of course child molestation. He should get jail time for being an idiot and baiting someone into their own death. But he won’t, which isn’t surprising in the police state of America and its need to control and inability to admit wrong doing, which of course are sociopathic traits…

  2. #452
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    First of all, what you've said in the above sounds to someone on the left what "well, why not just ban all the guns, then?" to someone on the right: it just demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of what's valued by the other side, and what they view to be at stake.

    Having said that, I'm alright with self-defense laws being "severely compromised", actually. I think as long as we live in a world where what constitutes "reasonable cause" for some may not be equally true for others, then we can at least spell out the nature of what constitutes reasonable force.



    So Zimmerman can 1) stalk, 2) harass, and 3) threaten Martin in his father's fiancee's neighborhood while armed with a gun, but it's Martin who provoked the fight.
    I was responding to your statement in kind.

    'Reasonable' is an inherently subjective word, that's part of the reason we have juries. And we basically do have a definition of 'reasonable force'-shoot to stop.

    There is zero physical evidence to suggest that Zimmerman initiated any physical altercation, and substantial evidence to show that Martin did, so it is Martin who initiated the fight, yes.

  3. #453
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    What is provided by this principle should be laws that don’t defy intuition. Regardless of specifics their altercation, the basic facts of the Martin case were that an armed man stalks and provokes a fight with an unarmed one, kills him, and was allowed to go free for it because he was the victim under the law. There would have been less of an uproar if the burden of proof on the defense had been whether the force used was justified, rather than justifying the use of force itself. Yeah, obviously, someone’s beating your ass you’re within rights to fight back, but to kill them? There should be more compelling thresholds for innocence than the ones used in this trial.
    While your points about proportionality are well taken, you are assuming that Zimmerman provoked the fight, despite the fact that Martin was not punched. The only way to be held liable for ones words in provoking the violent reaction of another is if you use fighting words. Nowhere has it been shown that Zimmerman either physically attacked Martin, or used fighting words to incite him.

    If you are going to assume that Zimmerman stalked and provoked Martin, why not just create a hypothetical situation where that actually happens as opposed to assuming it happened in a case where the jury disagreed with your assumption.

    Let me show you what ground and pound looks like.... bear in mind that the man on the bottom is a professional fighter trained to counter this and it still looks like he's being beaten to death:



    Zimmerman dealt with an attack similar in nature (if not strength or skill) to that for 40 seconds. In the video it takes Cheik Kongo 26 seconds to TKO Mustapha Al-Turk.

    If Zimmerman had used his gun while they were on their feet it would have been manslaughter.

    But Zimmerman was taken down by Martin (by the punch that broke GZ's nose I'm assuming) and then withstood and onslaught of that nature for 40 seconds. 14 seconds longer than it takes Cheik to TKO his opponent.

    Now a gun is a deadly weapon, and should only be used as a last resort. But without a ref to stop it, and not knowing if Trayvon would stop hitting him, Zimmerman definitely responded responded proportionately to a real imminent threat of at the very least great bodily harm.

    As to proportionality, it is very important. I remember a case in Law school where a mechanic was justified in shooting an unarmed NFL player with a shotgun, because of the disparity in their sizes.

    In the case at hand, 40 seconds of ground and pound amounted to a sufficient threat to allow deadly force in response.

  4. #454
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    You can't fear for your life if you haven't been physically attacked or threatened with a weapon?
    1. This is wrong.
    2. What evidence do you have that Dunn wasn't threatened?
    Threatened with a weapon you mean. Most people just talk shit with empty hands and never do anything.

    What evidence do you have that he was?

    Here is the evidence that's been released thus far:

    http://www.news4jax.com/news/Evidenc...z/-/index.html

    JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -

    Channel 4 is getting a first look at what police found the night 17-year-old Jordan Davis was shot and killed the day after Thanksgiving, and the next day when the man accused of killing Davis was arrested.

    Davis was shot and killed outside the Gate gas station at Baymeadows Road and Southside Boulevard in what was described as a dispute over loud music coming from the SUV Davis was riding in.

    One day later, police arrested 45-year-old Michael Dunn on a charge of first-degree murder. Dunn claimed to officers he was defending himself and his attorney says it will be a "stand your ground" case.

    Court records obtained by WJXT show that Jacksonville Sheriff's Office investigators found five 9mm casings at the parking lot, which prosecutors say came from Dunn's gun. When Dunn was arrested at his Brevard County home, police reported finding a 9mm semiautomatic handgun loaded with five bullets. A search of Dunn's car turned up another 9mm bullet casing.

    According to the list provided to prosecutors, also in Dunn's car were eight live rounds in a magazine, a silencer and nun chucks.

    Dunn's attorney, Corry Strolla, said the nun chucks and silencer were just novelty items -- collectibles of sort -- and they were not used in the killing at all.

    Investigators also went through the SUV that Davis was in when he was shot. Items found included keys, jewelry, change and a pocket knife.

    Dunn's attorney says his client saw someone in the SUV pull out what looked to be a shotgun and point it his way -- prompting him to fire in self-defense. According to the evidence list, no firearm was in the vehicle that Dunn fired into.

    "It's a very detailed list of witnesses and evidence materials that have been recovered by the police," Channel 4 attorney and legal analyst Ed Birk said.

    Birk said the evidence will play a big role in court, but even more important will be statements witnesses gave to police.

    "Most of the time defendants want to seal that information at least until the witnesses can be interviewed or their deposition's taken," Birk said.

    Channel 4 crime analyst Ken Jefferson says the evidence and testimony could swing this case either way, but Dunn's actions after the shooting will also be closely scrutinized.

    "Him leaving the scene, not calling the police, and then ultimately leaving town and still not contacting the police does not help him at all -- does not help his case at all," Jefferson said.

    While prosecutors believe this is a murder case, Strolla believes witness statements will show his client was only acting in self-defense.
    He's not going to win this one.

  5. #455
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    What you seemed to have passed over here—somewhat facilely, I might add—is the fact that something in the interaction Martin had with Zimmerman drove him to believe that his life was at stake as well. This is assuming, of course, that Martin’s intent was to actually kill Zimmerman, which we only have Zimmerman’s word for. If Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun, it’s entirely possible that he felt that killing Zimmerman was the only way to prevent himself from getting shot. And what if he had killed Zimmerman? Would he have been acquitted as well?

    It’s impossible to prove a negative, but what we do have instances like that of Marissa Alexander, a 31-year-old African American mom with a Master's degree, who claimed similarly that her life was in danger in her defense against an abusive husband. Alexander fires a warning shot near her husband’s head and is now serving 20 years in prison under Florida state law. I have serious doubts that had Martin killed Zimmerman he would have fared much better.
    You fail to mention in the Marissa Alexander case that she went into the garage to get the gun from her car's glove box, then instead of leaving like a normal human being, she went back inside pistol in hand and demanded that Gray leave. When he refused she pulled the trigger aiming at the ceiling (I guess).

    Here are the details from sworn testimony:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...nd-her-ground/

    According to a sworn deposition taken in November 2010, Gray, 36, said that on August 1, 2010, he and Alexander began fighting after he found text messages to Alexander's first husband on her phone. The two were already estranged - according to her father, Alexander had been living at her mother's since the birth of the couple's daughter nine days earlier, and Gray, a long-haul trucker, said he spent the night before in his tractor-trailer. Gray began calling her names, saying "If I can't have you, nobody going to have you," and blocking her from exiting the bathroom.

    Alexander pushed past Gray and went into the garage where she got her gun from her car's glove compartment.

    Gray told prosecutors in the deposition that Alexander came back into the house holding the weapon and told him to leave. He refused, and what happened next is somewhat unclear. In his deposition, Gray said "she shot in the air one time," prompting him and the children to run out the front door. But when Gray called 911 the day of the incident, he said "she aimed the gun at us and she shot."

    In August 2011, a judge rejected a motion by Alexander's attorney to grant her immunity under the "stand your ground" law. According to the judge's order, "there is insufficient evidence that the Defendant reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself," and that the fact that she came back into the home, instead of leaving out the front or back door "is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for her life."
    The facts matter.

  6. #456
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    You fail to mention in the Marissa Alexander case that she went into the garage to get the gun from her car's glove box, then instead of leaving like a normal human being, she went back inside pistol in hand and demanded that Gray leave. When he refused she pulled the trigger aiming at the ceiling (I guess).
    I'm confused. Which home were they in? Who's home was this building?

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The facts matter.
    I don't think you've spoken to anybody that disdains facts or the concept of law. When you say things like "the facts matter" or "I believe in law" and shit, you just make it look like you have relatively little awareness of what a differing opinion looks like. You are not standing with the obvious against a pack of lunatics, you are just standing with one interpretation vs another interpretation.

    And nobody gives a shit about your interest in MMA. Stop bringing it up.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  7. #457
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Was Trayvon blowing Zimmerman kisses when the shooting occurred?

    Dont get frustrated...


  8. #458
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    I think this thread demonstrates well how affect and emotion over take reason and any good points there are to be made in discussions here on this forum.

  9. #459
    Senior Member Chiharu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFp None
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Martin had the right to stand his ground against some creepy stalker guy, too.


    Personally, I think Zimmerman wanted to start something so that the police would collar Martin since he couldn't prove that Martin had done anything wrong (since, you know, he hadn't), only he underestimated his own ability to fight back.

    He should have been charged with criminal negligence as well.
    Be soft. Do not let the world make you hard. Do not let pain make you hate. Do not let the bitterness steal your sweetness." ― Kurt Vonnegut

    ENFP. 7w6 – 4w3 – 1w9 sx/so. Aries. Dilettante. Overly anxious optimist.

  10. #460
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Since you won't believe me here is William Saletan from Slate to explain with an excerpt:

    You Are Not Trayvon Martin

    His death wasn’t about race, guns, or your pet issue. It was about misjudgment and overreaction—exactly what we’re doing now to the verdict.

    Trayvon Martin is dead, George Zimmerman has been acquitted, and millions of people are outraged. Some politicians are demanding a second prosecution of Zimmerman, this time for hate crimes. Others are blaming the tragedy on “Stand Your Ground” laws, which they insist must be repealed. Many who saw the case as proof of racism in the criminal justice system see the verdict as further confirmation. Everywhere you look, people feel vindicated in their bitter assumptions. They want action.

    But that’s how Martin ended up dead. It’s how Zimmerman ended up with a bulletproof vest he might have to wear for the rest of his life. It’s how activists and the media embarrassed themselves with bogus reports. The problem at the core of this case wasn’t race or guns. The problem was assumption, misperception, and overreaction. And that cycle hasn’t ended with the verdict. It has escalated.

    I almost joined the frenzy. Yesterday I was going to write that Zimmerman pursued Martin against police instructions and illustrated the perils of racial profiling. But I hadn’t followed the case in detail. So I sat down and watched the closing arguments: nearly seven hours of video in which the prosecution and defense went point by point through the evidence as it had been hashed out at the trial. Based on what I learned from the videos, I did some further reading.

    It turned out I had been wrong about many things. The initial portrait of Zimmerman as a racist wasn’t just exaggerated. It was completely unsubstantiated. It’s a case study in how the same kind of bias that causes racism can cause unwarranted allegations of racism. Some of the people Zimmerman had reported as suspicious were black men, so he was a racist. Members of his family seemed racist, so he was a racist. Everybody knew he was a racist, so his recorded words were misheard as racial slurs, proving again that he was a racist.

    The 911 dispatcher who spoke to Zimmerman on the fatal night didn’t tell him to stay in his car. Zimmerman said he was following a suspicious person, and the dispatcher told him, "We don't need you to do that." Chief prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda conceded in his closing argument that these words were ambiguous. De la Rionda also acknowledged, based on witness and forensic evidence, that both men “were scraping and rolling and fighting out there.” He pointed out that the wounds, blood evidence, and DNA didn’t match Zimmerman’s story of being thoroughly restrained and pummeled throughout the fight. But the evidence didn’t fit the portrait of Martin as a sweet-tempered child, either. And the notion that Zimmerman hunted down Martin to accost him made no sense. Zimmerman knew the police were on the way. They arrived only a minute or so after the gunshot. The fight happened in a public area surrounded by townhouses at close range. It was hardly the place or time to start shooting.

    That doesn’t make Zimmerman a hero. It just makes him a reckless fool instead of a murderer. In a post-verdict press conference, his lawyer, Mark O’Mara, claimed that “the evidence supported that George Zimmerman did nothing wrong,” that “the jury decided that he acted properly in self-defense,” and that Zimmerman “was never guilty of anything except protecting himself in self-defense. I’m glad that the jury saw it that way.” That’s complete BS. The only thing the jury decided was that there was reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman had committed second-degree murder or manslaughter.

    Zimmerman is guilty, morally if not legally, of precipitating the confrontation that led to Martin’s death. He did many things wrong. Mistake No. 1 was inferring that Martin was a burglar. In his 911 call, Zimmerman cited Martin’s behavior. “It’s raining, and he’s just walking around” looking at houses, Zimmerman said. He warned the dispatcher, “He’s got his hand in his waistband.” He described Martin’s race and clothing only after the dispatcher asked about them. Whatever its basis, the inference was false.

    Mistake No. 2 was pursuing Martin on foot. Zimmerman had already done what the neighborhood watch rules advised: He had called the police. They would have arrived, questioned Martin, and ascertained that he was innocent. Instead, Zimmerman, packing a concealed firearm, got out and started walking after Martin. Zimmerman’s initial story, that he was trying to check the name of the street, was so laughable that his attorneys abandoned it. He was afraid Martin would get away. So he followed Martin, hoping to update the cops.

    Mistake No. 3 was Zimmerman’s utter failure to imagine how his behavior looked to Martin. You’re a black kid walking home from a convenience store with Skittles and a fruit drink. Some dude in a car is watching and trailing you. God knows what he wants. You run away. He gets out of the car and follows you. What are you supposed to do? In Zimmerman’s initial interrogation, the police expressed surprise that he hadn’t identified himself to Martin as a neighborhood watch volunteer. They suggested that Martin might have been alarmed when Zimmerman reached for an object that Zimmerman, but not Martin, knew was a phone. Zimmerman seemed baffled. He was so convinced of Martin’s criminal intent that he hadn’t considered how Martin, if he were innocent, would perceive his stalker.

    Martin, meanwhile, was profiling Zimmerman. On his phone, he told a friend he was being followed by a “creepy-ass cracker.” The friend—who later testified that this phrase meant pervert—advised Martin, “You better run.” She reported, as Zimmerman did, that Martin challenged Zimmerman, demanding to know why he was being hassled. If Zimmerman’s phobic misreading of Martin was the first wrong turn that led to their fatal struggle, Martin’s phobic misreading of Zimmerman may have been the second.

    In court, evidence and scrutiny have exposed these difficult, complicated truths. But outside the court, ideologues are ignoring them. They’re oversimplifying a tragedy that was caused by oversimplification. Martin has become Emmett Till. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is using the verdict to attack Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which wasn’t invoked in this case. The grievance industrial complex is pushing the Department of Justice to prosecute Zimmerman for bias-motivated killing, based on evidence that didn’t even support a conviction for unpremeditated killing. Zimmerman’s lawyers have teamed up with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, inadvertently, to promote the false message that Zimmerman’s acquittal means our society thinks everything he did was OK.

    It wasn’t OK. It was stupid and dangerous. It led to the unnecessary death of an innocent young man. It happened because two people—their minds clouded by stereotypes that went well beyond race—assumed the worst about one another and acted in haste.

Similar Threads

  1. New York is going to be destroyed by fire
    By draon9 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-24-2016, 10:38 AM
  2. Looks like we are going to Syria
    By The Great One in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 09-19-2013, 10:31 AM
  3. It's looking like we might be able to break up the malicious super-banks after all!
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-22-2009, 09:30 AM
  4. So it's going to be 75 degrees on Christmas
    By swordpath in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-22-2008, 01:44 AM
  5. Obama is going to face international crisis PROMISES Biden
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 10-22-2008, 04:11 PM

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