Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

In my foreign land, murder is OKFollow

#502 Apr 07 2012 at 7:19 PM Rating: Good
**
485 posts
Samira wrote:
"Adolescent boy" refers to the fact that he is an adolescent. There's nothing in that phrase that says "twiggy little panty waist".




Other than the word "boy". Boy implies kid,child etc. No one would call a 6'3'', 200 lbs 17 year old MALE a "boy", at least not to his face anyway. 17 is a young adult, not a child, not a boy. If a 17 year old kills and/or rapes someone what are the odds he would be tried as an adult? Fact is 17 year olds do rape, murder, molest and mutilate others. 17 isn't 8. I'm not saying Trayvon was guilty of anything, but by 17 youthful innocence is long gone.
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#503 Apr 07 2012 at 9:47 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,506 posts
I disagree. Everyone over the age of 37 refers to me as a "kid", despite the fact that I'm 5'11", 210 lbs, am 22, and have a full beard. Maybe others add connotation to differentiate adolescent, boy, and kid. But I see them as relatively synonymous. *shrug*

Maybe I'm just not in the norm. But either way, it strikes me as absurd to try and argue against word choices based on a subjective connotative meaning rather than the objective denotative one. Martin WAS an adolescent. He WAS a boy (most people would probably try and argue he was a "young man" which is objectively in the terrain of "boy" by most definitions).

But if we want to evade all semantics, just translate boy/adolescent to minor.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#504 Apr 08 2012 at 12:03 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,894 posts
I'm good friends with two soldiers, one a teen, one in his early twenties. One is huge and musclular, the other is vicious and deadly. They both have anger management problems in general. One's extreme flashback problems, beserker rage and training has started to make his family and friends afraid of him. He's the one I unironically call Sweetpea. They are both boys to me, even the married one. Both complex mixtures of personality, immaturity, and maturity. Young and still forming amidst a world of troubles.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#505 Apr 08 2012 at 8:53 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,087 posts
Quote:
§61.30. Loitering or Prowling; Defined & Punished; Defenses. (a) A person commits a violation if he loiters or prowls in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant alarm for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity. Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon appearance of a peace officer, refuses to identify himself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object. (b) Unless flight by the person or other circumstances makes it impracticable, a peace officer shall prior to any arrest for an offense under this Section afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm which would otherwise be warranted, by requesting him to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct. (c) No person shall be convicted of an offense under this Section if the peace officer did not comply with Subsection (b) or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person was true and, if believed by the peace officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm.
____________________________
[99WAR,99BLM,99DRK,99BST,99PLD,99MNK,99SMN75RDM49THF45NIN/WHM/DNC
/SAM,,~] Galka

BASTOK:10 SKY: O SEA: O DYNAMIS: O
SIREN srvr
YARP !!!
#506 Apr 08 2012 at 10:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,894 posts
We know from the recorded phone call with the dispatcher that the first time Martin approached Zimmerman, Zimmerman did not comply with subsection b).
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#507 Apr 08 2012 at 2:55 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
We know from the recorded phone call with the dispatcher that the first time Martin approached Zimmerman, Zimmerman did not comply with subsection b).


This and the fact that Zimmerman, no matter what he believed, is not a police officer. The part about fleeing in the section that Terrifyingspeed quoted talks about a person fleeing from "a peace officer," which means a police man. Martin was fleeing from some guy who started chasing him, not from a uniformed police officer. The former could be seen as fear, the latter would be seen as suspicious.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#508 Apr 08 2012 at 3:09 PM Rating: Good
I saw a guy actually committing a crime today. He was stealing plants that were left outside of a store that was closed for Easter. He casually drove away while I was on the phone with the police. Was I unreasonable for not chasing him down? I really wanna know what most people think. Should I have done anything other than just call the police?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#509 Apr 08 2012 at 3:12 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,506 posts
I give you kudos for calling. Had you chased him down, I would have called you insane.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#510 Apr 09 2012 at 3:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,258 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
I saw a guy actually committing a crime today. He was stealing plants that were left outside of a store that was closed for Easter. He casually drove away while I was on the phone with the police. Was I unreasonable for not chasing him down? I really wanna know what most people think. Should I have done anything other than just call the police?
Should have shot out his tires. Smiley: tongue

But seriously, if you got his license plate number and passed it on to the police, I'd say that's more than your civic duty.
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#511 Apr 09 2012 at 6:19 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,087 posts
Quote:
We know from the recorded phone call with the dispatcher that the first time Martin approached Zimmerman, Zimmerman did not comply with subsection b).


Actually, he was unable to because Martin "Fled" or "Ran away" (based on recorded call). Chasing is different than following, The reasonableness of Zimmermans "suspicion" is one of the factors that would be addressed in court if charges are filed.

I dont know about anyone else, but I notice "Warning: Neighborhood Watch" signs when I see them (they have a little picto of a 'crook" on them & say "we report suspicious activity")

So, we have a 1) gated community with 2) an established neighborhood watch,3) night-time, rainy 4) person "runs away" when he notices he's being watched 5) unknown person to Zimmerman (who probably has seen other neighbors jogging or walking in his time as "watch-captain")

It seems Martin had just recently come to that neighborhood, & there is a good chance he wasnt seen before by Zimmerman, Was the dads fiance aware of recent problems & the establishment of "Neighborhood Watch" ? Did they discuss it with him ? Maybe he coulda just told Zimmerman "Hey, I'm visiting so-and so in unit # such and such"

This is a case of "Poor Situational Awareness".























____________________________
[99WAR,99BLM,99DRK,99BST,99PLD,99MNK,99SMN75RDM49THF45NIN/WHM/DNC
/SAM,,~] Galka

BASTOK:10 SKY: O SEA: O DYNAMIS: O
SIREN srvr
YARP !!!
#512 Apr 09 2012 at 6:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,258 posts
Terrifyingspeed wrote:
Maybe he coulda just told Zimmerman "Hey, I'm visiting so-and so in unit # such and such"
This assumes he knew Zimmerman was with Neighborhood Watch.
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#513 Apr 09 2012 at 6:40 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,495 posts
By not arresting Zimmerman, Florida agreed to let the media, and you and me decide this case.

I think he's guilty. I think he's paranoid. I think he had a gun, a paranoia, a feeling of being enables by FL lawmakers and his community. Martin was the one trying to defend himself from this whacko that was stalking him.

Guilty.

Next time I run into the dude I'm standing my ground and kicking him in the nuts.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#514 Apr 09 2012 at 7:14 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,506 posts
Quote:
an established neighborhood watch


This doesn't seem the case. At least, he wasn't part of any watch organization or coordinated with the local police department. This was just locals deciding to stay on the look out, not an organized activity. So it's extremely possible that papa Martin's girlfriend had no clue who Zimmerman was. Also probable that there aren't neighborhood watch signs out.

And, seriously, should you have to explain to your visitors not to run afoul of the local watch? That's absurd.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#515 Apr 09 2012 at 7:48 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,122 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
But if we want to evade all semantics, just translate boy/adolescent to minor.
If you're old enough to be treated as an adult in the eyes of the courts then insisting on calling him any variation of minor is disingenuous.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#516 Apr 09 2012 at 7:56 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,506 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
But if we want to evade all semantics, just translate boy/adolescent to minor.
If you're old enough to be treated as an adult in the eyes of the courts then insisting on calling him any variation of minor is disingenuous.


"Old enough" is a seriously problematic system, though. There have been 13 year old kids tried as adults.

Frankly, until a court decides that Martin should be considered an adult, I'm going to continue to consider him a minor.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#517 Apr 09 2012 at 8:52 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,122 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Frankly, until a court decides that Martin should be considered an adult, I'm going to continue to consider him a minor.
If Martin killed someone, he'd be treated as an adult. If he'd robbed someone, he'd be treated as an adult. If he'd stolen something he'd be treated as an adult. If he'd been in a fight he'd be treated as an adult. I can't really think of a case where he wouldn't be treated as an adult, excluding the purchase and consumption of alcohol. The only difference is that, in this case he's the victim, and calling him a minor helps subtly sway opinion towards automatic presumption of innocence.

17 is a crappy age. Legally you'll be treated as an adult should you mess up, and you'll still get in trouble for doing the fun stuff an adult is allowed to do.

Edited, Apr 9th 2012 10:52am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#518 Apr 09 2012 at 10:01 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,506 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Frankly, until a court decides that Martin should be considered an adult, I'm going to continue to consider him a minor.
If Martin killed someone, he'd be treated as an adult. If he'd robbed someone, he'd be treated as an adult. If he'd stolen something he'd be treated as an adult. If he'd been in a fight he'd be treated as an adult. I can't really think of a case where he wouldn't be treated as an adult, excluding the purchase and consumption of alcohol. The only difference is that, in this case he's the victim, and calling him a minor helps subtly sway opinion towards automatic presumption of innocence.

17 is a crappy age. Legally you'll be treated as an adult should you mess up, and you'll still get in trouble for doing the fun stuff an adult is allowed to do.

Edited, Apr 9th 2012 10:52am by lolgaxe


And you still don't have any of the authority over your own life that you'll get at 18. People wonder why teenagers are so unhappy...
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#519 Apr 09 2012 at 11:22 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,495 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Frankly, until a court decides that Martin should be considered an adult, I'm going to continue to consider him a minor.
If Martin killed someone, he'd be treated as an adult. If he'd robbed someone, he'd be treated as an adult. If he'd stolen something he'd be treated as an adult. If he'd been in a fight he'd be treated as an adult. I can't really think of a case where he wouldn't be treated as an adult, excluding the purchase and consumption of alcohol. The only difference is that, in this case he's the victim, and calling him a minor helps subtly sway opinion towards automatic presumption of innocence.
Martin is was a minor. If that sways you to believe him innocent that's your issue. Others might view 'minors' as trouble-making immature dolts and so it would bolster the argument of guilt - that's their issue.

To call him an adult would be inaccurate.






Edited, Apr 9th 2012 7:23pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#520 Apr 09 2012 at 11:32 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,122 posts
Elinda wrote:
To call him an adult would be inaccurate.
To constantly refer to him as a minor when discussing legal precedence is a lot more inaccurate.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#521 Apr 09 2012 at 12:07 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
To call him an adult would be inaccurate.
To constantly refer to him as a minor when discussing legal precedence is a lot more inaccurate.


Isn't he so unless a hypothetical court were to deem otherwise? I don't know much about this stuff, but I was under the impression that it's the circumstances of a crime which get a minor tried as an adult. In the absence of those criminal actions, there'd be no rationale for changing his status.

Edited, Apr 9th 2012 2:07pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#522 Apr 09 2012 at 12:11 PM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,495 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
To call him an adult would be inaccurate.
To constantly refer to him as a minor when discussing legal precedence is a lot more inaccurate.

Huh, he was 17 wasn't he?

I can see your point about using specific words to sway an argument, but a minor is a minor - it is the legal term for a person under 18. If you wanted to play with people's heartstrings I'd probably use more descriptive terms like young, innocent, baby-faced, child, etc.





Edited, Apr 9th 2012 8:12pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#523 Apr 09 2012 at 12:26 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,122 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
To call him an adult would be inaccurate.
To constantly refer to him as a minor when discussing legal precedence is a lot more inaccurate.
Isn't he so unless a hypothetical court were to deem otherwise? I don't know much about this stuff, but I was under the impression that it's the circumstances of a crime which get a minor tried as an adult. In the absence of those criminal actions, there'd be no rationale for changing his status.
The point is that in this particular case it's an irrelevant label meant only to emotionally sway the audience. Martin's being 17 wouldn't change any charges Zimmerman might face, nor would they increase or decrease sentencing. It's basically going out of your way to say the tires on the car are Michelins when the case is about drunk driving.
Elinda wrote:
If you wanted to play with people's heartstrings I'd probably use more descriptive terms like young, innocent, baby-faced, child, etc.
Except it does play on heartstrings in a more subtle manner. Maybe it's too subtle even for you, but any first year law student can recognize it. If you really don't want to play emotions, then call him as he is according to this case and how the law works: A person.

Like I said, 17 is a crappy age when the age of majority in most states is 18. You'll almost always be treated as an adult when you mess up, and you'll have plenty of chances to mess up when you're not allowed to do most of anything adults are entitled to.

Edited, Apr 9th 2012 2:31pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#524 Apr 09 2012 at 12:37 PM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,495 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
To call him an adult would be inaccurate.
To constantly refer to him as a minor when discussing legal precedence is a lot more inaccurate.
Isn't he so unless a hypothetical court were to deem otherwise? I don't know much about this stuff, but I was under the impression that it's the circumstances of a crime which get a minor tried as an adult. In the absence of those criminal actions, there'd be no rationale for changing his status.
The point is that in this particular case it's an irrelevant label meant only to emotionally sway the audience. Martin's being 17 wouldn't change any charges Zimmerman might face, nor would they increase or decrease sentencing. It's basically going out of your way to say the tires on the car are Michelins when the case is about drunk driving.
Elinda wrote:
If you wanted to play with people's heartstrings I'd probably use more descriptive terms like young, innocent, baby-faced, child, etc.
Except it does play on heartstrings in a more subtle manner. Maybe it's too subtle even for you, but any first year law student can recognize it. If you really don't want to play emotions, then call him as he is according to this case and how the law works: A person.

Like I said, 17 is a crappy age when the age of majority in most states is 18. You'll almost always be treated as an adult when you mess up, and you'll have plenty of chances to mess up when you're not allowed to do most of anything adults are entitled to.

Edited, Apr 9th 2012 2:31pm by lolgaxe
No, maybe it's only subtle for you. Maybe not everyone equates minor to innocent.

How about if we call Martin a juvenile. Is that going to make people feel more or less sorry for him?

Of course if you're worried about giving too much away, maybe we shouldn't even refer to Martin as a him.

Why even mention that Martin is a person. I mean then we really feel sorry for him.

Zimmerman just shot this thing. No biggie - go back to bed.



____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#525 Apr 09 2012 at 12:39 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,122 posts
Elinda wrote:
Zimmerman just shot this thing. No biggie - go back to bed.
That doesn't show your emotional attachment to the label at all. Proves my point nicely though.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#526 Apr 09 2012 at 12:45 PM Rating: Default
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,495 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Zimmerman just shot this thing. No biggie - go back to bed.
That doesn't show your emotional attachment to the label at all. Proves my point nicely though.

Your point being don't call a spade a spade if you can just call it a playing card?

Maybe people should get emotional over a kid that was gunned down for no reason.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#527 Apr 09 2012 at 12:47 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
To call him an adult would be inaccurate.
To constantly refer to him as a minor when discussing legal precedence is a lot more inaccurate.
Isn't he so unless a hypothetical court were to deem otherwise? I don't know much about this stuff, but I was under the impression that it's the circumstances of a crime which get a minor tried as an adult. In the absence of those criminal actions, there'd be no rationale for changing his status.
The point is that in this particular case it's an irrelevant label meant only to emotionally sway the audience. Martin's being 17 wouldn't change any charges Zimmerman might face, nor would they increase or decrease sentencing. It's basically going out of your way to say the tires on the car are Michelins when the case is about drunk driving.
Elinda wrote:
If you wanted to play with people's heartstrings I'd probably use more descriptive terms like young, innocent, baby-faced, child, etc.
Except it does play on heartstrings in a more subtle manner. Maybe it's too subtle even for you, but any first year law student can recognize it. If you really don't want to play emotions, then call him as he is according to this case and how the law works: A person.

Like I said, 17 is a crappy age when the age of majority in most states is 18. You'll almost always be treated as an adult when you mess up, and you'll have plenty of chances to mess up when you're not allowed to do most of anything adults are entitled to.

Edited, Apr 9th 2012 2:31pm by lolgaxe


I'm not so sure about all that. I think It bears some significance in its relation to the perceived threat that Zimmerman believed he was facing, to Martin's level of maturity, and thereby his decision-making. It could certainly come into play.

Anyway, my point was that I don't know why you're using "He'd be an adult if he committed a crime" as your way of furthering your argument. Might as well say "This water I'm drinking isn't water...it's ice, because it'd be ice if it were colder."

Edited, Apr 9th 2012 2:48pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#528 Apr 09 2012 at 1:21 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,506 posts
Judging solely from what I've seen (so feel free to correct me), but don't most prosecuters tend to throw every applicable charge at defendents, to increase the chances of a conviction and sweeten the incentive for a plea bargain?

So unless a court does decide to treat Martin as an adult, I imagine there are quite a few additional laws that could be at play against Zimmerman. Which is also why I imagine the first thing his lawyer will do is try and have Martin deemed an adult for the purposes of the trial.

I have no clue if this is actually the case--this is quite a bit of assumption. I'm mostly thinking of things like child endangerment. And I'm not finding anything useful Florida-specific though. The closest I've found is culpable negligence, which isn't child-specific (but might have increased sentences for children), and does not require any additional criminal activity (but the punishment is increased if injury does occur).

I just don't see much reason to assume that Martin's age wouldn't be a factor if Zimmerman is charged. But I don't know this. I'm just going to continue to assume he'd be treated as a minor in the context of the law, because I honestly don't see why he wouldn't. Like someone else mentioned, I've only heard of adulthood being argued in cases of gross misconduct.

I've never heard of someone's size being used to justify them being tried as an adult. I don't think that's how it works here in Jersey, at least. My brother in law works for a child rehabilitation center, and he has kids who are 16-17, have committed aggravated assaults, and are larger than he is (and he's pretty buff). He even has a few who are over 18, but have been ruled minors for various reasons (I believe it was regarding their mental states). This is pretty much the extent of my knowledge on the issue, and as its state-specific it's not too useful.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#529 Apr 09 2012 at 3:08 PM Rating: Decent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,158 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
But if we want to evade all semantics, just translate boy/adolescent to minor.
If you're old enough to be treated as an adult in the eyes of the courts then insisting on calling him any variation of minor is disingenuous.


It might well be designed to appeal to the reader's sympathies. What you seem to be suggesting by your 'in the eyes of the court' bit, though, is that it is in some way incorrect to refer to him as such. It's not.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#530 Apr 09 2012 at 3:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Funny what happens when we change the emphasis:

Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I have never claimed I now exactly what happened that night. What I have said repeatedly is that we know enough about what happened to accept Zimmerman's claim of self defense, and that we don't know of anything that counters that legal claim. I think I've provided more than enough support for my position on this.


Hmm, let's see...

gbaji wrote:
There is overwhelming evidence of a textbook self defense case. How the hell can you even ask the question? There's a mountain of evidence here and all of it supports Zimmerman's story.


gbaji wrote:
...the starting point is a clear cut case of self defense. In the absence of proof about how the fight started, we can only look at how it ended. And that is straight up self defense.


gbaji wrote:
That right there is sufficient proof of self defense


gbaji wrote:
Zimmerman has a bloody nose, a bleeding wound on the back of his head, and grass stains on his back which perfectly supports his claim of self defense. What more do you need?


gbaji wrote:
Quote:
What makes it a clear cut case? Because Zimmerman said so?



Sigh. I'm quite sure I've already listed off all of the factors


gbaji wrote:
Seriously. Step back from this case itself and look at the facts objectively. It's self defense. It's obviously self defense. As I keep saying, this is nearly a textbook case


Well shit, that was easy.


Yes. You easily proved my point. I never claimed to know "exactly what happened". I did claim repeatedly that we know enough to show that Zimmerman acted in self defense. Um... Which is precisely what the quotes you dug up show me doing. Did you intend to agree with me? Cause if not, you did it wrong.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#531 Apr 09 2012 at 3:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Elinda wrote:
I can see your point about using specific words to sway an argument, but a minor is a minor - it is the legal term for a person under 18. If you wanted to play with people's heartstrings I'd probably use more descriptive terms like young, innocent, baby-faced, child, etc.


Or "adolescent boy"?

Samira wrote:
Well, I think his point is that it's entirely possible to have a concussion without visible external injuries.

Not likely to happen from an adolescent boy shaking a grown man, though, you're right about that.



That was the post that started this little side conversation in the first place. Minor is fine. Teen is fine. Young man is fine. But can we at least agree that "adolescent boy" is designed to be less accurate and more manipulative?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#532 Apr 09 2012 at 3:41 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,506 posts
No, I won't agree to that at all. Make all the arguments you want for "child", but adolescence is the stage between childhood and adulthood. If he isn't a child, and he isn't a legal adult, he IS an adolescent, regardless of whether or not you want to consider him one.

And adolescence, as viewed by a more scientific definition, often continues into the late teens or early twenties, because the human body continues to mature far more rapidly in the years immediately after legal adulthood than it will later (though not generally so rapidly as the early teens). It's not uncommon at all for the general traits associated with adolescence to continue into the early twenties.

So, really, I think arguing against the word is idiotic. Legally, it applies. Scientifically, it applies. And I have no interest in changing a word because you connect a specific connotation to it.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#533 Apr 09 2012 at 4:03 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,790 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
No, I won't agree to that at all. Make all the arguments you want for "child", but adolescence is the stage between childhood and adulthood. If he isn't a child, and he isn't a legal adult, he IS an adolescent, regardless of whether or not you want to consider him one.

And adolescence, as viewed by a more scientific definition, often continues into the late teens or early twenties, because the human body continues to mature far more rapidly in the years immediately after legal adulthood than it will later (though not generally so rapidly as the early teens). It's not uncommon at all for the general traits associated with adolescence to continue into the early twenties.

So, really, I think arguing against the word is idiotic. Legally, it applies. Scientifically, it applies. And I have no interest in changing a word because you connect a specific connotation to it.


You're an idiot if you think he's quibbling about "adolescent" and not "boy". By 17 years of age, I hardly doubt anyone can be called a "boy" except in a derisive and condescending manner.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#534 Apr 09 2012 at 4:15 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,506 posts
That's nice, but it's not like our language really gives us many other options. Making accusations about emotionally charged language is more useful when that language isn't also what is colloquially available.

Adolescent man is oxymoronic, and adolescent male isn't really colloquial.

If you have a better option, I'm all years.

And, in any case, boy is still perfectly applicable. Most 17 year olds would object to being called "boy" because they want to be treated like adults. Doesn't mean they aren't still boys, because they are.

[EDIT]

The only colloquial word I can think of that seems applicable is "guy". But I've never actually heard adolescent and guy strung together.

The problem we are facing here is really actually the one Lolgaxe has brought up. With regards to the age of adulthood, Martin was a child (though who knows if he'd be considered such during the trial). But culturally we've created a distinct age bracket--"young adult" that isn't represented in our laws. That makes it legitimately hard to refer to Martin in anything but the most impassive voice when speaking about legal topics. But we're just people chatting on the web, which makes that language odd to use.

Edited, Apr 9th 2012 6:19pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#535 Apr 09 2012 at 4:29 PM Rating: Good
***
2,790 posts
I'm not arguing that it isn't colloquially acceptable.

I was arguing that you actually thought he was disturbed by the "adolescent" part of "adolescent boy" and not the "boy" part, when there is no way in hell you didn't know that. So, in other words, you were twisting his words around. Now I realize that seems to be the Asylum's national pasttime, and I'm not sure why I decided to jump in and call you out on it that particular time, but I did, so there!

And I would say, in the absence of a propery fitting colloquial word, use the scientific term and call him an adolescent male, or hell just leave the "boy" part off and call him an adolescent. I would think that most people would know he is male from the name Trayvon.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#536 Apr 09 2012 at 4:42 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,158 posts
Quote:
I was arguing that you actually thought he was disturbed by the "adolescent" part of "adolescent boy" and not the "boy" part, when there is no way in hell you didn't know that.


You're not a very clear thinker, are you?
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#537 Apr 09 2012 at 4:43 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,506 posts
If all he had issue with was the boy part, he shouldn't have quoted both. I only defended the adolescent part, because only the adolescent part seemed worth defending. He's right--boy is emotionally charged. But there also doesn't seem to be a better fit in that particular phrase, because we are human beings using language.

Ultimately, it's one thing to be seeking out words that are emotionally charged specifically for the sake of doing so. It's another thing to be objecting to acceptable words because they don't emotionally agree with your position on the matter.

Baby is obviously unacceptable. Child is debatable--legally, he was, but in a more typical (colloquial) way, he was not.

But the English language transitions from boy to man. There may well be a need for another word in between, but by definition a male is a boy until you he is a man. In this case, both options are emotionally charged. But legally, Martin was not a man (though it's possible for a court to judge that he should be treated as one in the context of the case).

Yes, just using adolescent is acceptable. But I don't for one second think that gbaji wasn't taking issue with this word as well.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#538 Apr 09 2012 at 4:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
No, I won't agree to that at all. Make all the arguments you want for "child", but adolescence is the stage between childhood and adulthood. If he isn't a child, and he isn't a legal adult, he IS an adolescent, regardless of whether or not you want to consider him one.


The term "minor" is used specifically to refer to the legal age. Adolescent (and certainly when the word "boy" is appended to it) is more tied to development.

Quote:
And adolescence, as viewed by a more scientific definition, often continues into the late teens or early twenties, because the human body continues to mature far more rapidly in the years immediately after legal adulthood than it will later (though not generally so rapidly as the early teens). It's not uncommon at all for the general traits associated with adolescence to continue into the early twenties.


We're talking about the perception of words by the audience reading/hearing them. There's a reason why certain words are chosen when one wants the audience to view the subject as innocent or harmless, and different words used when the objective is the opposite. Have you *ever* seen a news broadcast about a group of teen aged gang members committing a robbery or shooting being called "adolescent boys"?

Quote:
So, really, I think arguing against the word is idiotic. Legally, it applies. Scientifically, it applies. And I have no interest in changing a word because you connect a specific connotation to it.


A whole lot of other words apply as well. But you're deluding yourself if you think that word choice doesn't affect perception.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#539 Apr 09 2012 at 5:38 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,506 posts
I didn't argue that word choice didn't. But the objection needs to be relative to the severity by which that was the intention, and how extensively they are stretching the truth to make it work.

Most importantly?

Your argument is circular and pathetic.

You don't want people using emotionally charged words, because you want to argue that it changes the landscape of the debate. The other side is using the words because they think that killing a minor is morally more reprehensible than killing an adult.

But, you see? That's just it. They don't care if Martin was 17 or 15 or 12 or 8. They don't think his death became meaningfully more atrocious as he aged (they can still believe in grades of depravity, but their argument is based on the fact that a minor's death is significantly more atrocious than an adult's).

You want them to use different language because you think that his death isn't as bad as if he was 8. Like it was less of an atrocity because of his age. That's what you are arguing. But then you are then using it as the grounds for why he shouldn't be called "boy" or "child".

But that's pathetic. Because what you are ultimately trying to get them to admit is that being 17 somehow made his death significantly less awful.

They don't need to stop using the language because they don't agree with you that him being a "child" vs a "minor" changes anything. You, on the other hand, want it to. But unless you can offer a reason for them to believe they shouldn't be used interchangeably, they have no good reason to stop doing so.

Maybe it is tactically done on their part to try and emotionally undermine your argument. But if you could provide a good reason for them to believe the distinction is meaningful, it would become a significantly less powerful tactic.

So instead of using circular logic to defend your case, defend it like a rational human being.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#540 Apr 09 2012 at 6:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
So, really, I think arguing against the word is idiotic. Legally, it applies. Scientifically, it applies. And I have no interest in changing a word because you connect a specific connotation to it.


A whole lot of other words apply as well. But you're deluding yourself if you think that word choice doesn't affect perception.


idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I didn't argue that word choice didn't.


Then what the hell are you arguing? You agree that word choice affects perception, but you think that arguing that a given word choice is unfairly affecting perception is "idiotic"? You're not giving us a whole lot of room to even talk about something you agree is true here. Exactly when is someone allowed to speak about word choices affecting perception that isn't idiotic then?

I think that pointing this out when a key element of the issue itself is the perception of the victim is exactly the right time.

Quote:
But the objection needs to be relative to the severity by which that was the intention, and how extensively they are stretching the truth to make it work.


I disagree. Intent doesn't matter here. Most people repeat these sorts of word choices without even consciously being aware of it. You want your audience to think of someone as harmless, so you use words like child, adolescent, boy, etc when describing him. I think that what matters the most is the degree to which the perception created by such word choices might actually be causing people to adopt incorrect assumptions.

This case is entirely about the perception of Martin from day one as someone who could not have been a threat to Zimmerman, and could not have been doing anything wrong, and so therefore Zimmerman must have been a racist, vigilante, etc. It's the primary source of the outrage.

Quote:
You don't want people using emotionally charged words, because you want to argue that it changes the landscape of the debate. The other side is using the words because they think that killing a minor is morally more reprehensible than killing an adult.


They don't?

Quote:
But, you see? That's just it. They don't care if Martin was 17 or 15 or 12 or 8. They don't think his death became meaningfully more atrocious as he aged (they can still believe in grades of depravity, but their argument is based on the fact that a minor's death is significantly more atrocious than an adult's).


Then why use words like "child" to describe him? Why use a photo of him that is clearly a few years old? You may delude yourself into think that those things don't affect people's perceptions, but they do.

Quote:
You want them to use different language because you think that his death isn't as bad as if he was 8. Like it was less of an atrocity because of his age. That's what you are arguing. But then you are then using it as the grounds for why he shouldn't be called "boy" or "child".


My argument has nothing to do with how we perceive someone's death. I happen to think that people *do* place more weight on the death of a child, but that's not my argument, so it's not really relevant here.

Quote:
But that's pathetic. Because what you are ultimately trying to get them to admit is that being 17 somehow made his death significantly less awful.

They don't need to stop using the language because they don't agree with you that him being a "child" vs a "minor" changes anything. You, on the other hand, want it to. But unless you can offer a reason for them to believe they shouldn't be used interchangeably, they have no good reason to stop doing so.

Maybe it is tactically done on their part to try and emotionally undermine your argument. But if you could provide a good reason for them to believe the distinction is meaningful, it would become a significantly less powerful tactic.

So instead of using circular logic to defend your case, defend it like a rational human being.


Huh? I honestly can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Our society *does* place greater weight on the death of a child than the death of an adult. Maybe you missed the memo or something, but we do. Thus, attempting to make a victim appear younger and more innocent will heighten the amount of outrage about the event. Pointing out the word choices used to perpetuate this perception is relevant IMO.


The more significant point for me though is not about how much of an atrocity his death is based on his age (he's always been described as 17), but the willingness of third parties to accept or reject various facts of the case because of their perception of his physical and social characteristics. It's not just his age. It's everything about how Martin was described in the early stages of this case in order to maximize public sympathy. His physical status. His school status. What he was doing at the time. All were carefully crafted for public consumption to make people believe that he could not possibly have done anything to justify someone killing him in self defense.


Heck. This was done in such a powerful way that even with a mountain of facts that show clearly that he was doing something which absolutely justified self defense for Zimmerman, some people *still* continue to argue the point. Why? Because your perceptions were successfully manipulated by those early images and words and now you can't shift that perception to see a violent 17 year old pinning someone down on the ground and viciously beating him. Not only can you not shift your own perception, but you feel so strongly that you have to defend it by attacking even the suggestion that words and images *could* create false perceptions.


It's the brainwashed person insisting they haven't been brainwashed. It's not uncommon, but it's amusing to see such an obvious case.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#541 Apr 09 2012 at 7:05 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
Funny what happens when we change the emphasis:

Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I have never claimed I now exactly what happened that night. What I have said repeatedly is that we know enough about what happened to accept Zimmerman's claim of self defense, and that we don't know of anything that counters that legal claim. I think I've provided more than enough support for my position on this.


Hmm, let's see...

gbaji wrote:
There is overwhelming evidence of a textbook self defense case. How the hell can you even ask the question? There's a mountain of evidence here and all of it supports Zimmerman's story.


gbaji wrote:
...the starting point is a clear cut case of self defense. In the absence of proof about how the fight started, we can only look at how it ended. And that is straight up self defense.


gbaji wrote:
That right there is sufficient proof of self defense


gbaji wrote:
Zimmerman has a bloody nose, a bleeding wound on the back of his head, and grass stains on his back which perfectly supports his claim of self defense. What more do you need?


gbaji wrote:
Quote:
What makes it a clear cut case? Because Zimmerman said so?



Sigh. I'm quite sure I've already listed off all of the factors


gbaji wrote:
Seriously. Step back from this case itself and look at the facts objectively. It's self defense. It's obviously self defense. As I keep saying, this is nearly a textbook case


Well shit, that was easy.


Yes. You easily proved my point. I never claimed to know "exactly what happened". I did claim repeatedly that we know enough to show that Zimmerman acted in self defense. Um... Which is precisely what the quotes you dug up show me doing. Did you intend to agree with me? Cause if not, you did it wrong.


Wow, that was quite a /whoosh. Did you even feel a breeze? Or did the point sail too far overhead?
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#542 Apr 09 2012 at 7:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Wow, that was quite a /whoosh. Did you even feel a breeze? Or did the point sail too far overhead?


The point is that just because we don't know *exactly* every single detail of what happened that night does not preclude us drawing conclusions based on the evidence we do have. And that evidence show that Zimmerman was the victim of an assault. It shows that just prior to Zimmerman firing his weapon Martin had him pinned on his back and was beating him. There is no evidence of Zimmerman *ever* being in a position of control or aggression during the physical altercation.

This evidence is more than sufficient for us to conclude that Zimmerman was legally justified to shoot Martin in self defense.


Was I not clear enough the first 18 times I said this? It doesn't matter that I don't know how many steps Zimmerman took down the walkway, or exactly what words were exchanged between them, or even who started the physical altercation. I've already shown that under the law, the situation Zimmerman was in justifies lethal force in self defense no matter how he came to be there. Thus, all those things you and others keep harping on about that we don't know for sure simply don't matter. Not with regard to determining whether Zimmerman should be arrested and charged with a crime at least.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#543 Apr 09 2012 at 8:05 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,506 posts
Quote:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
--(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
--(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


It's fully possible that the prosecution could label Zimmerman the aggressor, through a charge of criminal negligence (a felony in Florida) by putting Martin (a minor) into a dangerous situation by chasing him. Whether or not this is an acceptable defense isn't for us to decide, it's for a jury. But the fact remains that you don't KNOW crap. You are assuming your side and then acting like you derived it from something true and interesting.

Furthermore, the (ridiculous) part of this law means that, even if the court would label Martin the aggressor, it means that Zimmerman cannot cover his ass with SYG if it was Martin screaming for help. The aggressor's willingness to surrender invalidates your right to "defend" yourself.

On that note...

I can't believe how stupid this law is. I really can't. Why would ANYONE think this was a good idea?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#544 Apr 09 2012 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,132 posts
Holy Shit. If I'd been trying to troll I'd be feeling pretty good right now.

I think it's fair to hypothesize that Elinda and I, for example, are grown women and have no attachment to the idea, or ideal, of manhood (as men do, that is. Not that we don't like men). So to us it seems perfectly okay to refer to a much younger male as a boy.

I certainly wasn't implying, or intending to imply, that Martin was a child.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#545 Apr 09 2012 at 8:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
--(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
--(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


It's fully possible that the prosecution could label Zimmerman the aggressor, through a charge of criminal negligence (a felony in Florida) by putting Martin (a minor) into a dangerous situation by chasing him.


That's an absurd stretch though. Chasing someone is not a forcible felony, so you're wrong immediately. Also, there's no reasonable expectation that merely following (or even chasing) Martin is putting him into a dangerous situation. You'd need to show that Zimmerman followed him with either an intent to harm him *or* the intent of causing him to harm himself (chasing someone towards a cliff, for example).

Following a suspicious person through a housing complex is a far cry from that.

Quote:
Whether or not this is an acceptable defense isn't for us to decide, it's for a jury.


It's not about acceptable defense, it's about an acceptable charge to file in the first place. A prosecutor doesn't get to just charge someone with whatever random thing he thinks of and then get a jury to decide if the defendant is guilty of it. Before you get to a jury trial, a judge makes a determination as to whether there is sufficient evidence to move forward. You can't possibly actually think any judge would buy that claim from a prosecutor.

Quote:
But the fact remains that you don't KNOW crap. You are assuming your side and then acting like you derived it from something true and interesting.


That's some serious projection on your part given you just argued we should skip like 8 steps in our legal system and go right to a jury because you've already accepted an assumption about the case. Heck with the law! I know he's guilty!!! Smiley: lol

Quote:
Furthermore, the (ridiculous) part of this law means that, even if the court would label Martin the aggressor, it means that Zimmerman cannot cover his ass with SYG if it was Martin screaming for help. The aggressor's willingness to surrender invalidates your right to "defend" yourself.


Sure. If some evidence could be produced showing that just prior to the shot being fired Martin attempted to flee (or at least stopped fighting), you would be correct. See how I'm basing my position on the evidence and not assumption?

Now find that evidence. Don't just speculate that it might exist, but actually find it. The problem is that even those ear-witnesses who (after the fact) insist that it must have been Martin they heard screaming for help do not claim that they heard two separate voices. No one said "I heard a mans voice calling for help, then I heard a teens voice calling for help, then I heard the shot". All the witnesses report just one voice calling for help. And all those who actually saw the fight describe Martin as being on top and Zimmerman being on the bottom (and calling for help).

We can speculate that some oddity of sound caused every witness who just heard the fight to hear only Martin's cries for help, and every witness that actually saw them to hear only Zimmerman's, but it seems far far far more reasonable to conclude that those who only heard the cries for help didn't know who's voice it was at the time, and then incorrectly assumed it was Martin later. You do agree that this is the more likely explanation, right?

Quote:
On that note...

I can't believe how stupid this law is. I really can't. Why would ANYONE think this was a good idea?



It's a quite reasonable law actually. If you stop and think it through absent your own position in this case. It's designed to allow people to defend themselves, while applying reasonable rules to how you do it. You can defend yourself only to the point of actually acting defensively (or in protection of home, or another who is the victim of a forcible felony). The two of them fighting would not have justified self defense for Zimmerman. It was when Martin went past defending himself, and even went past just fighting someone, but put Zimmerman in a position where he could not retreat and continued to assault him that he gave Zimmerman the right to self defense.


And frankly, while we can talk all day (and for several weeks) about whether Zimmerman should have followed Martin, whether Martin was doing anything wrong, whether he was scared, or thought he was being stalked, or whatever, none of that justifies Martin being in a position on top of Zimmerman, pinning him to the ground, and beating on him. That's an action that is well past any sort of defensive act or attacking someone out of fear. It's pretty darn indefensible in fact.


None of that removes the pain this causes for the Martin family, but at the end of the day we are responsible for our own actions. And based on the evidence in this case, Martin made a choice and took an action which ultimately cost him his life. We could blame Zimmerman, but he was acting reasonably. We could ban handguns, but then Zimmerman would have been beaten and had no defense. The correct response IMO is to stress that there are certain boundaries you should not cross. If you do, you are taking your own life into your hands. It's not like it should be hard to avoid doing what Martin was doing, right? I mean, I've gotten in my share of fights and have *never* found myself straddling some stranger, pinning him to the ground and continued beating him in the face while he's screaming for help. Have you? If not, then what Martin was doing wasn't normal, and should not be defended.


That's the line he crossed. He chose to cross it. And that's what really matters in this case.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#546 Apr 09 2012 at 9:03 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:


You're quite welcome to come to whatever conclusion you want about the case. Just don't try to pass off your conjecture as fact, then slam others for doing the exact same.

While significant factors that remain unknowable regarding the case (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe we know who attacked first), your conjecture remains loose. Spouting off about your certainty just shows your true colors. And the hypocrisy of attacking others for the same shows how little you think about yourself and the implication of your words.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#547 Apr 09 2012 at 10:53 PM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57411603/george-zimmerman-seeks-donations-on-his-new-website/

WOW, just... wow.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#548 Apr 09 2012 at 11:33 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,162 posts
Quote:
whether he was scared, or thought he was being stalked, or whatever, none of that justifies Martin being in a position on top of Zimmerman, pinning him to the ground, and beating on him.


If he saw that Zimmerman had a gun and he was scared for his life, that's a pretty good reason to try to knock him out. What about Martin's right to self defense? If he saw the gun and feared for his life, isn't he entitled to use any force necessary to protect himself including trying to knock out the guy with a gun? Would you really turn your back to an armed man that you see as a potential threat?

Edited, Apr 10th 2012 1:35am by feelz
#549 Apr 10 2012 at 12:26 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,258 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
But the English language transitions from boy to man. There may well be a need for another word in between, but by definition a male is a boy until you he is a man. In this case, both options are emotionally charged. But legally, Martin was not a man (though it's possible for a court to judge that he should be treated as one in the context of the case).
Just call him a youth. Then get Joe Pesci to be one of the lawyers.
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#550 Apr 10 2012 at 1:28 AM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
But the English language transitions from boy to man. There may well be a need for another word in between, but by definition a male is a boy until you he is a man. In this case, both options are emotionally charged. But legally, Martin was not a man (though it's possible for a court to judge that he should be treated as one in the context of the case).
Just call him a youth. Then get Joe Pesci to be one of the lawyers.



"What's a 'yoot?'"
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#551 Apr 10 2012 at 3:31 AM Rating: Decent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
feelz wrote:
Quote:
whether he was scared, or thought he was being stalked, or whatever, none of that justifies Martin being in a position on top of Zimmerman, pinning him to the ground, and beating on him.


If he saw that Zimmerman had a gun and he was scared for his life, that's a pretty good reason to try to knock him out. What about Martin's right to self defense? If he saw the gun and feared for his life, isn't he entitled to use any force necessary to protect himself including trying to knock out the guy with a gun? Would you really turn your back to an armed man that you see as a potential threat?

Edited, Apr 10th 2012 1:35am by feelz

No aren't you paying attention to gbaji's argument? Trayvon was acting shady. Walking around in his hoodie while it was raining.

That means he loses all rights to self defence.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 54 All times are in CDT
Bijou, stupidmonkey, Anonymous Guests (52)