In my foreign land, murder is OKFollow

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

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.

Or "adolescent boy"?




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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wow, that was quite a /whoosh. Did you even feel a breeze? Or did the point sail too far overhead?

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 *** 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?

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.



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.



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!!!



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?




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.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57411603/george-zimmerman-seeks-donations-on-his-new-website/

WOW, just... wow.

Just call him a youth. Then get Joe Pesci to be one of the lawyers.

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.