Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

In my foreign land, murder is OKFollow

#402 Apr 02 2012 at 5:52 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
"Are you following him"
"Yeah"
"Okay, we don't need you to do that."


After he got out of his car and after Martin had already run off. Are you seriously arguing that Martin was justified to run away from Zimmerman because Zimmerman chose to follow him after he ran?


Smiley: confused

Why would he need justification to run?
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#403 Apr 02 2012 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,321 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
"Are you following him"
"Yeah"
"Okay, we don't need you to do that."


After he got out of his car and after Martin had already run off. Are you seriously arguing that Martin was justified to run away from Zimmerman because Zimmerman chose to follow him after he ran?


Smiley: confused

Why would he need justification to run?


Because, in gbaji's mind, the only legitimate reason to feel threatened by someone is if they've already begun attacking you.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#404 Apr 02 2012 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,009 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
"Are you following him"
"Yeah"
"Okay, we don't need you to do that."


After he got out of his car and after Martin had already run off. Are you seriously arguing that Martin was justified to run away from Zimmerman because Zimmerman chose to follow him after he ran?


Smiley: confused

Why would he need justification to run?


Because, in gbaji's mind, the only legitimate reason to feel threatened by someone is if they've already begun attacking you.


Unless you are a well armed large man, then you can feel justifiably threatened by the simplest of things.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#405 Apr 02 2012 at 7:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
After he got out of his car and after Martin had already run off. Are you seriously arguing that Martin was justified to run away from Zimmerman because Zimmerman chose to follow him after he ran?


Of course he was justified to flee someone pursuing him.


Sigh... Except that as far as we can tell from the evidence we have, he fled before Zimmerman pursued him. How many times do I have to repeat this before it sinks in. Zimmerman was sitting parked in his car watching Martin walking up the street towards him. When Martin got close to the car (presumably close enough to see someone in it watching him), he ran.

Quote:
are you seriously arguing he was not justified fleeing from someone (who is not a police officer) who had been following him in a car, and was now after him on foot. Regardless of what he was doing he is completely justified to flee.


Gah! Please provide evidence of the statement you made, which I bolded. As I have asked repeatedly. People are repeating this as though it's fact, yet as far as I can tell there is absolutely zero evidence that Zimmerman *ever* followed Martin in his car. There's no evidence that Martin *ever* saw Zimmerman's car until he walked up to it while Zimmerman was speaking to the police.

Given the sheer number of times people have used this assumption to justify Martin's actions, doesn't it make sense to verify that it's true? I don't think that's an unreasonable request on my part at all. Do you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#406 Apr 02 2012 at 7:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
"Are you following him"
"Yeah"
"Okay, we don't need you to do that."


After he got out of his car and after Martin had already run off. Are you seriously arguing that Martin was justified to run away from Zimmerman because Zimmerman chose to follow him after he ran?


Smiley: confused

Why would he need justification to run?


Ask Idiggory. He's the one insisting that Martin ran because Zimmerman had been following him in his car.

Obviously, Martin has every right to run if he feels like it. However, it does provide justification for Zimmerman's claim that he thought Martin was acting suspiciously. Which I assume is exactly why folks like Idiggory go to such great lengths to provide some explanation for it. As I said in my previous post, as far as we know, Martin ran away simply because he saw someone in a car. Now maybe he's incredibly jumpy, but if we combine that with Zimmerman's report that Martin was wandering back and forth looking around in the complex, it supports the view that Martin ran from Zimmerman, not because he thought that Zimmerman was some crazy guy stalking him, but because he thought Zimmerman was exactly what he was: A neighborhood watch person who saw Martin doing suspicious things who was calling the cops.


Isn't that the most likely explanation given the information we actually know?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#407 Apr 02 2012 at 7:59 PM Rating: Good
**
569 posts
Just because it gives Zimmerman cause to think Martin was acting suspiciously still doesn't give Zimmerman any right to follow or even try to confront Martin which was clear that was his intent from the call to the police.
____________________________
.
#408 Apr 02 2012 at 8:04 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
"Are you following him"
"Yeah"
"Okay, we don't need you to do that."


After he got out of his car and after Martin had already run off. Are you seriously arguing that Martin was justified to run away from Zimmerman because Zimmerman chose to follow him after he ran?


Smiley: confused

Why would he need justification to run?


Ask Idiggory. He's the one insisting that Martin ran because Zimmerman had been following him in his car.

Obviously, Martin has every right to run if he feels like it. However, it does provide justification for Zimmerman's claim that he thought Martin was acting suspiciously. Which I assume is exactly why folks like Idiggory go to such great lengths to provide some explanation for it. As I said in my previous post, as far as we know, Martin ran away simply because he saw someone in a car. Now maybe he's incredibly jumpy, but if we combine that with Zimmerman's report that Martin was wandering back and forth looking around in the complex, it supports the view that Martin ran from Zimmerman, not because he thought that Zimmerman was some crazy guy stalking him, but because he thought Zimmerman was exactly what he was: A neighborhood watch person who saw Martin doing suspicious things who was calling the cops.


Isn't that the most likely explanation given the information we actually know?


It's no more likely than many of the scenarios posed by those you're arguing with. You're doing the same thing that you complain about them doing, except to the other end.

Straight up hypocrisy.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#409 Apr 02 2012 at 8:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
Just because it gives Zimmerman cause to think Martin was acting suspiciously still doesn't give Zimmerman any right to follow or even try to confront Martin which was clear that was his intent from the call to the police.


I'm just trying to get some people to drop the assumption that Martin could not possibly have done anything suspicious other than "walking while black". Baby steps.

But for the record, Zimmerman absolutely has a right to follow Martin if he wants. He has a right to walk/jog/run down that path if Martin isn't there, right? So does that right evaporate if someone he thinks is suspicious and perhaps up to no good is in the area? I don't see how. By that logic, your right to walk into your living room disappears if you think there might be a thief there stealing your stuff. And that makes no sense at all.

Let's not forget that he's on private property on which he is a part owner. He absolutely has a right to follow and confront *anyone* he thinks isn't supposed to be there, or who might be up to no good. He has that right as a resident of the property regardless of being a volunteer watchman.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#410 Apr 02 2012 at 8:17 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,321 posts
Quote:
Unless you are a well armed large man, then you can feel justifiably threatened by the simplest of things.


True, which is why laws of the sort focus on whether or not it was within reasonable bounds to feel your life was threatened.

I'm arguing that being followed (in car and on foot) is more than sufficient grounds to feel that life or limb is in danger. And it's absurd to pardon both of them for self-defense, I feel that (in virtue of being followed, which we know occurred), Zimmerman is the instigator of the entire set of interactions between them, with the final result (Martin being shot) being directly, causally linked to Zimmerman's choice to follow him.

[EDIT]
Quote:
I'm just trying to get some people to drop the assumption that Martin could not possibly have done anything suspicious other than "walking while black". Baby steps.


Had Zimmerman reported ANYTHING to that nature, you might have a point. But at no point in any of the statements released by Zimmerman's family, his lawyer, or the 911 call, has his party ever accused Martin of anything other than being an unknown, therefore suspicious, person out at night in Zimmerman's neighborhood.

Edited, Apr 2nd 2012 10:24pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#411 Apr 02 2012 at 8:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Isn't that the most likely explanation given the information we actually know?


It's no more likely than many of the scenarios posed by those you're arguing with.


Why? It's easy to say that, but can you give a rationale for this? Based on the recording of Zimmerman's call to the police, it sure sounds like a suspicious person walking around the area who runs as soon as he realizes he's being watched. There's no evidence that Martin ever saw Zimmerman prior to walking up to his car during that call. There's no evidence that Martin had *any* reason to run other than fear of being caught doing something wrong.

Why assume anything else? How many times a day do you walk down a street and pass someone sitting in a parked car? Do you normally run away when you see them? This is not "normal" behavior. At the very least, it qualifies as "suspicious".

Quote:
You're doing the same thing that you complain about them doing, except to the other end.


Except that I'm basing my perception on *only* things we know to be true. Those other scenarios rely heavily on assumptions, for which we have zero evidence. The whole "Martin ran because Zimmerman was stalking him" relies on an assumption that Zimmerman had followed him in his car prior to the phone call. But we have no evidence of this. Absolutely zero. And if Martin didn't run for that reason, then why? As I said above, normal people don't run just because there's someone in a parked car up the road.

Quote:
Straight up hypocrisy.


Hypocrisy would be me holding my position to a different standard than someone else's. I'm not doing that though. I'm holding all scenarios to the same "what does the evidence support" standard. I'm looking at what we know, and trying to determine the most likely explanation. Others are starting with the explanation they want to believe, and then inventing information to support it. I don't think it's hypocritical at all to point out that there's no evidence supporting their claims.


I have asked repeatedly for anyone to provide a source showing that Zimmerman followed Martin in his car. So far, not one person has been able to do this. Shouldn't this suggest that we should stop assuming that he did?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#412 Apr 02 2012 at 8:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
I'm just trying to get some people to drop the assumption that Martin could not possibly have done anything suspicious other than "walking while black". Baby steps.


Had Zimmerman reported ANYTHING to that nature, you might have a point. But at no point in any of the statements released by Zimmerman's family, his lawyer, or the 911 call, has his party ever accused Martin of anything other than being an unknown, therefore suspicious, person out at night in Zimmerman's neighborhood.


You really haven't actually listened to the audio of Zimmerman's call to the police. Since you haven't, let me quote the very first part of the call:

Quote:
Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.


His first description of Martin is to describe the suspicious behavior he saw. Not his skin color. Not what he was wearing. He reported the suspicious behavior he saw. How the hell can you claim that he didn't? Note, that this was before he was asked for a physical description of Martin. He did not lead with "there's a black guy walking around", or "there's a guy in a hoodie walking around". He very clearly described the suspicious behavior.


This is like the 3rd or 4th absolutely false statement you've made about the Zimmerman call to police so far. Perhaps you should actually listen to it? Just a thought!

Edited, Apr 2nd 2012 7:36pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#413 Apr 02 2012 at 8:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,321 posts
You're pretty pathetic, you know that?

Quote:
Had Zimmerman reported ANYTHING to that nature, you might have a point. But at no point in any of the statements released by Zimmerman's family, his lawyer, or the 911 call, has his party ever accused Martin of anything other than being an unknown, therefore suspicious, person out at night in Zimmerman's neighborhood.


I'd really like you to point out at what point in this I claimed that Zimmerman called the cops because he was black. You'll notice I didn't.

And last I checked, walking around while it's raining and looking around are not crimes.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#414 Apr 02 2012 at 8:41 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
You have a very misguided interpretation of your own words on the case. I don't know what else to tell you. You're not doing what you think you're doing.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#415 Apr 02 2012 at 9:15 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,087 posts
Quote:
Soooo, you just thought you add to the division and hatred by passing your own judgement on the two individuals and leaving behind yet more gossip in hopes of bolstering that opinion?


Thats funny, considering I passed no judgment on either party. I did however state a couple beliefs & a feeling...... but apparently they were too reasonable to be responded to in a constructive manner.
____________________________
[99WAR,99BLM,99DRK,99BST,99PLD,99MNK,99SMN75RDM49THF45NIN/WHM/DNC
/SAM,,~] Galka

BASTOK:10 SKY: O SEA: O DYNAMIS: O
SIREN srvr
YARP !!!
#416 Apr 02 2012 at 11:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,633 posts
I can't read anything else Gbaji says. I fear for my sanity.
____________________________
Mistress Darqflame wrote:
Sorry, anything representing or remotely resembling a dildo is a nono.
gigasnail wrote:
i'm lighting the freak signal here, sara help me out ~
Redding wrote:
Same ol' Sara now with 50% less hidden penis
#417 Apr 03 2012 at 12:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,056 posts
SillyXSara wrote:
I can't read anything else Gbaji says. I fear for my sanity.
If you have such a tenuous grasp on your own sanity that Gbaji is a threat to it, I fear what will happen when you discover the rest of the internet.
____________________________
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).

#418 Apr 03 2012 at 1:04 AM Rating: Good
**
569 posts
Might just be the strawman that broke the camel's back.
____________________________
.
#419 Apr 03 2012 at 6:28 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,814 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
After he got out of his car and after Martin had already run off. Are you seriously arguing that Martin was justified to run away from Zimmerman because Zimmerman chose to follow him after he ran?


Of course he was justified to flee someone pursuing him.


Sigh... Except that as far as we can tell from the evidence we have, he fled before Zimmerman pursued him. How many times do I have to repeat this before it sinks in. Zimmerman was sitting parked in his car watching Martin walking up the street towards him. When Martin got close to the car (presumably close enough to see someone in it watching him), he ran.

Quote:
are you seriously arguing he was not justified fleeing from someone (who is not a police officer) who had been following him in a car, and was now after him on foot. Regardless of what he was doing he is completely justified to flee.


Gah! Please provide evidence of the statement you made, which I bolded. As I have asked repeatedly. People are repeating this as though it's fact, yet as far as I can tell there is absolutely zero evidence that Zimmerman *ever* followed Martin in his car. There's no evidence that Martin *ever* saw Zimmerman's car until he walked up to it while Zimmerman was speaking to the police.

Given the sheer number of times people have used this assumption to justify Martin's actions, doesn't it make sense to verify that it's true? I don't think that's an unreasonable request on my part at all. Do you?

Oh I see, if someone is running it must be a certainty that they're a colored black crime-ridden threat. SHOOT on sight.

Martin's action don't need justification. He didn't break any laws. Do you not understand that killing people, while it may not currently and technically be against the law in Florida, it really is against all human laws - generally speaking.



Edited, Apr 3rd 2012 2:37pm by Elinda
____________________________
LOOK here.
#420 Apr 03 2012 at 6:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
[Zimmerman's nose was broken (or at least injured sufficiently to bleed)
gbaji wrote:
If something is speculation, then say it's speculation.

Love the irony. Why keep repeating the speculation that it was broken (and then try to cover your ass) for any reason other than you want to build a speculative narrative that fits what you want people to believe? Why not just say "bloody" and leave it at that?

Go ahead and cry about the big picture now and how I'm picking on you. I'm just enjoying the view.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#421 Apr 03 2012 at 10:32 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,321 posts
This guy... probably shouldn't be allowed to talk. All he's doing is making Zimmerman's case worse, which is the opposite of his intention. Fortunately for Zimmerman, the guy just seems to be a moron, so what Taaffe says shouldn't reflect on him.

____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#422 Apr 03 2012 at 10:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,369 posts
Quote:
Taaffe denies telling The New York Times that the prior burglaries were done by “Trayvon-like dudes with their pants down."


Well that's got to be on the list for the top 10 worst quotes ever given to a newspaper. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#423 Apr 03 2012 at 3:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
You're pretty pathetic, you know that?


Ah... The sweet sweet smell of ad hominum. How refreshing!

Let me re-insert the statement you were responding to so that we can remember the context:

Quote:

you wrote:
me wrote:
I'm just trying to get some people to drop the assumption that Martin could not possibly have done anything suspicious other than "walking while black". Baby steps.
Had Zimmerman reported ANYTHING to that nature, you might have a point. But at no point in any of the statements released by Zimmerman's family, his lawyer, or the 911 call, has his party ever accused Martin of anything other than being an unknown, therefore suspicious, person out at night in Zimmerman's neighborhood.


I'd really like you to point out at what point in this I claimed that Zimmerman called the cops because he was black. You'll notice I didn't.


Um... Yeah. You kinda did. Can you see where?

Quote:
And last I checked, walking around while it's raining and looking around are not crimes.


No. But they are suspicious. You claimed that Zimmerman did not report anything "other than being an unknown, therefore suspicious, person out at night in Zimmerman's neighborhood".

You're just wrong on so many levels it's almost laughable. It wasn't because he was "unknown". It wasn't because he was black. It wasn't because he was wearing a hoodie. Zimmerman tells us (and the police, whom he was "reporting" to) the exact reason why he called:

It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.

That's certainly something more than him just being unknown, right? But then, that requires looking at these pesky things called "facts".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#424 Apr 03 2012 at 3:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Elinda wrote:
Oh I see, if someone is running it must be a certainty that they're a colored black crime-ridden threat. SHOOT on sight.


I'm honestly confused by this response. Are you arguing that Martin ran because he was black? I don't know what his skin color had to do with it. If he'd been a white guy doing exactly the same thing, and chose to run from Zimmerman exact as he did, do you think Zimmerman would have decided to just stay in his car instead of following him?

Can't you imagine even the possibility that Martin's skin color had absolutely nothing to do with Zimmerman's actions? It's like some people just can't get past their own assumptions about race and project them onto everyone else.

Quote:
Martin's action don't need justification. He didn't break any laws.


If he assaulted Zimmerman on that path, then he did. Assault is a crime, right?

Quote:
Do you not understand that killing people, while it may not currently and technically be against the law in Florida, it really is against all human laws - generally speaking.


Yes. And? I also understand that gravity makes things fall back to the earth. But just stating a fact doesn't say anything about this case.

What we know for a fact is that just prior to Zimmerman shooting Martin, he was on his back with Martin on top of him beating him. If that's not a sufficient justification for self defense, then what is? At what point is a person allowed to shoot another in self defense if not then?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#425 Apr 03 2012 at 4:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sounds like Martin was standing his ground like a good Floridian.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#426 Apr 03 2012 at 6:16 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
Quote:
If he assaulted Zimmerman on that path, then he did. Assault is a crime, right?


So after assaulting Zimmerman Martin fled the scene? Then Zimmerman followed him after being assaulted? Because he feared for his life?

Or did he just shoot Martin in the back.

I love it when you keep speculation out of it.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#427 Apr 03 2012 at 6:26 PM Rating: Good
Walking around, looking about in the rain might be slightly suspicious behavior, but it isn't criminal. Zimmerman called the police and reported it, they sent some officers over to investigate, he should have left it at that. There was no need to follow Martin after that phone call was made, which was why the dispatcher told him he didn't need to do it.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#428 Apr 03 2012 at 7:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
If he assaulted Zimmerman on that path, then he did. Assault is a crime, right?


So after assaulting Zimmerman Martin fled the scene? Then Zimmerman followed him after being assaulted? Because he feared for his life?

Or did he just shoot Martin in the back.

I love it when you keep speculation out of it.


The only speculation on my side is whether or not Zimmerman is providing an honest account of what happened (and that's less speculation than logical analysis of the facts). You're just randomly speculating and including every possibility *except* the one that Zimmerman said happened.

Zimmerman followed Martin but lost sight of him. He headed back towards his car, but before getting there, Martin approached him, exchanged some words and the attacked Zimmerman without warning. Zimmerman immediately fell to the ground and Martin jumped on top of him and started beating him in the face and slamming his head onto the cement walkway. Zimmerman screamed for help, but no one helped him. At that point Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense.


That's Zimmerman's story. And that story matches every single eye witness account of events that we have. And while you're free to speculate about a whole range of other possible sequences, baring any evidence, it is just speculation. We absolutely know (because of three eye witnesses) that the last part of Zimmerman's story is true. The *only* part we don't know for sure is how the physical altercation started. But in the absence of any evidence, there's no reason to assume that Zimmerman is lying.

Let me point out again that while all three eye witnesses reported seeing Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him, and Zimmerman screaming for help, none of them reported ever seeing Zimmerman on top, or chasing Martin, or at any point having any choice or control at all in the matter of the physical fight. So while it's possible that at some earlier point Zimmerman had the upper hand, or started the fight, or chased Martin down, we have no evidence of that. And frankly, he'd have to be the luckiest liar in the world to make up a story that commits him to a short immediate fight in one place in which Martin always had the upper hand and just having it just happen that all three witnesses saw just the part he described and none of the part he omitted. What are the odds of that? Pretty low, right?


Every fact in this case supports Zimmerman's account of events. The only reason to disbelieve it is if you're putting emotions ahead of reason. Which, unfortunately, a whole hell of a lot of people are doing.

Edited, Apr 3rd 2012 6:50pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#429 Apr 03 2012 at 7:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Walking around, looking about in the rain might be slightly suspicious behavior, but it isn't criminal. Zimmerman called the police and reported it, they sent some officers over to investigate, he should have left it at that. There was no need to follow Martin after that phone call was made, which was why the dispatcher told him he didn't need to do it.


Not needing to and not having the right to do so are two different things. Was it a criminal act for Zimmerman to follow Martin? So it doesn't matter, does it?

All that matters is that at some point, they got into a physical altercation.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#430 Apr 03 2012 at 8:08 PM Rating: Decent
**
569 posts
Yes it was dumbass that is called stalking. No one has that right.
____________________________
.
#431 Apr 03 2012 at 8:43 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,321 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
Yes it was dumbass that is called stalking. No one has that right.


Granted, it's from an attorney's website, but:
Quote:
Stalking is a crime of harassment, in which an individual repeatedly, or persistently follows another individual with the intent of harming the other person, and/or causing fear or anxiety, or for the purpose of intimidation


I'd have to say that this is true. The intent of the perp would be the hardest part to prove. I don't believe Zimmerman followed Martin to hurt him, but I absolutely believe he wanted to be intimidating.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#432 Apr 03 2012 at 10:14 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
Gibberish Boy wrote:
stuff


You claimed Martin was not justified in running, and it was explained having broke no law he was justified to do whatever he wanted. You said assault is breaking the law so running wasn't justified.

You do see the logical fallacy here yes?



@ thread in general

It all comes down to Zimmermans choice to pursue Martin and not listen to the 911 operator, which is the only piece of evidence that matters. Zimmerman knowingly and willingly pursued a target he did not know and suspected to be up to no good. His suspicions even led to the calling of 911. Zimmerman put himself in a potentially dangerous situation (if we believe the snooping around type behavior claimed to be seen) the 911 operator told him he did not have to follow Martin.

Thus the silly law should not apply here. Zimmerman knowingly and willingly endangered himself Martin was not responsible for Zimmermans choice to do that. It is murder, Zimmerman put himself at risk, and then when sh*t hit the fan killed a man, knowing full well it could have ended either way, from the moment he opted to play police man.



Edited, Apr 4th 2012 12:15am by rdmcandie

Edited, Apr 4th 2012 12:21am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#433 Apr 04 2012 at 12:13 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
******
25,534 posts
gbaji wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Walking around, looking about in the rain might be slightly suspicious behavior, but it isn't criminal. Zimmerman called the police and reported it, they sent some officers over to investigate, he should have left it at that. There was no need to follow Martin after that phone call was made, which was why the dispatcher told him he didn't need to do it.


Not needing to and not having the right to do so are two different things. Was it a criminal act for Zimmerman to follow Martin? So it doesn't matter, does it?
It's probably not criminal for Zimmerman to follow martin, just a little creepy.
That said, following someone you have reported to the police as being suspicious after the police have advised you not to follow him makes a claim of self defense rather weak. He's intentionally placing himself in a dangerous situation.

Not that any of this matters though. Zimmerman is going to be convicted regardless of what we say. There's been too much media attention and outrage for anything else to happen.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#434 Apr 04 2012 at 3:11 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,039 posts
gbaji wrote:


As I said in my previous post, as far as we know, Martin ran away simply because he saw someone in a car. Now maybe he's incredibly jumpy, but if we combine that with Zimmerman's report that Martin was wandering back and forth looking around in the complex, it supports the view that Martin ran from Zimmerman, not because he thought that Zimmerman was some crazy guy WITH A GUN stalking him, but because he thought Zimmerman was exactly what he was: A neighborhood watch person who saw Martin doing suspicious things who was calling the cops.


Isn't that the most likely explanation given the information we actually know?


ftfy
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#435 Apr 04 2012 at 6:55 AM Rating: Good
******
21,715 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
It all comes down to Zimmermans choice to pursue Martin and not listen to the 911 operator, which is the only piece of evidence that matters. Zimmerman knowingly and willingly pursued a target he did not know and suspected to be up to no good. His suspicions even led to the calling of 911. Zimmerman put himself in a potentially dangerous situation (if we believe the snooping around type behavior claimed to be seen) the 911 operator told him he did not have to follow Martin.


This has been my point all along. Despite my assumptions that Zimmerman is a probably a John McClane wannabe who takes his "neighborhood watch" position way too seriously and likely has some deep seated racial issues, the only thing that matters is that the conflict should have ended with him reporting the suspicious person to the police and MEETING THE POLICE AT THE GATE as the 911 operator instructed him to do. His choice to disobey such a direct request from a position of actual authority negates his claim of self-defense. He very clearly sought out a confrontation of some sort. Whether it escalated beyond his original intent is irrelevant, as that single choice to continue following Martin made him the aggressor.

I'm not saying he should be hanged at the gallows or given the chair, but there's absolutely no excuse for him not even being charged with a crime. Let the courts decide his guilt, not the local police.
____________________________
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.


#436 Apr 04 2012 at 7:19 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,814 posts
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Oh I see, if someone is running it must be a certainty that they're a colored black crime-ridden threat. SHOOT on sight.


I'm honestly confused by this response. Are you arguing that Martin ran because he was black?

No, I'm not arguing.

You're arguing. There is nothing to argue. I'll tell you again what happened. A man shot a teenager. The shooter has not been arrested. ANYTHING else is speculation. Even Zimmerman's statements. He's not been under under oath, nor have the so-called eye witnesses, nor have any of them been cross-examined. There's been no trial gbaji. Stop spewing what you think is so obviously the truth. You don't know anything.

You didn't even read the frickin book!!
____________________________
LOOK here.
#437 Apr 04 2012 at 7:33 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,245 posts
Elinda wrote:
ANYTHING else is speculation.
Everything in this thread is speculation.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#438 Apr 04 2012 at 3:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Gibberish Boy wrote:
stuff


You claimed Martin was not justified in running, and it was explained having broke no law he was justified to do whatever he wanted. You said assault is breaking the law so running wasn't justified.

You do see the logical fallacy here yes?


That you're conflating several different statements in the wrong order and creating logical associations between them that I never claimed? Yeah. I see a whole bunch of fallacies in what you're doing.

For the record: At no point *ever* did I say that running wasn't justified because assault is breaking the law. That's honestly the most bizarre statement I've heard someone make in this whole thread, in fact.


You really really really need to lay off the pot.


Quote:
It all comes down to Zimmermans choice to pursue Martin and not listen to the 911 operator, which is the only piece of evidence that matters.


The only piece? So three eye witnesses saying they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him doesn't matter? I'd say that matters a hell of a lot more than Zimmerman's choice to follow Martin. Following someone doesn't justify a violent action against you. Sitting on top of someone and beating them *does*.

Quote:
Zimmerman knowingly and willingly pursued a target he did not know and suspected to be up to no good. His suspicions even led to the calling of 911. Zimmerman put himself in a potentially dangerous situation (if we believe the snooping around type behavior claimed to be seen) the 911 operator told him he did not have to follow Martin.


So you're saying that a private citizen on private property to which he is a part owner and has volunteered to watch over cannot follow someone he thinks is suspicious because that person might assault him violently and require him to defend himself? Really? So if I see someone stealing my stuff, I just have to stand there and watch because if I approach the thief and ask him to stop, he might do something violent? And if I do, and he does get violent, it's my fault?

How about we blame the guy who got violent? Doesn't that make a hell of a lot more sense? Zimmerman following Martin is not dangerous *unless* Martin is a dangerous person. Are you saying that Martin was a dangerous thug and Zimmerman should have known this and thus not followed? I thought the whole argument for weeks now has been that Martin was this angelic innocent kid who couldn't hurt a fly? If this fact is so obvious that you've all adopted it without question, then shouldn't Zimmerman have felt completely safe following Martin?

Maybe Zimmerman just wanted to ask him where he got his skittles? Since it should have been so obvious to him that Martin was completely harmless. Which is it?

Quote:
Thus the silly law should not apply here. Zimmerman knowingly and willingly endangered himself Martin was not responsible for Zimmermans choice to do that. It is murder, Zimmerman put himself at risk, and then when sh*t hit the fan killed a man, knowing full well it could have ended either way, from the moment he opted to play police man.


Ok. I get that some of you are very emotional about this case. But that's not even remotely how the actual law applies. The law does not require that you adjust your every choice and act in order to avoid the possibility that someone might violently respond to you. It does, in fact, protect your rights to do any lawful action and punish those who act violently against you.

If all Zimmerman did was follow Martin, and Martin assaulted him because of that, then Martin is the one committing a crime. Zimmerman did nothing wrong. I just don't get people who so willingly adopt an argument that basically says that you have to appease anyone who might become violent. That's not the way the law works. And if you step back from your emotional attachments to this issue, you'll see that the law *can't* work that way. It would become arbitrary if it did. By your own logic, we can blame Martin for running because he should have known that Zimmerman would follow him and lead to a confrontation which would result in Martin being shot and killed. Or heck! Martin should have not walked to the store because by doing so, he might have encountered a watchman on his way back, and then run, and been chased, then got into said confrontation leading to him being shot and killed.


Zimmerman had no more reason to assume that following Martin would end with the result that occurred than Martin could assume that running would, or walking to the store, or any actions that occurred that day. The law requires that we look at the first illegal action taken and follow from that chain. Running, and following, are not illegal.

Edited, Apr 4th 2012 2:19pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#439 Apr 04 2012 at 3:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Elinda wrote:

You're arguing. There is nothing to argue.


Awful lot of arguing for something about which there's nothing to argue. Smiley: tongue

Quote:
I'll tell you again what happened. A man shot a teenager who was in the process of beating the man.


Left something out.

Quote:
The shooter has not been arrested.


What do you mean by "arrested"? I honestly believe most people confuse arrested with detained. He was detained. He was handcuffed. He was put in a police car. He was taken to the police station. His clothes and gun were seized as evidence. He was held and questioned.

He was not "arrested" because the prosecutor for the DA looked at the evidence, determined it wasn't sufficient to file charges, and chose not to arrest him. You do get that an arrest is a formal process which starts a legal clock that requires that formal charges be filed and a pre-trial hearing be scheduled within a set period of time (unless Zimmerman waives his right to a speedy trial, which he would not do in this case). The reason you don't arrest someone is to allow you to get more evidence so you can actually have a chance in hell of filing actual charges which might possibly even get through the pre-trial process.

If you arrest the person before you have that evidence, you must file charges within a certain time frame. And if you don't have sufficient evidence, the judge will toss the case out and dismiss said charges. And depending on how/when this happens in the process, you may not be able to *ever* charge that person with that crime again (double jeopardy). Insisting that there's something wrong because Zimmerman "hasn't even been arrested" is just meaningless rhetoric. He should not have been arrested. There still today isn't sufficient evidence to arrest him.

Quote:
ANYTHING else is speculation. Even Zimmerman's statements. He's not been under under oath, nor have the so-called eye witnesses, nor have any of them been cross-examined.


A formal trial is not the only legal process involved. We don't hold a trial for every possibility of an offense. We have a whole set of steps before a trial, not the least of which is determining if there's even enough evidence to bring a trial in the first place. There isn't in this case btw.

Also, Zimmerman's statement to police absolutely has legal weight. It's recorded and can be used as evidence. He's almost certainly been required to sign an affidavit attesting (under threat of perjury) that his statement(s) are true. Similarly, witness statements may or may not also have been signed (and thus carry legal weight). In any case, they are considered evidence.

I thought I already pointed this out earlier. You know who's statements don't have any legal weight? The Martin family. The Martin lawyer. The girlfriend. Al Sharpton. Jesse Jackson. Any of a dozen public figures saying that Zimmerman shot Martin in cold blood, or that he's a racist, or a vigilante. None of those people's statements hold legal weight. Isn't it interesting that every single thing you're basing your opinion on isn't admissible in court (yet), while nearly everything I'm basing mine on is?

Quote:
There's been no trial gbaji.


And? There was no trial yesterday to prove that I didn't rob a bank. Want to know why? Because there's no evidence that I did, thus no charges were filed, and no trial occurred. That's how our legal system works. You have to have a certain level of evidence before you can even hold a trial. Where's the evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin in anything other than legally justified self defense? Are you even aware of the legal requirements to prove that it wasn't self defense?

I'll give you a hint. Following Martin through the complex doesn't remove Zimmerman's right to self defense. In exactly the same way that you walking down a street (even in a bad part of town that you know is potentially dangerous) doesn't remove yours.

Quote:
Stop spewing what you think is so obviously the truth. You don't know anything.


I know a lot of things.

Edited, Apr 4th 2012 6:17pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#440 Apr 04 2012 at 3:36 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
Quote:
That you're conflating several different statements in the wrong order and creating logical associations between them that I never claimed? Yeah. I see a whole bunch of fallacies in what you're doing.



I can't remember what I wrote a page ago wrote:
After he got out of his car and after Martin had already run off. Are you seriously arguing that Martin was justified to run away from Zimmerman because Zimmerman chose to follow him after he ran?


Was there a time machine involved in your version of events?


Seems like a straight forward claim to me.

Post 399!



Quote:
So you're saying that a private citizen on private property to which he is a part owner and has volunteered to watch over cannot follow someone he thinks is suspicious because that person might assault him violently and require him to defend himself?


No I am saying that self defense does not apply when you knowingly and willingly place yourself in a dangerous situation where your life could be put in danger. Had Zimmerman calmly waited in his vehicle, Martin would of had to bring the confrontation to Zimmerman. We know of course Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, as evidenced by his answer to the 911 operator when asked if he was following Martin.


Quote:
more gibberish


I see your hypocrisy knows no bounds.



Edited, Apr 4th 2012 5:37pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#441 Apr 04 2012 at 3:37 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,321 posts
Quote:
Zimmerman had no more reason to assume that following Martin would end with the result that occurred than Martin could assume that running would, or walking to the store, or any actions that occurred that day. The law requires that we look at the first illegal action taken and follow from that chain. Running, and following, are not illegal.


If that's true, then he's a moron.

Remember that this is someone who he reported to the cops, someone he knows has some kind of object (potentially a weapon) that he is worried enough about to report, someone he believes could be drugged up.

If you follow someone like that, and don't assume that a confrontation would be possible, then you're an imbecile and should NOT be a member of any kind of watch.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#442 Apr 04 2012 at 7:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
No I am saying that self defense does not apply when you knowingly and willingly place yourself in a dangerous situation where your life could be put in danger.


And you're wrong. I'm sorry. I know that our public school system teaches us that everyone is entitled to an opinion. But that doesn't make every opinion correct. In this case, you are just plain absolutely wrong.

I can walk down a street in the worst part of town with $100 bills hanging out of my pockets and wearing a shirt that says "@#%^s must die", and if someone assaults me, I still have the right to defend myself. Why? Because I have a right to carry money on my person, even foolishly. I also have a right to free speech. Again, even if foolishly implemented.

We might question the sanity of someone who does that, but that person has an absolute right to do so, and if he's attacked for doing so, the crime is committed by the person attacking him and he has an absolute right to defend himself.


Unless you're arguing that if someone finds something about you offensive, they can ignore a whole set of laws which say that assault is illegal and choose to do it anyway? You're free to do this, of course, but I suspect you'll get yourself into a logical bind pretty fast. Our laws have to be consistent and applied equally.

Quote:
Had Zimmerman calmly waited in his vehicle, Martin would of had to bring the confrontation to Zimmerman. We know of course Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, as evidenced by his answer to the 911 operator when asked if he was following Martin.


Our actions cannot be legally dictated to us by threat of someone else's potential criminal act(s). While we might say it's smart to avoid putting yourself in that position, it is *not* illegal to do so and doing so does not eliminate your right not to be attacked and your right to defend yourself if you are. As I have stated several times, Zimmerman's right to walk through the complex does not evaporate because Martin is on the same path. Trying to argue such a thing would lead you to all sorts of absurd legal assumptions which would require people to be mind readers and see the future.


Put another way. If your logic worked legally then every single homeowner who's ever walked down the stairs to see if the sound they heard really is someone robbing their house deserves whatever violence that robber commits against them. And if they were smart enough to bring a weapon and were able to defend themselves, they can't claim self defense. Because by your logic, since they went down stairs suspecting someone potentially violent to be there, they've lost all rights to self defense of themselves and their property.

I'm sorry. I just don't know how many times I have to say this to get it to sink in: The law does not work that way. Nothing Zimmerman did that night (as far as we know) justified the resulting assault by Martin. Certainly, we have zero evidence of Zimmerman doing anything which would remove his right to self defense in this case. And no amount of you (and others) jumping up and down and screaming like children that "it's not fair!!! Waaaaah!", isn't going to change the law.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#443 Apr 04 2012 at 8:13 PM Rating: Good
******
21,715 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
No I am saying that self defense does not apply when you knowingly and willingly place yourself in a dangerous situation where your life could be put in danger.


And you're wrong. I'm sorry. I know that our public school system teaches us that everyone is entitled to an opinion. But that doesn't make every opinion correct. In this case, you are just plain absolutely wrong.

I can walk down a street in the worst part of town with $100 bills hanging out of my pockets and wearing a shirt that says "@#%^s must die", and if someone assaults me, I still have the right to defend myself. Why? Because I have a right to carry money on my person, even foolishly. I also have a right to free speech. Again, even if foolishly implemented.


And you're wrong. I'm sorry. I know that our public school system teaches us that everyone is entitled to an opinion. But that doesn't make every opinion correct. In this case, you are just plain absolutely wrong.

The moment you chase someone down and initiate any sort of interaction, you become the aggressor. The key point here is that Zimmerman chased Martin down, not the other way around. You seem perfectly content to repeatedly ignore this fact, but that doesn't make your trite drivel any less idiotic.
____________________________
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.


#444 Apr 04 2012 at 8:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
***
1,154 posts
Quote:
Put another way. If your logic worked legally then every single homeowner who's ever walked down the stairs to see if the sound they heard really is someone robbing their house deserves whatever violence that robber commits against them. And if they were smart enough to bring a weapon and were able to defend themselves, they can't claim self defense. Because by your logic, since they went down stairs suspecting someone potentially violent to be there, they've lost all rights to self defense of themselves and their property


By being inside the house, you are already in danger. Upstairs or downstairs doesn't matter. A correct analogy would be if you see someone robbing the house across the street and after calling the cops you decide to take your gun, cross the street and confront the robber in your neighbor's house. By leaving the security of your house, you voluntarily put yourself in a situation of danger. That's what Zimmerman did when he left his car against the advice of the authorities to confront someone he thought was a potential threat. If Martin was really that suspicious and possibly armed then Zimmerman should have stayed in his car where he was in security instead of voluntarily putting himself at risk.
#445 Apr 04 2012 at 8:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
The moment you chase someone down and initiate any sort of interaction, you become the aggressor.


Define "aggressor" in this context though. You're using a word which could be interpreted multiple ways in order to avoid the key issue. Does being an aggressor mean you are committing an illegal act? Does being an aggressor mean that the person you are being aggressive towards has a legal right to assault you? Because if those aren't true in this case, then Martin's assault on Zimmerman was illegal and therefore Zimmerman's actions in self defense are justified


Quote:
The key point here is that Zimmerman chased Martin down, not the other way around. You seem perfectly content to repeatedly ignore this fact, but that doesn't make your trite drivel any less idiotic.


I am not ignoring that fact. I'm saying that it has no relevance to the issue of Zimmerman's claim to self defense. Unless Zimmerman physically assaulted Martin, Martin is not justified to assault him back. What's so bizarre is that some of you seem to insist on applying incredibly inconsistent rules here. You're basically arguing that the law should have two different thresholds for self defense. In Martin's case, apparently he's justified to use violence to defend himself merely because Zimmerman was following him (or chasing him even). Yet, the same person will insist that Zimmerman isn't justified to use violence to defend himself, even when flat on his back and being beaten.


Isn't that a massive double standard? Someone following you is *not* justification to use violence against them. Someone beating you in the face *is*. The only way Martin could be justified to assault Zimmerman is if Zimmerman assaulted him first. But we have absolutely zero evidence of this. Following someone isn't an assault. On the flip side we do have evidence that Martin was assaulting Zimmerman just prior to Zimmerman firing his gun. You're free to speculate that Zimmerman initiated the physical fight and thus can't claim self defense, but that's all it is: speculation.


You're letting your emotions run ahead of the facts here. You can't possibly really believe that merely following someone gives that person legal justification to assault you. If you step back from this specific case and think that through, you should realize that that would be an utterly impossible legal standard. You've basically created a legal standard that allows one person to do violence to another based purely on what he thinks the other person might do. That's absurd. And frankly, by that standard Zimmerman could have shot Martin legally the first time he saw him walking down the street. Surely you don't think that would have been ok.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#446 Apr 04 2012 at 9:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
feelz wrote:
Quote:
Put another way. If your logic worked legally then every single homeowner who's ever walked down the stairs to see if the sound they heard really is someone robbing their house deserves whatever violence that robber commits against them. And if they were smart enough to bring a weapon and were able to defend themselves, they can't claim self defense. Because by your logic, since they went down stairs suspecting someone potentially violent to be there, they've lost all rights to self defense of themselves and their property


By being inside the house, you are already in danger. Upstairs or downstairs doesn't matter.


Of course it matters. Because someone could argue that the thief was only interested in my TV and stereo and would not have gone upstairs. So if I'd stayed up there, I would have not confronted him, I'd be fine, and he'd be fine. But because I went down the stairs, I caused a confrontation, which resulted in me shooting the intruder.

BTW, this scenario is why the "stand your ground" laws were created in the first place. Prosecutors were charging homeowners with manslaughter in cases where it could be argued that had they simply stayed upstairs (or fled once they saw the person in their home), the death of the intruder would not have occurred. Those laws were written specifically to counter an argument that self defense only applies in cases where the person has no option to retreat. So in that case, I would have to retreat upstairs and can only fire in self defense if the intruder pursues me and corners me, leaving me no choice.

Quote:
A correct analogy would be if you see someone robbing the house across the street and after calling the cops you decide to take your gun, cross the street and confront the robber in your neighbor's house.


Except that this is common property. So an even better analogy is that you have been asked by your neighbor to watch his house while he's gone, and you see someone breaking in. You absolutely have a right to confront that robber, and it's probably smart to do so while armed. If the robber is stupid enough to assault you, then you have the right to shoot him.

You seem to want to make it so that everyone must just let someone committing a crime get away with it. But that is *not* how our legal system works. You are absolutely empowered to protect yourself and property that is yours or under your protection. And as long as you take legally reasonable actions in doing that, you can't be charged with a crime. Certainly, merely approaching someone you suspect of committing a crime is *not* a crime itself and is not an action which justifies someone taking some kind of violent action against you.

Quote:
By leaving the security of your house, you voluntarily put yourself in a situation of danger.


You could say that of any situation. There could be a mugger waiting outside my door. So I should never leave my house, and if I do, and I'm mugged, I can't defend myself because I caused myself to be mugged by walking where the mugger was? That's absurd! And if I carry a weapon because I think that there might be a mugger outside my house, I'm somehow responsible for him assaulting me and can't use it in self defense? That's even more absurd.


Quote:
That's what Zimmerman did when he left his car against the advice of the authorities to confront someone he thought was a potential threat. If Martin was really that suspicious and possibly armed then Zimmerman should have stayed in his car where he was in security instead of voluntarily putting himself at risk.


Sigh. You're spinning off in all sorts of directions. Answer one question: Does Zimmerman following Martin give Martin a legal justification to assault Zimmerman? Yes or no.

Assuming the answer is "no", then it does not matter that Zimmerman followed him. As I've been saying over and over, that fact has zero bearing on Zimmerman's claim to self defense. The *only* thing that matters is whether Martin or Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation. Since we don't know the answer to that, we can't assume that Zimmerman did. Thus, there's no evidence to prove that his action was not self defense. Case closed.

Edited, Apr 4th 2012 8:07pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#447 Apr 04 2012 at 9:09 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,245 posts
gbaji wrote:
Put another way. If your logic worked legally then every single homeowner who's ever walked down the stairs to see if the sound they heard really is someone robbing their house deserves whatever violence that robber commits against them. And if they were smart enough to bring a weapon and were able to defend themselves, they can't claim self defense. Because by your logic, since they went down stairs suspecting someone potentially violent to be there, they've lost all rights to self defense of themselves and their property.
Except your scenario starts with a clear example of a crime in progress, where your personal belongings and possibly health and well-being are in danger, which depending on the state could allow self defense. That doesn't exactly mean the homeowners in question won't be investigated for excessive force though depending on the outcome. At the very least, Zimmerman wasn't in any danger until after the chase, and a suspicious individual doesn't automatically constitute a crime in progress. Martin shouldn't have run and Zimmerman shouldn't have chased, though both legally had the right to do what they did up to that point. That's really the only thing that can be said with any certainty.
gbaji wrote:
The law does not work that way.
That's okay, the law doesn't work the way you're suggesting either. In reality, one of you is screaming blue, the other is screaming red, and the question is "What animal says 'moo'?"
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#448 Apr 04 2012 at 9:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Put another way. If your logic worked legally then every single homeowner who's ever walked down the stairs to see if the sound they heard really is someone robbing their house deserves whatever violence that robber commits against them. And if they were smart enough to bring a weapon and were able to defend themselves, they can't claim self defense. Because by your logic, since they went down stairs suspecting someone potentially violent to be there, they've lost all rights to self defense of themselves and their property.
Except your scenario starts with a clear example of a crime in progress, where your personal belongings and possibly health and well-being are in danger, which depending on the state could allow self defense.


Read it again. My scenario starts with someone suspecting that someone might be committing a crime. Exactly like Zimmerman merely suspected that Martin might be committing a crime. In both cases, you don't know, so you take an action to find out. And in both cases, if after encountering the other person that person assaults you, you absolutely can defend yourself. Arguing that it's your fault because you caused the confrontation is absurd.

Quote:
That doesn't exactly mean the homeowners in question won't be investigated for excessive force though depending on the outcome.


Sure. And if we had witnesses who reported seeing Zimmerman on top of Martin, beating him senseless and then pulling his gun and shooting him, you might have a point.

Quote:
At the very least, Zimmerman wasn't in any danger until after the chase, and a suspicious individual doesn't automatically constitute a crime in progress.


Correct. Which means that Zimmerman is not justified to tackle Martin and hold him for police, or just walk up and shoot him, or in any other way assault him. He *is* justified to walk up to him and ask him what he's doing though.

Quote:
Martin shouldn't have run and Zimmerman shouldn't have chased, though both legally had the right to do what they did up to that point. That's really the only thing that can be said with any certainty.


And neither of those actions justified physical violence. I think we're in agreement there. My point is that we know that physical violence did occur. So someone stepped outside their legal justification. We don't know who that was, so we can't make *any* assumptions about it. And in the absence of that knowledge, we can only look at the parts that witnesses saw and which can be verified via physical evidence at the scene. And that gives us a nearly textbook example of a case of self defense.

Again, if you can't shoot someone in self defense in the situation the witnesses saw Zimmerman in, then when can you?


It does not matter that Zimmerman followed Martin. All that matters is whether there is any evidence to show that Zimmerman initiated the physical assault. And the answer to that question is: No.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
The law does not work that way.
That's okay, the law doesn't work the way you're suggesting either.


Except that it does. Unless you're arguing that the law should work in such a way that we arrest and charge people for crimes for which we have no evidence? I hope you're not arguing that. So if you aren't, then what evidence is there that Zimmerman's choice to pull the trigger and shoot Martin was *not* self defense?

If all you've got is "he followed Martin through the complex", your case will be thrown out by the first judge you come to. And he'll probably give you a stern talking to about not wasting the courts time. This is something the prosecutor knows, but apparently a whole lot of people on the interwebs don't.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#449 Apr 04 2012 at 9:32 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,321 posts
Quote:

Read it again. My scenario starts with someone suspecting that someone might be committing a crime. Exactly like Zimmerman merely suspected that Martin might be committing a crime. In both cases, you don't know, so you take an action to find out. And in both cases, if after encountering the other person that person assaults you, you absolutely can defend yourself. Arguing that it's your fault because you caused the confrontation is absurd.


You have the right to watch, but that's hardly the same thing as chasing after him with a gun.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#450 Apr 04 2012 at 10:25 PM Rating: Good
******
41,245 posts
gbaji wrote:
And in both cases, if after encountering the other person that person assaults you, you absolutely can defend yourself.
You're right in that after encountering the other person while they're committing a crime and that person assaults you as a result in their attempt to escape, you absolutely can defend yourself. You can't so much use self defense (And, you know, lethal force) if the forensic evidence shows that the person wasn't in your house but just walking around, and you chased them down and they were the one who were defending themselves and ended up losing. I read it again, including your new explanation, and it's still wrong. See, if someone is in your house without your knowledge, that's a crime. It's called trespassing, though it could be upgraded to breaking and entering depending on the circumstances of their entry. Larceny if they'd picked up something prior to being shot. Even if you know who they are, and they're not legally living there, then they are trespassing. There's really no question or debate about that, though I'm sure you both'll each find ones on opposite sides that make no legal sense. At that point, seeing as a crime has already been committed, you'd have your self defense argument. The difference here is that in the Martin/Zimmerman case "being suspicious" isn't an automatic commission of a crime in, well, pretty much any state I can think of, so the argument you made isn't analogous to the situation at all. You can't say the Martin/Zimmerman case was self defense unless you know what lead to the need of lethal force. There's, at best, circumstantial evidence of it. Breaking into a house? Plenty of forensic evidence.

See, in your scenario there could be only two outcomes: Either someone was there without the homeowner's knowledge, and therefore a crime was occurring with or without their need to even investigate themselves (IE: Trespassing), or no one was there and nothing would have happened. Legally there is no third outcome.
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The law does not work that way.
That's okay, the law doesn't work the way you're suggesting either.
Except that it does.
Except it doesn't.
gbaji wrote:
So if you aren't, then what evidence is there that Zimmerman's choice to pull the trigger and shoot Martin was *not* self defense?
What evidence is there that Zimmerman's choice to pull the trigger and shoot Martin *was* self defense? And by evidence, I don't mean circumstantial or anecdotal evidence. I mean forensic evidence.
gbaji wrote:
If all you've got is "he followed Martin through the complex", your case will be thrown out by the first judge you come to.
If "A bloody nose" and "kid who admitted to only seeing parts of the scene" was your case, it would also be thrown out by the second judge. Any lawyer would easily say the bloody nose came afterwards and could be self inflicted and that the witness with the dog didn't see anything that would make lethal force necessary and that he was just filling in the blanks. Not the first judge because the first judge you see in a murder case has nothing to do with anything involving evidence and just points out how little you really know about the criminal justice system. See, the first judge you see is during the Bail Hearing, which takes all of thirty seconds. I know you've seen Law & Order, it's evident in your law knowledge, so you should know that. The first judge doesn't have the authority to throw out cases, especially murder cases.

But to the point: Neither case would survive litigation
gbaji wrote:
This is something the prosecutor knows, but apparently a whole lot of people on the interwebs don't.
Apparently "a whole lot of people on the interwebs" don't know the difference between a prosecutor and a defense attorney either. But hey, if ya want to sound smarmy you sure gave it the ol' college try.

Edited, Apr 5th 2012 12:28am 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.
#451 Apr 05 2012 at 1:08 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,886 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
ANYTHING else is speculation.
Everything in this thread is speculation.
The whole four minute Zimmerman-police station call is NOT speculation. And if you've listened to the whole of it, I think that that is worth discussing in relation to the known outcome of Zimmerman and Martin physically fighting, and then Zimmerman shooting Martin. The hoard of stuff that we don't know about the physical fight and the circumstances of the shooting is put into very set context by the evidence of the whole of the 4 minute conversation previous to the fight and shooting.

The call says nothing about the fight and the shooting. It does provide clear evidence of what the police dispatch caller thought Zimmerman ought to be doing in his present situation. The dispatch caller was not clear about whether what he was asking Zimmerman to do were orders or suggestions. Either way, Zimmerman ignored the dispatch officer on at least four clear suggestions to not leave his car, to not pursue Martin, to park his car and wait in it in a designated area, and finally to go to the gates and rendezvous with the police in his car. The dispatch officer was clear in wanting the police to deal with examining Martin, and for Zimmerman to stay right out of any further examination of Martin.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 43 All times are in CDT
Debalic, Kakar, Technogeek, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (39)