Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Zimmerman TrialFollow

#227 Jul 14 2013 at 3:31 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
laugh, or it goes in my sig!


I couldn't find the appropriate icon and just picked that because the eyes appeared to be "looking" at your post. iChuckled.
#228 Jul 15 2013 at 12:51 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,388 posts
Almalieque wrote:
iChuckled.
Manslaughter should be considered perfectly reasonable for people putting a lower case "i" where it doesn't belong.
#229 Jul 15 2013 at 2:26 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
iChuckled.
Manslaughter should be considered perfectly reasonable for people putting a lower case "i" where it doesn't belong.


As much as I hate Apple, I would rather do that than a "#"+ a run on sentence.
#230 Jul 15 2013 at 2:29 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,388 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
iChuckled.
Manslaughter should be considered perfectly reasonable for people putting a lower case "i" where it doesn't belong.


As much as I hate Apple, I would rather do that than a "#"+ a run on sentence.
It can't be neither?
#231 Jul 15 2013 at 3:21 AM Rating: Excellent
On Topic:

So, what I got out of this case is that an armed fool can stand his ground but an unarmed black teenager cannot because Florida writes ****** laws.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#232 Jul 15 2013 at 3:24 AM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
iChuckled.
Manslaughter should be considered perfectly reasonable for people putting a lower case "i" where it doesn't belong.


As much as I hate Apple, I would rather do that than a "#"+ a run on sentence.
It can't be neither?


Yea. but.. mind blown.....
#233 Jul 15 2013 at 5:29 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
On Topic:

So, what I got out of this case is that an armed fool can stand his ground but an unarmed black teenager cannot because Florida writes sh*tty laws.


If it makes you feel better, last year a black mother was sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing warning shots at her abusive husband when he was coming at her and her kids. Apparently SYG didn't cover that.

Oh, and George Zimmerman said he felt the black community should have to apologize to him. Yet he never apologized for shooting Martin in the first place.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#234 Jul 15 2013 at 6:02 AM Rating: Good
idiggory wrote:
If it makes you feel better,


lol. why would that make anyone feel better?

Quote:
last year a black mother was sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing warning shots at her abusive husband when he was coming at her and her kids. Apparently SYG didn't cover that.


Nope, she got hosed by Florida's manual minimum sentencing laws.

Quote:
Oh, and George Zimmerman said he felt the black community should have to apologize to him. Yet he never apologized for shooting Martin in the first place.


Hopefully he uses the gun he gets back, now that he was found not guilty, to kill the person a gun owner is most likely to shoot.

Them self.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#235 Jul 15 2013 at 6:25 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
It was sarcasm. Smiley: madSmiley: madSmiley: mad
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#236 Jul 15 2013 at 7:17 AM Rating: Good
******
49,831 posts
There's no such thing as warning shots.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#237 Jul 15 2013 at 8:30 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
iChuckled.
Manslaughter should be considered perfectly reasonable for people putting a lower case "i" where it doesn't belong.
As much as I hate Apple, I would rather do that than a "#"+ a run on sentence.

#YOLO
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#238 Jul 15 2013 at 8:31 AM Rating: Good
******
49,831 posts
#iYOLO
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#239 Jul 15 2013 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
iChuckled.
Manslaughter should be considered perfectly reasonable for people putting a lower case "i" where it doesn't belong.


As much as I hate Apple, I would rather do that than a "#"+ a run on sentence.
It can't be neither?
#iPhonemasterraceupinthishizzouseYOLOSWAG420BLAZEIT

Edited, Jul 15th 2013 10:36am by Spoonless
____________________________
Banh
#240 Jul 15 2013 at 8:42 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Oh man it felt good to click the red arrows on those posts. Thanks guys!
____________________________
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.
#241 Jul 15 2013 at 8:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Oh man it felt good to click the red arrows on those posts. Thanks guys!

#YOLOMEANZNOREGRETZ
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#242 Jul 15 2013 at 8:54 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Jophiel wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Oh man it felt good to click the red arrows on those posts. Thanks guys!

#LUVMEANZNVRHAVING2SAYURSORRY

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#243 Jul 15 2013 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
#ifucanthandlemeatmyworstudontdeservemybest
____________________________
Banh
#244 Jul 15 2013 at 1:41 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
I would rather read gbaji's drivel than these last few posts.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#245 Jul 15 2013 at 1:56 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
You read Gbaji's posts?
____________________________
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.
#246 Jul 15 2013 at 2:18 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
Skim. I go back and read them if something catches my eye that I want to reply to.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#247 Jul 15 2013 at 3:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
In the wake of this, what was really disturbing was to see the statistics on how disproportionately SYG laws clear white shooters as opposed to POC shooters (particularly black) in the US. According to this PBS article,


It's bad enough when posters on this forum repeat "facts" that are absolutely untrue, but it should be a big giant warning flare that the following is BS (or at least very biased) when an article repeats such an untruth:

Quote:
Since Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman, invoked the stand-your-ground defense, these laws have been defended by gun rights groups for empowering civilians.


That's completely untrue. Zimmerman never invoked stand your ground. His lawyers did not either. It was not used at the trial. It was not considered at the trial. It was brought up by those who opposed the law in the context of this case, not because it had anything to do with the case, but because they wanted to attack the law by associating it with an emotional case like the one at hand.

On top of that the statistical analysis they use (and their graphical representation) is pretty questionable as well, and appears designed to create a gross misunderstanding of the relative rates of white on black versus black on white and black on black homicides (size of the bars and all that). The fact is that both groups experience fewer convictions of homicide in SYG states, and if you look at the graphic (and ignore relative sizes between the groups, but look instead at relative deltas within them), you'll see that by far the biggest change occurs in the "black on black" group. And given that this group represents by far the largest total number of shootings (the total number of shootings used for the data was around 5000, but the total number of white on black shootings within that number was 25. Not sure about black on white, but I'm going to assume it's much lower than black on black), the reality is that SYG protects probably ~100 times (possibly as many as 1000 times!) more black shooters than white.


I'm sure that's exactly what you got out of the article though.

Edited, Jul 15th 2013 2:13pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#248 Jul 15 2013 at 4:16 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
That's completely untrue. Zimmerman never invoked stand your ground. His lawyers did not either. It was not used at the trial. It was not considered at the trial. It was brought up by those who opposed the law in the context of this case, not because it had anything to do with the case, but because they wanted to attack the law by associating it with an emotional case like the one at hand.

On top of that the statistical analysis they use (and their graphical representation) is pretty questionable as well, and appears designed to create a gross misunderstanding of the relative rates of white on black versus black on white and black on black homicides (size of the bars and all that). The fact is that both groups experience fewer convictions of homicide in SYG states, and if you look at the graphic (and ignore relative sizes between the groups, but look instead at relative deltas within them), you'll see that by far the biggest change occurs in the "black on black" group. And given that this group represents by far the largest total number of shootings (the total number of shootings used for the data was around 5000, but the total number of white on black shootings within that number was 25. Not sure about black on white, but I'm going to assume it's much lower than black on black), the reality is that SYG protects probably ~100 times (possibly as many as 1000 times!) more black shooters than white.


I'm sure that's exactly what you got out of the article though.


Since you seem to know so much about what happened and the laws, surely you can provide me the evidence that supports the claim that Martin was about to do something wrong?
#249 Jul 15 2013 at 4:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Since you seem to know so much about what happened and the laws, surely you can provide me the evidence that supports the claim that Martin was about to do something wrong?


And surely you can provide evidence that I ever once made this claim.

Let me stop you right there and repeat the same thing I've said every other time you've made this claim (except the one last Friday, cause I was too busy to post): I have not said that Martin was about to commit a crime. My position does not rest on any assumption that Martin was about to commit a crime. My position rests solely on the witness statement about the relative position of the two men immediately before the shot was fired, and what the law defines as legitimate use of lethal force in self defense.

What Martin was actually doing while walking home that night, and why Zimmerman followed him into the complex, have absolutely zero bearing as to whether or not Zimmerman's use of his firearm falls under the legal definition of self defense. I'm just not sure how many times and in how many different ways I can say the exact same thing before it sinks in.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#250 Jul 15 2013 at 4:53 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,912 posts
gbaji wrote:
What Martin was actually doing while walking home that night, and why Zimmerman followed him into the complex, have absolutely zero bearing as to whether or not Zimmerman's use of his firearm falls under the legal definition of self defense. I'm just not sure how many times and in how many different ways I can say the exact same thing before it sinks in.


But it does have a lot to do with people's issues with the laws and the drive to have them looked at and better defined, limited, etc. But the pro gun crowd won't have any of that (*). Gotta be able to use your gun!

(*)The only people who have ever talked to me about this case in person have only done so from a gun rights point of view.

Edited, Jul 15th 2013 6:54pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#251 Jul 15 2013 at 6:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
TirithRR wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What Martin was actually doing while walking home that night, and why Zimmerman followed him into the complex, have absolutely zero bearing as to whether or not Zimmerman's use of his firearm falls under the legal definition of self defense. I'm just not sure how many times and in how many different ways I can say the exact same thing before it sinks in.


But it does have a lot to do with people's issues with the laws and the drive to have them looked at and better defined, limited, etc.


Sure. And that's a legitimate point we can discuss. I guess I just take issue with someone assuming a position on that aspect of the issue and then projecting that assumption onto me. Alma clearly believes that Zimmerman (while armed) is only justified to follow Martin if he has proof that Martin is committing or will commit a crime, and if he didn't have that proof, any conflict that results must be his fault, and thus any claim to self defense on his behalf is nullified. But that's Alma's assumption, not mine. Yet he's demanding that I prove a condition that he and I disagree is relevant (whether Martin was committing a crime or about to commit a crime when Zimmerman followed him) to the question at hand. And that gets frustrating as ****.

As to the issue itself, I have extreme problems with it. In order to say that Zimmerman was wrong to do what he did (following Martin while armed) basically requires that we toss out the entire concept of arming ones self in the first place. Obviously, there are actions people can take that may be completely legal and within their rights, but which we might say aren't such a great idea. Walking down a dark alley late at night in a bad part of town is probably not a great idea, right? We'd certainly recommend that someone not do that if they can avoid it. Yet it's legally absolutely within your right to do that, and if someone beats you up and takes your money, they're the one's committing a crime, not you.

My concern with the concept of blame on Zimmerman is that you're basically saying that the victim (or potential victim) is at fault for being assaulted/robbed/mugged/whatever because he should have known that he was putting himself at risk. By walking down that dark alley he's "creating a situation" where he's likely to be beaten and robbed. That's true, but he's still not the one breaking the law and we really need to recognize that fact. And the argument gets really twisted when we add in a concealed weapon. If we assume that it's dangerous to walk down that dark alley, but that I'm completely within my right to do so, should I not reasonably decide to carry a concealed weapon when/if I decided to walk down that alley? I'm carrying a weapon in order to protect myself *if* someone decides to violate my right to walk down that alley.

Is that wrong of me? The argument some folks are putting forth is that since I know there's a risk that I might get beaten and robbed walking down that alley, that by arming myself prior to doing so, this proves that I *want* that robbery to happen so that I can shoot someone. But that's a huge stretch, isn't it? What if I have to walk down that alley as part of my job? What if it's on my way home? ****. What if that dark alley *is* part of the neighborhood I live in? While it's entirely possible that some people *might* choose to intentionally arm themselves and put themselves in dangerous positions so as to act as some sort of vigilante, I think it's begging the question to assume that anyone who arms themselves and walks down that alley *must* be motivated by vigilantism. Yet that's a lot of what we get in this case.

It's like starting out saying that a woman wearing a short skirt is increasing her odds of being raped, and then going further and saying that the same woman carrying a concealed weapon should know that she's increased her odds of someone attempting to rape her, so her motivation for carrying the weapon can't be the obvious (wants to protect herself from rape), but must instead be that she wants to shoot someone. You (not you specifically, but anyone making this form of argument) are essentially arguing that instead of arming herself she should instead not wear a short skirt or ever be in an area where someone might try to rape her. I think that's an unworkable legal standard. Doubly so when I assume most people on this forum would never argue that the woman in that situation was at fault for "causing a situation in which she might be raped", yet the same people seem to have no problem blaming Zimmerman for "causing a situation in which he might be assaulted".

It's the same legal standard you're talking about though. Does carrying a concealed weapon negate your right to do things which would otherwise be legal (but perhaps not smart ideas) if you were unarmed? If so, why? I'd think most people would argue that the woman absolutely has a right to carry a concealed weapon and no blame at all if someone decides to try to rape her and she uses said weapon to defend herself. So why is Zimmerman's case different? He had every right to walk through that complex. Every right to approach Martin. Every right to talk to Martin. The issue should resolve around the particulars of the fight itself, and whether self defense was justified.

IMO to argue that Zimmerman was (or should be) legally at wrong to do what he did leading up to the fight purely because he was armed, is a completely different and problematic argument that has ramifications well beyond the specific case before us. As I've said before, you're basically arguing that carrying a concealed weapon automatically makes you at fault if/when any sort of conflict occurs. I think we need to actually look at the particulars of the conflict itself, not the mere fact that someone was there to be in the conflict and was carrying a gun.


Quote:
But the pro gun crowd won't have any of that (*). Gotta be able to use your gun!

(*)The only people who have ever talked to me about this case in person have only done so from a gun rights point of view.


You can make the exact argument in reverse regarding the anti-gun crowd though. It's not like the pro-gun folks are jumping around going "yee haw! Gun rights!!!", all on their own. They are responding to anti-gun folks basically saying Zimmerman was wrong more or less because he was armed. So yeah, that's going to create an argument, but it's not like it's just one side involved. Just look at how many people in this thread who've more or less pinned their whole argument to the fact that Zimmerman was armed, period. He shouldn't have chased Martin "while armed". Apparently, it would have been fine to do so while not armed, thus increasing his odds of becoming a victim, which I find strange.

Edited, Jul 15th 2013 5:15pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)