Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Zimmerman TrialFollow

#403 Jul 25 2013 at 1:39 PM Rating: Good
******
43,082 posts
D'aww, it's adorable you think it doesn't already.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#405 Jul 25 2013 at 2:19 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Pity.

Just for clarification, that was in reference to admission of ignorance. I apologize for maturing earlier in life prior to this forum where change wasn't necessary.

earthwindfirepoop wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Alright, I'll admit I'm talking out my ass a little here as I haven't really been following any threads over the last 1-2 months, but unless you feel this is a new you, then your history shows I'm right.


This isn't a "new" me, because I never changed. Just as you never changed. The actions that you just displayed are consistent with your past. That only proves that I'm right, you're just making stuff up. I remember the exact moment in my life when I decided not to talk out of ignorance and that was far before I had access to the Internet.



You sound like a petulant 5yr old brat. "Look at me!!! I'm right!!! I'M RIGHT damnit!!!


You do realize that I'm arguing that I admit to being ignorant and or possibly WRONG in discussions right? Smiley: oyvey Even though you only have a few posts, I assume that you're not new to the Internet; however, your statement says otherwise. My advice to you is to sit down and drink a small glass of STFU.

Edited, Jul 25th 2013 10:20pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#407 Jul 25 2013 at 2:25 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Quote:

I'll have a large mug of bite me please.


I don't realize anything. You're an imbecile for assuming otherwise.


I'm sorry, you need to stick with what the doctor prescribes. It's only for your own good.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#409 Jul 25 2013 at 5:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Alma, I stopped arguing with you for two reasons:

1. I've been very busy at work and haven't had much time to post.

2. After the 4th or 5th time of telling someone "I'm arguing X and not Y", only to have him demand that you prove Y, there's not much point in continuing.


Oh. Elinda? The reason your use of the word "child" is pandering is because there are several age based terms that can be applied to Martin: Minor, child, and teen spring immediately to mind. You chose the one that is the least accurate and the most likely to draw an emotional reaction. The word child suggests a person who is relatively unable to take care of themselves and therefore must be looked out after by someone else. If someone says "Help! My child has wandered off and I can't find him!", you would likely assume the child referred to is young enough that wandering out of sight of the parent is actually a problem. If it later turned out that the child was actually 17 years old, you'd also think that the parent intentionally mislead you with their word choice.

Martin was 17 years old. Hardly helpless. Hardly incapable of walking down the street without holding his parents hand. Calling him a child in this case is a clear attempt to draw upon the reaction to the word in a situation where it really doesn't apply.


Oh (don't even remember who said this). Martin wasn't simply trying to get home when he was shot. He was actively committing felony assault when he was shot. Can we at least get that much straight? Everyone seems to want to focus on the walking home part, but he wasn't shot because he was walking home, or because of what sorts of candy or beverages he was carrying, or what sort of clothes he was wearing. He was shot because he was straddling someone, pinning them to the ground, and punching them in the face. That's a pretty important fact to continually "forget" about.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#410 Jul 25 2013 at 6:28 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,486 posts
gbaji wrote:
The reason your use of the word "child" is pandering is because there are several age based terms that can be applied to Martin: Minor, child, and teen spring immediately to mind


In all of the court documents that I have received in the last two years of trying to get parenting time, my daughter is referred to as "The Minor Child" 9/10 times, otherwise she is referred to by name.

So, once again, legal definition.

ETA: She is a teenager

Edited, Jul 25th 2013 5:29pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#411 Jul 25 2013 at 6:59 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,575 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:

ETA: She is a teenager


Go on...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#412 Jul 25 2013 at 7:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,486 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:

ETA: She is a teenager


Go on...


And I would hurt you in so many new and interesting ways that the jury would congratulate me on innovation, and let me go.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#413 Jul 25 2013 at 8:22 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The reason your use of the word "child" is pandering is because there are several age based terms that can be applied to Martin: Minor, child, and teen spring immediately to mind


In all of the court documents that I have received in the last two years of trying to get parenting time, my daughter is referred to as "The Minor Child" 9/10 times, otherwise she is referred to by name.


Um... Because in that context, the word "child" doesn't refer to age. Minor does. Meaning a "child under the age of 18" rather than a "child over the age of 18". You do understand that "child" can also simply mean that one person is the offspring of another, right?

"My child", or "his/her/their child" refers to relation, not age. "A child" tends to suggest both youth and helplessness. Which is why using it to describe Martin is less about accuracy than it is about pandering to an emotional response to the shooting. Why do you suppose the Martin family lawyer had them use photos from when he was like 12 to put out in the media initially? Same thing. To make people think Trayvon Martin was helpless against Zimmerman and thus could not possibly have been an aggressor and could not have done anything to justify being shot and killed.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#414 Jul 25 2013 at 8:27 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,486 posts
ETA: You know what, nevermind, I will not engage

Edited, Jul 25th 2013 7:29pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#415 Jul 25 2013 at 8:34 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
ETA: You know what, nevermind, I will not engage


I'll take that as a sudden realization that if "child" and "minor" were actually complete synonyms, there would be no reason to use a phrase like "minor child" in a legal document.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#416 Jul 25 2013 at 8:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,486 posts
Actually, it is not.

It is me realizing that, just like you, I think I am right and you are wrong, but unlike you, I don't need to argue about it online until I am considered a running joke, who doesn't know when and/or how to stop talking.

So, I guess, yay for you?

Edited, Jul 25th 2013 7:37pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#417 Jul 25 2013 at 9:27 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Alma, I stopped arguing with you for two reasons:

1. I've been very busy at work and haven't had much time to post.

2. After the 4th or 5th time of telling someone "I'm arguing X and not Y", only to have him demand that you prove Y, there's not much point in continuing.



That's garbage. You said that Martin could have been doing anything. I asked for clarification that since Martin could have been doing "anything", then that means that there is no evidence, proof or facts that supports that he was doing a crime. That's literally what you said. That's not asking for proof.

Furthermore, you can't allude that someone was about to commit a crime in an argument, then expect not to defend your statement.

You: "After killing Nelson, Kendra perhaps stole the jewels"
Me: "What makes you think Kendra stole the jewels?"
You: "That's not the point!!! I'm arguing that Kendra killed Nelson!!
Me: "So why did you say that Kendra stole the jewels?"
You: "I said "perhaps", Kendra could have been doing anything!"
Me: "So, Kendra could have been doing anything and you have no facts to support her stealing the jewels?"
You: "Stop making me substantiate my claims!"

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#418 Jul 26 2013 at 7:33 AM Rating: Good
******
43,082 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
And I would hurt you in so many new and interesting ways that the jury would congratulate me on innovation, and let me go.
I've got beanbag munitions for similar occasions.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#419 Jul 26 2013 at 7:45 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,471 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
ETA: You know what, nevermind, I will not engage
Break off, break off!

Quote:
I'll take that as a sudden realization that if "child" and "minor" were actually complete synonyms, there would be no reason to use a phrase like "minor child" in a legal document.

Dayum, too late.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#420 Jul 26 2013 at 10:48 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,052 posts
The one Latina juror has spoken up. She said she was the original vote for 2nd degree murder, and she apparently feels horrible about Zimmerman walking. However, she said that the law as it was presented to them and the evidence at hand meant that she and the other jurors simply could not find him guilty of murder, no matter how guilty she thought he was. She believes it's a poorly worded law. She also said that the criminal justice system may have let him go, but he's going to have to face God's judgment later.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#421 Jul 26 2013 at 10:59 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,082 posts
Westley wrote:
Catwho wrote:
The one Latina juror has spoken up.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.


Edited, Jul 26th 2013 12:59pm 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.
#422 Jul 26 2013 at 2:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Alma, I stopped arguing with you for two reasons:

1. I've been very busy at work and haven't had much time to post.

2. After the 4th or 5th time of telling someone "I'm arguing X and not Y", only to have him demand that you prove Y, there's not much point in continuing.



That's garbage. You said that Martin could have been doing anything. I asked for clarification that since Martin could have been doing "anything", then that means that there is no evidence, proof or facts that supports that he was doing a crime.


Ok. This is where you keep going off the rails. I don't need to prove that he *was* going to commit a crime. I only need to show that there was sufficient evidence that what he was doing looked suspicious for Zimmerman's actions in response to be reasonable. Zimmerman does not have to prove that Martin was about to commit a crime to call the police. Burden of proof exists farther along in the legal process. He only has to see what looks like suspicious behavior. We can speculate that such behavior might indicate someone who perhaps is planning on committing some kind of crime, but we don't have to prove that he was going to commit a crime, much less what specific crime he was going to commit before we're allowed to call the cops.


Quote:
Furthermore, you can't allude that someone was about to commit a crime in an argument, then expect not to defend your statement.


I didn't say that. I said that a possible explanation for Martins behavior was that he might have been about to commit a crime, or might have been scoping the area for some future crime. Or he might just have been curious about the backyards of his neighbors. In any case, roaming around at night in the rain looking into people's yards is "suspicious". And that's all that matters here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#423 Jul 26 2013 at 3:20 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Or he might just have been curious about the backyards of his neighbors.


So, as I just said. You are saying that there is no evidence, facts or proof to support the notion that Martin was about to commit a crime?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#424 Jul 26 2013 at 3:25 PM Rating: Good
*
224 posts
If you're walking home at night in the rain, I'd think most people look all over the place, not just alleged potential thieves. It's hardly suspicious behaviour to be spooked if you're alone with poor visibility.

Edited, Jul 26th 2013 5:28pm by Demoncard
#425 Jul 26 2013 at 3:29 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Demoncard wrote:
If you're walking home at night in the rain, I'd think most people look all over the place, not just alleged potential thieves. It's hardly suspicious behaviour to be spooked if you're alone with poor visibility.

Edited, Jul 26th 2013 5:26pm by Demoncard

Edited, Jul 26th 2013 5:27pm by Demoncard


Well you know, that's the best time to rob someone, when everyone is inside their house.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#426 Jul 26 2013 at 3:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Or he might just have been curious about the backyards of his neighbors.


So, as I just said. You are saying that there is no evidence, facts or proof to support the notion that Martin [s]was[/b]may have been about to commit a crime or may have planning to commit one in the future?


The notion? Of course there was. It was raining, but instead of walking straight home, he was wandering around poking into things. Have you bothered to read the transcript of Zimmerman's phone call? It's like the first thing he tells the dispatcher about why he's making the call.

What Martin was doing was certainly suspicious enough to justify making a phone call to police. Isn't that all that matters here?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#427 Jul 26 2013 at 3:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Demoncard wrote:
If you're walking home at night in the rain, I'd think most people look all over the place, not just alleged potential thieves. It's hardly suspicious behaviour to be spooked if you're alone with poor visibility.


There's a difference between "looking" all over the place and "wandering" all over the place. It was the fact that Martin was not walking in a straight line down the street that drew Zimmerman's attention.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#428 Jul 26 2013 at 4:12 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji wrote:
The notion? Of course there was. It was raining, but instead of walking straight home, he was wandering around poking into things. Have you bothered to read the transcript of Zimmerman's phone call? It's like the first thing he tells the dispatcher about why he's making the call.

What Martin was doing was certainly suspicious enough to justify making a phone call to police. Isn't that all that matters here?


Before you said that Martin could have been doing anything, which means that there are no evidence, facts and/or proof that Martin was particularly about to commit a crime. Now, you're saying that there ARE facts, evidence and/or proof that Martin was about to commit a crime?

Edited, Jul 27th 2013 12:12am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#429 Jul 26 2013 at 5:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
The notion? Of course there was. It was raining, but instead of walking straight home, he was wandering around poking into things. Have you bothered to read the transcript of Zimmerman's phone call? It's like the first thing he tells the dispatcher about why he's making the call.

What Martin was doing was certainly suspicious enough to justify making a phone call to police. Isn't that all that matters here?


Before you said that Martin could have been doing anything, which means that there are no evidence, facts and/or proof that Martin was particularly about to commit a crime. Now, you're saying that there ARE facts, evidence and/or proof that Martin was about to commit a crime?


No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is evidence that what Martin was doing was sufficiently suspicious to justify Zimmerman placing a call to police. What *exactly* Martin was doing, or was going to do, or was planning to do, doesn't really matter. I keep explaining this to you, and you keep ignoring it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#430 Jul 26 2013 at 5:28 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
There are plenty of situations where I may be justified to call the police. There are far fewer situations where I'm justified in confronting someone, with a loaded gun.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#431 Jul 26 2013 at 5:33 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
I'm saying that there is evidence that what Martin was doing was sufficiently suspicious to justify Zimmerman placing a call to police.

Right. He was black in an upscale community. He failed to go to his destination by the straightest possible route. That would be the evidence you mean, because there is nothing else.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#432 Jul 26 2013 at 5:39 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji wrote:
No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is evidence that what Martin was doing was sufficiently suspicious to justify Zimmerman placing a call to police. What *exactly* Martin was doing, or was going to do, or was planning to do, doesn't really matter. I keep explaining this to you, and you keep ignoring it.


So, your claim is that the scenario involving Martin was suspicious to Zimmerman (enough to call 911), but there is no evidence, facts or proof that Martin was about to commit a crime. He could have been doing anything.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#433 Jul 26 2013 at 5:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
There are plenty of situations where I may be justified to call the police. There are far fewer situations where I'm justified in confronting someone, with a loaded gun.


Whether he had a loaded gun or not is irrelevant to his justification though. I think that's a point many people fail to get about concealed carry. Your rights don't change because you're carrying a firearm. Zimmerman has exactly the same right to confront a suspicious person in his neighborhood whether he is carrying a gun or not. If you want to make the argument that Zimmerman was (legally) wrong (or lacked justification, although I find that to be too subjective a term) to do what he did, you have to leave the whole "carrying a loaded gun" part out of your argument.

We might call what Zimmerman did foolish because he ran the risk of getting into a physical confrontation with the person he was following, but he has every right to do so. In the same way we might call a woman walking alone down a dark alley late at night foolish for risking being assaulted or raped, but we'd never say that she somehow deserved to be assaulted because she made that choice. And no one would argue that she was guilty of a crime because she chose to carry a concealed weapon on her in order to protect herself on the off chance someone did attempt to assault/rape her. We correctly place the blame on the person who carried out the assault, not on the person who made the mistake of encountering that person.


And at the end of the day, Martin was not shot because he was walking in the rain. He was not shot because he was wearing a hoodie. He was not shot because he had skittles and tea on him. And he wasn't shot because he was black. Martin was shot because he was straddling Zimmerman, pinning him to the ground, and punching him in the face. He chose to do that. If we want to avoid outcomes like this in the future, the correct lesson to learn from this is to *not* do that. Blaming the guy who was on the ground getting his face punched in because he should have known better than to follow the suspicious teen running through his community is completely insane. Worse than that, it perpetuates the very problem that caused this in the first place because it increases the odds that the next young black man who thinks someone might be watching them or reporting them to police will resort to physical violence.

We need to teach people not to do this, not scare them into thinking that it's their only option.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#434 Jul 26 2013 at 5:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is evidence that what Martin was doing was sufficiently suspicious to justify Zimmerman placing a call to police. What *exactly* Martin was doing, or was going to do, or was planning to do, doesn't really matter. I keep explaining this to you, and you keep ignoring it.


So, your claim is that the scenario involving Martin was suspicious to Zimmerman (enough to call 911), but there is no evidence, facts or proof that Martin was about to commit a crime. He could have been doing anything.


Um... Yeah. I think I said that like 4 pages ago. No argument I've made in this thread requires that we know at all what Martin was about to do when Zimmerman called the police. You kinda invented that one all on your own.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#435 Jul 26 2013 at 5:51 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,668 posts
Give him a break gbaji, English is a tough language.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#436 Jul 26 2013 at 5:55 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
Your right to do something might be the same regardless of whether or not there's a firearm on your person.

But your right to do something while using the firearm in some capacity (in this case, displaying it to be threatening), most certainly changes whether or not you have the right to do something. And in the event that the gun comes into use, you may be blameworthy for introducing a loaded weapon into the scenario.

If I yell at some kids to get the hell off my lawn, it's most certainly different from yelling at some kids to get the hell off my lawn while holding a loaded gun.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#437 Jul 26 2013 at 5:56 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is evidence that what Martin was doing was sufficiently suspicious to justify Zimmerman placing a call to police. What *exactly* Martin was doing, or was going to do, or was planning to do, doesn't really matter. I keep explaining this to you, and you keep ignoring it.


So, your claim is that the scenario involving Martin was suspicious to Zimmerman (enough to call 911), but there is no evidence, facts or proof that Martin was about to commit a crime. He could have been doing anything.


Um... Yeah. I think I said that like 4 pages ago. No argument I've made in this thread requires that we know at all what Martin was about to do when Zimmerman called the police. You kinda invented that one all on your own.


Actually, you said that he perhaps was about to commit a crime. It wasn't until later that you said that he could have been doing anything after you were unable to provide any facts to support your claim.

So, with that being said, do you think Martin ran away in the same manner from every person sitting in a parked car on a cell phone?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#438 Jul 26 2013 at 6:02 PM Rating: Good
*
224 posts
I'm going to call your bluff on Martin not walking in a straight line. Zimmerman's word (?) is just his word, and should be taken with a barrel of salt. Or a McDonalds. In any case, that's not suspicious, per se, just somewhat curious. He could have been avoiding a puddle or something. It isn't at all suspicious.

Zimmerman thought he was a threat of some sort, and set about looking to confirm it. The fact that he immediately made the assumption that Martin was on drugs from briefly watching him walk (from some distance, something trained police hounds can't do) should be enough to discredit his baseless suspicions. Inb4 Zimmerman had spidey senses or somesuch.

Even if Martin was suspicious, it doesn't justify Zimmerman's actions. If he was attacked by Martin, he needn't have killed him; he could have won the fight, like any other man against a teenager, or lost and went home/gone home after lying on the pavement.

The sooner he gets jail time, the safer the streets'll be. It won't be long before some crazy with a gun (I wasn't referring to Zimmerman, honest!) or an angry mob (does the US still have those?) kills a lookalike by mistake.

I probably should have refreshed the page before posting. ;_;

Edited, Jul 26th 2013 8:03pm by Demoncard
#439 Jul 26 2013 at 6:11 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Give him a break gbaji, English is a tough language.


Yea, it is. That's why I want to make sure EXACTLY what he is saying, so it's harder for him to back track like he did already. As I mentioned, you can't allude that someone was going to commit a crime in an argument and expect not to validate that claim.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#440 Jul 26 2013 at 7:34 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Martin was shot because he was straddling Zimmerman, pinning him to the ground, and punching him in the face.

What led to that part is mighty important vis-a-vis Zimmermans liability in what followed.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#441 Jul 26 2013 at 7:57 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Your right to do something might be the same regardless of whether or not there's a firearm on your person.

But your right to do something while using the firearm in some capacity (in this case, displaying it to be threatening), most certainly changes whether or not you have the right to do something. And in the event that the gun comes into use, you may be blameworthy for introducing a loaded weapon into the scenario.


Absolutely correct. And if there was even a shred of evidence that Zimmerman displayed his firearm or threatened Martin with it I would be firmly in the "Zimmerman guilty of Manslaughter" camp. But there isn't. Zip. Zero. Nada. Not one witness saw a gun until after the shooting. The girlfriend never reported Martin saying anything about a gun. There's no evidence that Martin had any clue that Zimmerman had a gun until the moment he was shot in the chest.

So yeah. I agree with you that *if* that were the case, this would be a whole different ball game. But it's not. Every bit of evidence we have suggests that Martin had no idea that Zimmerman was armed when he chose to straddle him and pin him to the ground, and that Zimmerman did not pull his gun out until after he was put in that position by Martin. And there's overwhelming forensic evidence that when Zimmerman pulled the trigger, Martin was still on top of him, further strengthening the claim of self defense.

Quote:
If I yell at some kids to get the hell off my lawn, it's most certainly different from yelling at some kids to get the hell off my lawn while holding a loaded gun.


Absolutely. Again though, there's no evidence that this happened. So great theory and all that, but we kinda have to stick with the evidence.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#442 Jul 26 2013 at 8:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Martin was shot because he was straddling Zimmerman, pinning him to the ground, and punching him in the face.

What led to that part is mighty important vis-a-vis Zimmermans liability in what followed.


From a legal standpoint? No. It doesn't. As I've pointed out repeatedly (I'll link to the legal code in question if you need it), the law is incredibly clear on this. There's even a whole section on "self defense by aggressor". You are *always* allowed to use lethal force in self defense if you are unable to retreat and are being subjected to threat of bodily harm which you reasonably fear may result in grave injury or death. Period. End of story. It does not matter at all how you got there.

The lesson to learn from this is no matter how much you think someone "deserves a beating" for whatever they may have done to you, you are *never* legally in the right if you cut off someone's avenue of escape and continue to attack them. Knocking someone to the ground and beating them while they're down is always illegal, and always gives them the right of self defense against you. Does not matter what happened before then. What's interesting is that even under stand your ground (which didn't apply in this case anyway), while *you* have no duty to retreat, you do have a duty to allow the other guy to retreat (or a duty to stop attacking him if/when he's unable to). Martin made the mistake of violating that rule and paid for it with his life.

Again though, instead of repeating claims of unfairness and/or racism that only serve to convince the next young black man to make the same damn mistake Martin did, we should be taking the opportunity to teach all young men what mistake Martin made, so that they can avoid it in the future. Unfortunately, emotions and politics are getting in the way of rational actions, and the people who will suffer for it (as they have in the past) will be young black men. And that's the true tragedy of all of this. We just can't seem to learn the right lessons.

Edited, Jul 26th 2013 7:11pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#443 Jul 26 2013 at 8:17 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Actually, you said that he perhaps was about to commit a crime. It wasn't until later that you said that he could have been doing anything after you were unable to provide any facts to support your claim.


Seriously? Do you know what words like "might" and "perhaps" mean?

Quote:
So, with that being said, do you think Martin ran away in the same manner from every person sitting in a parked car on a cell phone?


I don't know. I suspect he didn't. Which is why I speculated that he most likely believed that Zimmerman was a concerned citizen or member of the watch and was on the phone with the police reporting Martin's suspicious behavior. We know from Zimmerman's phone call that he thought Martin's behavior was suspicious. It's reasonable to assume that Martin might have realized that his behavior would look suspicious then, right? Thus, regardless of whether Martin was actually doing anything wrong, if he realized that Zimmerman might think he was doing something wrong and was calling the police, he might be inclined to run.

That's my theory anyway. I can't say for sure, but it makes the most sense given the facts that we know.


Why do you think Martin ran from Zimmerman? Keep in mind that Zimmerman had not followed him prior to that point. He had not spoken to him, or confronted him, nor was Martin even aware that Zimmerman was there until mere seconds before choosing to run. All he saw was a guy sitting in a car looking at him and talking on his phone. So if you think my theory is wrong, then why not propose a counter theory?

Why did Martin run?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#444 Jul 26 2013 at 8:39 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
How many times have you insisted that Martin jumped Zimmerman from behind and immediately started slamming his head into the ground? It would be shocking if he managed to grab his gun, get it to chest-level, and shoot Martin in the chest in that scenario. It only makes sense if he was already holding it.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#445 Jul 26 2013 at 9:05 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji wrote:
So if you think my theory is wrong, then why not propose a counter theory?


I did. I explained it pages ago, but you picked parts of it and conveniently ignored all of the points that countered your theory. So, I'm "walking the dog", point by point.

Gbaji wrote:
Seriously? Do you know what words like "might" and "perhaps" mean?


Beside the fact that the usage of those words are irrelevant to my point, do you know what the word "allude" means? "Gbaji might have perhaps raped that girl on the way to work. I said 'might' and 'perhaps', I don't need any justification for my comment!"


Gbaji wrote:
I don't know. I suspect he didn't.


That's good! So, if Martin didn't run away from random people on the phone sitting in parked cars, then that means Zimmerman must have been suspicious enough to Martin in order for him to run. Unless that is, you believe that Martin "just had a feeling"?




Edited, Jul 27th 2013 5:06am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#446 Jul 26 2013 at 9:54 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Martin was shot because he was straddling Zimmerman, pinning him to the ground, and punching him in the face.

What led to that part is mighty important vis-a-vis Zimmermans liability in what followed.


From a legal standpoint? No. It doesn't. As I've pointed out repeatedly (I'll link to the legal code in question if you need it), the law is incredibly clear on this. There's even a whole section on "self defense by aggressor". You are *always* allowed to use lethal force in self defense if you are unable to retreat and are being subjected to threat of bodily harm which you reasonably fear may result in grave injury or death. Period. End of story. It does not matter at all how you got there.
I'll admit I've barely followed this case so please clarify something for me.

If, in fact, Zimmerman jumped out and attacked Martin by suprise and then ended up flat on his back getting his ass kicked he's still 100% ok to shoot to kill? Because if that's the case that's the @#%^ing dumbest law I ever heard of.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#447 Jul 26 2013 at 10:07 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Bijou wrote:
I'll admit I've barely followed this case so please clarify something for me.

If, in fact, Zimmerman jumped out and attacked Martin by suprise and then ended up flat on his back getting his ass kicked he's still 100% ok to shoot to kill? Because if that's the case that's the @#%^ing dumbest law I ever heard of.


From my understanding, the law doesn't discriminate the aggressor from the victim. Whoever, at any time, feels as if their life is threaten, then that individual has the right to use deadly force as a form of self-defense.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#448 Jul 26 2013 at 10:09 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
The lesson to learn from this is no matter how much you think someone "deserves a beating" for whatever they may have done to you, you are *never* legally in the right if you cut off someone's avenue of escape and continue to attack them.
You are wrong.

As I said before, that depends on the state. I am well within my rights to restrain someone by whatever means in order for the police to come get the bad guy. Maybe you should actually read what others write.

Oh, and maybe you should not just assume you are right about everthing.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#449 Jul 27 2013 at 1:50 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
643 posts
Why is it that it was ok for Zimmerman to kill Martin because he feared for his life, but Martin was supposed to run away. According to Zimmerman, Martin was going for his gun, So maybe Martin feared for his life because a guy was following him with a gun and he decided to defend himself (since we have no proof who threw the first punch).

Seems like different standards are being set, where the guy with the gun was encouraged to shoot and not get away, while the unarmed guy should have run and not protected himself.
#450 Jul 27 2013 at 2:15 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
That's the point that President Obama made.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#451 Jul 27 2013 at 9:03 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,148 posts

Seems like different standards are being set


Did you mean "different standards exist"? Obviously being black in America means you're vastly less likely to have a successful self defense argument in court. It's not a mystery, these statistics are easily available. Possible, of course, that the cause is that black people commit far more violent crime per capita and attempt improbable defenses that fail because they should fail. Also possible that the legal system is prejudiced against black people.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 87 All times are in CDT