Anyone been watching this the last few days? There's no way Zimmerman won't walk on this, as well he should. The prosecution's witnesses have helped the defense more then the prosecution.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Are we talking primarily about Rachel Jeantel's performance on the stand?
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
That, and the witness today who stated he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, raining blows to his head MMA style. He also testified that the scream could only have been from Zimmerman. This was the prosecution's witness.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
He didn't, in fact, testify that he saw Martin punching him-there was some ambiguity in that. I'm also curious as to what this guy actually knows about 'MMA style'. He couldn't confirm the guy on top was hitting the guy on bottom...but he knows it was 'MMA style'? Sounds like some pretty standard eyewitness-in-the-dark uncertainty to me. Though of course if that's all they've got, I wouldn't be outraged if Zimmerman did walk.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
The 'MMA-style' quote is in dispute. The witness actually said he might have heard it from police before he ever said it. But his testimony that he saw someone in dark clothing straddling someone in lighter/red clothing is pretty damning.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh, yeah. Between the two of them it acts as a pretty amazingly perfect study in culture preference and culture barrier to presentation and presentability in court. Jeantel was nearly incoherent, and various cultural and educational issues made it so that she was pretty perfectly out of her element re: interrogation and direct questions. the end result is a 'combative and impossible' client which the defense can pick apart easily.
In contrast, John Good was a world away — clear, concise, and ably capable of responding quickly to ensure that his statements were not being taken incorrectly or out of context, no language barrier, not a cultural oddity in the courtroom who was going to evoke a bunch of "Precious" comparisons.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've heard quite a few people suggest that the prosecution -- which never wanted to actually prosecute this case in the first place -- is deliberately spiking it.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
The witnesses are who they are. How could the prosecution do better?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Coaching, for one thing. There is of course a fine line between "witness preparation" and "witness coaching," but it's hard to believe that either happened in this scenario.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Jeantel being propped up as the "star witness" for the prosecution was an extremely poor decision. She has a history of lying, doing drugs, etc. Jeantel seemed like she was deliberately trying to twist the facts to make it seem like Martin did nothing wrong at all, and that Zimmerman was just a guy that decided he wanted to shoot someone.
She said she was in the hospital when asked why she didn't attend Martin's funeral. Then we found out that was a lie. Why did she lie? Because the lawyers weren't "law enforcement."
She then deleted all of the tweets mentioning drugs and heavy drinking from her Twitter account.
If she is treated any differently, I would HOPE that it is because of the way she has acted, not because of cultural differences. This girl literally said she couldn't read a hand written letter in cursive, even though she is the one that supposedly wrote it. Either she is lying about writing the letter, or she is lying about not being able to read it. Nevermind her durogatory and racist label for white people. Hey, racism goes both ways.
It is the prosecution's mistake. John Good did say that it looked like the person on top's hands were going up and down in a punching motion, but couldn't confirm whether or not there were actual blows.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:I've heard quite a few people suggest that the prosecution -- which never wanted to actually prosecute this case in the first place -- is deliberately spiking it.
Who's suggesting this? The prosecution came out fighting the first day. Just because their number one witness was a flop doesn't mean they're spiking it.
Jeantel's claims have also been inconsistent since the time of the incident, not just during the trial. It's true that she might not be able to articulate her rendering of events or offer clear and concise answers during cross examination - this as a result of her background - but her credibility is still in question.
There have been numerous witnesses called to the stand since Jeantel and all have gave testimony that more strongly support Zimmerman's claims.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Jeantel has now admitted to lying under oath on two seperate parts of her account. One of her testimonies by the DA was given with Martin's mother in the room.
If you are the DA, why on earth would you question a girl in front of the victims mother? Jeantel has admitted that she cleaned up the language and lied because she didn't want Martin's mother to get more upset.
It looks like the defense will probably have this case in the bag after Jeantel's and John Goods testimony. Its like the Prosecution just handed them the win.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: Nevermind her durogatory and racist label for white people. Hey, racism goes both ways.
You mean the "creepy ass cracker" thing, right
is that not less 'her' label, and more a description she reported martin as using
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
The bottom line is, it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed murder and did not act in self defense.
Unless something really unexpected happens or comes up, it's looking pretty unlikely that that is going to occur.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama: The bottom line is, it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed murder and did not act in self defense.
Unless something really unexpected happens or comes up, it's looking pretty unlikely that that is going to occur.
The second degree murder charge was a farce anyway.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The bottom line is, it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed murder and did not act in self defense.
AFAIK the issue is more nuanced than that. Even under Florida's terrible law, you can't start a fight and then claim self defense/SYG as a defense for death as a result of escalation
So honestly what the prosecution's central focus should be is making it seem evident that zimmerman was rashly confrontational and went after this "punk" kid — and then shot him after his confrontation or initiation started a physical altercation
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [QUOTE]So honestly what the prosecution's central focus should be is making it seem evident that zimmerman was rashly confrontational and went after this "punk" kid — and then shot him after his confrontation or initiation started a physical altercation
But then there's the question of escalation. They would have to prove a significant degree of hostility on the part of Zimmerman as he pursued Martin (if that's even the case, which is yet unproven) and then that he initiated the violence by physically accosting Martin.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Obama: The bottom line is, it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed murder and did not act in self defense.
Unless something really unexpected happens or comes up, it's looking pretty unlikely that that is going to occur.
The second degree murder charge was a farce anyway.
Probably. Though the bottom line is, for me, that Martin would be alive if Zimmerman had minded his own d*****d business instead of playing sheriff, manslaughter would seem to be a better charge.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: But then there's the question of escalation. They would have to prove a significant degree of hostility on the part of Zimmerman as he pursued Martin (if that's even the case, which is yet unproven) and then that he initiated the violence by physically accosting Martin.
By 'hostility' it's meant encroaching aggression, correct
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Guy follows another guy with a gun. Eventually, under unclear circumstances, a struggle ensues. Other guy gets shot and killed after in fact not being armed at all and having started the evening minding his own business and pedestrianationizingly himself around. Many questions, dubious witnesses, an account of uncertain validity and consistency from multiple parties...
Yeah. Totally a farce. What we should do when someone unarmed is shot is just, you know, assume the shooter is telling the truth because...well, I don't know why, really.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
I'm not saying that there shouldn't have been a thorough investigation. However unless the prosecution really picks up it's game or drops a bomb, I'm going to find it a little confusing as to how the they thought they had enough to actually charge him for murder 2 and put him on trial.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... unclear circumstances... Many questions, dubious witnesses, an account of uncertain validity and consistency from multiple parties...
All these are reasons why manslaughter, not 2nd degree murder, would have been a more appropriate charge, especially given the details known to the public at the time. The prosecution would be much more likely to get a guilty verdict with manslaughter charges. It's a stronger case.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: I've heard quite a few people suggest that the prosecution -- which never wanted to actually prosecute this case in the first place -- is deliberately spiking it.
After hearing the defense's awful opening statement that dragged on for three hours, began with a knock knock joke, and was interrupted by the judge multiple times for not presenting what an opening statement is supposed to, I (somewhat facetiously) thought the defense was throwing it probably due to threats from the Black Panthers of what would happen to him if Zimmerman got off.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Obama: The bottom line is, it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed murder and did not act in self defense.
Unless something really unexpected happens or comes up, it's looking pretty unlikely that that is going to occur.
The second degree murder charge was a farce anyway.
Probably. Though the bottom line is, for me, that Martin would be alive if Zimmerman had minded his own d*****d business instead of playing sheriff, manslaughter would seem to be a better charge.
Hindsight is always 20/20, eh? I'm sure if Zimmerman could go back in time he probably would have "minded his owned d*****d business instead of playing sheriff". It's not like he followed Martin hoping that Martin would end up on top of him so that Zimmerman could have a reason to kill him.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would not be surprised if he didn't always kind of hope, deep down, that he'd get to fire that gun at somebody, though.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Nor would I.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
after seeing the defense lawyer's infamous new picture post i am now wondering if this is a case in which both sides are really trying to throw it and so it becomes a contest to see who can throw it better
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Nor would I.
Doesn't sound like you're sure at all, then, really.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Sure about what?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: after seeing the defense lawyer's infamous new picture post i am now wondering if this is a case in which both sides are really trying to throw it and so it becomes a contest to see who can throw it better
The defense lawyer recently posted a picture?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: It's not like he followed Martin hoping that Martin would end up on top of him so that Zimmerman could have a reason to kill him. [/QB]
I expect something like that is exactly what Zimmerman was hoping for when he ignored police instructions not to engage with the unknown young man whom he had not observed breaking any laws.
Haven't you met people like that? I have. People who carry weapons on their persons, who seem to like to talk about what they'll do when "something goes down." And something does magically seem to go down when a person is armed with a deadly weapon, literally looking for trouble. Don't you know people who "trouble always finds?" I've seen people like this in everyday life- they engage with the world around them as a series of reasons to exert their wills. Personally, I think Zimmerman may be a psychopath; perhaps not a particularly violent one, but one who enjoyed feelings of authority. How many calls did he make to the local police in a few years? Could you continue doing that without feeling strange about it?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not even convinced this is murder or manslaughter. If Martin attacked him, it may not be. But I know this kind of guy. I know this type of thing doesn't happen to people like me (at least, I can be sure it is only a remote possibility). And that is saying nothing about who Martin was, or how he may have actually acted that night. People like Zimmerman find these situations, and they get off on them. And while this one might have gone further than he would have liked (because of the consequences), he's not sorry about it. He doesn't understand what he's done wrong.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I know the kind of person you are talking about and comparing Zimmerman to. The difference I think is that Zimmerman wasn't hoping use his gun to rescue himself from being beat up by a kid who, at least up until that point, had committed no crime. He was hoping to catch Martin robbing a house or assaulting an innocent civilian where he heroically shoots Martin to save the day. That's what I meant when I agreed with Tom that he, deep down, hoped to get to use that gun on someone someday. I wouldn't be surprised if he wanted to fire that gun on someone in a way that would earn him a medal and the gratitude of the community. I really don't think he wanted to fire it on an innocent kid who was carrying a drink and skittles and then deal with all of this.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama: The bottom line is, it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed murder and did not act in self defense.
.
You are mistaken. When a plea of self defense is made, the defendant has the burden of proof not the prosecution. Zimmerman has to show a clear and convincing evidence that he killed Martin in self defense.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
I guess if I ever kill someone in self defense and feel there isn't ironclad evidence present that it WAS self defense, I'll be trying to hide the body or fleeing the scene. What a stupid way to run things.
Doesn't Stand Your Ground modify this in Florida, though?
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Plus the wounds Zimmerman had, in addition to the witness testifying Martin being on top of Zimmerman and at least trying to punch him, topped off by the same witness saying that it was Zimmerman yelling for help. A case of self defense has been made in my eyes. Being followed isn't justifiable cause to assault somebody.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama: I guess if I ever kill someone in self defense and feel there isn't ironclad evidence present that it WAS self defense, I'll be trying to hide the body or fleeing the scene. What a stupid way to run things.
Doesn't Stand Your Ground modify this in Florida, though?
Have you done any looking into self defense killing? It's not as clear cut as you're making out. For example, it's far from unheard of for people-in a variety of scenarios-to injure or attempt to injure themselves. Sometimes it's because an accident happened during a fight, and someone died, and the survivor (naturally) panics. Sometimes it's a cold blooded thing. Sometimes it's a hot blooded thing with panic following.
Obviously I'm not saying every time there's a fight and someone claims self defense, this is what happened-or even a small minority of the time, and if the state doesn't discredit what's been said so far somehow then I would very likely vote to acquit too. But when one guy brings a gun to a confrotation he started and then, at some point after, the guy without the gun ends up dead, yeah, I'm far from unhappy with the law saying he needs to, you know, have something more compelling than just his word and some uncertain inheres to explain the body that dropped.
Of course I would be happy too if as a society we could get behind the idea of scorning ideas such as self-selected armed neighborhood watch people to the point of men desiring to do so would be embarrassed rather than empowered, but eh.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Obama: The bottom line is, it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed murder and did not act in self defense.
.
You are mistaken. When a plea of self defense is made, the defendant has the burden of proof not the prosecution. Zimmerman has to show a clear and convincing evidence that he killed Martin in self defense.
No, Rabbit, you're the one who's wrong. The defendant has a burden of production to produce sufficient evidence to raise a defense of self-defense. Once the defendant does that (and the bar is very low), the prosecution has the burden of proof to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt in Florida, and in every state other than Ohio. This is different than affirmative defenses in civil cases, which do impose the burden of proof on the defendant.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Obama: The bottom line is, it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed murder and did not act in self defense.
.
You are mistaken. When a plea of self defense is made, the defendant has the burden of proof not the prosecution. Zimmerman has to show a clear and convincing evidence that he killed Martin in self defense.
I'm not certain, but I believe the standard for self defense is a preponderance of the evidence, a lower bar than clear and convincing.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
This is all the problem with the "Stand Your Ground" laws.
Zimmerman claims self defense. He was attacked, so used his gun to defend himself. He did not flee--but stood his ground.
What was he defending himself against? Martin.
Why was Martin attacking him? Because he felt Zimmerman was a threat. Zimmerman followed Martin in an aggressive and creepy way. Martin tried to flee, but Zimmerman followed--very creepy. Martin did not have a gun, just his size and strength, but he was "Standing His Ground" just as the law allows--except he was using fists instead of a gun--so Zimmerman survived.
The big social issue does not require Zimmerman to be prosecuted. It required a real investigation to occur. What originally happened appeared too much like a racially motivated lack of interest by the police in the death of a black man. Thanks to the protests of good people, such an investigation happened. I am losing interest in the trial.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: This is all the problem with the "Stand Your Ground" laws.
Zimmerman claims self defense. He was attacked, so used his gun to defend himself. He did not flee--but stood his ground.
What was he defending himself against? Martin.
Why was Martin attacking him? Because he felt Zimmerman was a threat. Zimmerman followed Martin in an aggressive and creepy way. Martin tried to flee, but Zimmerman followed--very creepy. Martin did not have a gun, just his size and strength, but he was "Standing His Ground" just as the law allows--except he was using fists instead of a gun--so Zimmerman survived.
The big social issue does not require Zimmerman to be prosecuted. It required a real investigation to occur. What originally happened appeared too much like a racially motivated lack of interest by the police in the death of a black man. Thanks to the protests of good people, such an investigation happened. I am losing interest in the trial.
This doesn't have anything to do with Stand Your Ground, which says nothing more than that the defendant claiming self defense has no obligation to retreat if retreat is possible. Zimmerman's story is that Martin had him pinned down on his back when he fired. There's no opportunity to retreat that would trigger SYG.
The rest of your post has no evidence. "Zimmerman was following him in a creepy way." Objectively? All we have to support this is uncorroborated hearsay testimony from Jeantel that only came out at trial, not at any of her previous depositions. Even then, it came from someone who repeatedly referred to Zimmerman as a "cracka." I guess racial slurs aren't evidence of racism when uttered by blacks.
To follow your post, I have to believe that being "followed in a creepy way" justifies a lethal assault in "self-defense," but being on the receiving end of a lethal assault doesn't justify using a gun in self defense. Fortunately, the law disagrees.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
Oh, and left out one thing: If Martin had wanted to flee, he would have. He was 100-150 yards from his home when he spotted Zimmerman 400-500 yards away. I'm fairly sure the 6'1 slim Martin could beat the obese Zimmerman in that foot race.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Right. Because somehow, it was unreasonable for Martin not to flee, but that *exact same line of thinking* somehow doesn't apply as much if not more to Zimmerman.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's just...man. The double standards expressed so often in these discussions would be surprising if they weren't so common. For example: black kid in a hoodie at night on a known pedestrian path, scary, a scumbag who always gets away. But we shouldn't be too hasty in wondering if he's a racist.
Black kid uses the word cracka, open and shut racist.
Also, wait. So now you're saying we can't be sure Zimmerman followed Martin? Or that it couldn't 'objectively' be said to have been creepy?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
If the story that Zimmerman was on the ground with Martin on top beating him is true, SYG does not apply and doesn't matter in any way. Why?
1. If there was no SYG law, the law only requires you to flee if you have the opportunity to do so. If there is no way to flee, you can still defend yourself.
2. No law I am aware of requires anyone to run away from an argument. Yes it was stupid for Zimmerman to follow Martin and confront him but it is not illegal, SYG or not. SYG has NOTHING to do with following suspects, confronting people about their behavior, etc. SYG only applies when someone's life is in imminent danger AND has an opportunity to flee. Zimmerman was not in imminent danger until Martin attacked him and by then, there was no opportunity to flee (again, if the story is true).
So it is my opinion that the arguments in this case would be exactly the same if there was no stand your ground law, so what difference does it make?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
double post
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not sure SYG will make a difference here but here is an interesting article on it.
Can we just lock up forever vigilantes who roam their neighborhoods at night, pick fights with unarmed people and then shoot them when they fight back?
Because they are a menace to society.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Can we just lock up forever vigilantes who roam their neighborhoods at night, pick fights with unarmed people and then shoot them when they fight back?
Because they are a menace to society.
Sounds good in theory but where do you draw the line between "picking a fight with someone" and simply confronting them about their behavior?
For instance, say my neighbor is running a leaf blower while I try to sleep. Am I not allowed to go over and ask him to stop? If he gets mad, tackles me and starts beating the crap out of me forcing me to kill him in my defense, am I now a vigilante menace to society? Of course, if instead of asking him to stop I just walk up to him and punch him, then I deserve what I get but again, where do you draw the line?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
How about the part where you appoint yourself to be the leaf-blower-checker for your neighborhood and then, contrary to what police groups and leaf-blower-checker groups advocate, you decide you really need to bring a firearm just in case things go seriously bad...
Which, you know, begs the question of why exactly it was so important to check that leaf blower in the first place if the risk is so serious, but whatever, can't cast aspersions, hard to draw a line (apparently).
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Then write your law to take that into account. How would you write it?
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's just...man. The double standards expressed so often in these discussions would be surprising if they weren't so common. For example: black kid in a hoodie at night on a known pedestrian path, scary, a scumbag who always gets away. But we shouldn't be too hasty in wondering if he's a racist.
Black kid uses the word cracka, open and shut racist.
Also, wait. So now you're saying we can't be sure Zimmerman followed Martin? Or that it couldn't 'objectively' be said to have been creepy?
17 year old kid at night in the rain, walking behind the houses in a gated subdivision, in a neighborhood with a history of frequent home robberies--yeah, that's suspicious. Doesn't matter whether he's white, black, or purple.
Said kid repeatedly refers to the guy he thinks is following him as a "cracka"--yes, that's racist, just as if Zimmerman had been black, Martin had been white, and Martin called him a "creepy ass n****."
We can't be sure Zimmerman followed Martin, let alone that he was "creepy." By Zimmerman's own narrative, he got out to check the house and street number to tell the 911 dispatcher. There's no hard evidence that contradicts that narrative. But we do know that if Zimmerman started following Martin, he stopped, and Martin was the one who confronted him at close range. That's directly from Jeantel's testimony, when she said that Martin went up to Zimmerman and said, depending on which version of her story we're talking about, either "What are you doing here?" or "Why are you following me?"
It is undisputed that if Zimmerman followed Martin, it was at a distance and Martin was the one who closed the distance. No legal code gives anyone the right to go up to a person following from a distance in public and physically attack them. So what's the prosecution's case?
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Right. Because somehow, it was unreasonable for Martin not to flee, but that *exact same line of thinking* somehow doesn't apply as much if not more to Zimmerman.
I was responding to someone who said that Martin fled, as evidence against Zimmerman. Martin was not under a duty to flee, nor did he have the right to attack Zimmerman for following him. But he certainly didn't flee.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, not quite. Martin initially fled, Zimmerman followed him, and then Martin -- once he got close to home, and Zimmerman had stopped -- walked back to Zimmerman to confront him.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So much more would be clear if we knew how the physical confrontation got started, but we don't.
As for Zimmerman, he shouldn't have carried lethal force on neighborhood watch, and ignored police instructions.
Gross negligence easily. Manslaughter, maybe depending on how the fight started, sure. Murder? Again, we don't have proof of the circumstances, so they are pushing their luck far enough to break.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think it's pretty difficult to prove murder given what we know. You'd need pretty damning evidence that he had at least some intention of committing the act before he even saw Martin, or perhaps that he planned on murdering him as soon as he saw him.
I think negligent manslaughter, based on what we know, would be an easier charge to pin on him. Better judgment on Zimmerman's part, listening to the advice of law enforcement officials, and not carrying a gun with an itchy trigger finger all would have saved a life that night.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Edgehopper: I'm fairly sure the 6'1 slim Martin could beat the obese Zimmerman in that foot race.
I see zimmerman's strategy of becoming fat for the trial has worked on you.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So much more would be clear if we knew how the physical confrontation got started, but we don't.
As for Zimmerman, he shouldn't have carried lethal force on neighborhood watch, and ignored police instructions.
Gross negligence easily. Manslaughter, maybe depending on how the fight started, sure. Murder? Again, we don't have proof of the circumstances, so they are pushing their luck far enough to break.
Law? Evidence? Who needs 'em? I think he's guilty, and that's good enough for me!
Testimony from police and neighborhood watch people that there's nothing wrong with carrying a legal firearm on neighborhood watch? Utterly irrelevant, because guns are icky. Or maybe irrelevant because you got all your trial information from watching nightly news recaps rather than watching the actual trial, and those recaps don't cover anything but the few strongest minutes of the day for the prosecution.
Gross negligence? There aren't even elements of that--there is an intentional killing with a defense of justification. Manslaughter is in play, but the jury won't even be charged on a version of negligent homicide. But it sounds like a fair compromise!
Self defense? Do people even have a right to that?
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Edgehopper: I'm fairly sure the 6'1 slim Martin could beat the obese Zimmerman in that foot race.
I see zimmerman's strategy of becoming fat for the trial has worked on you.
Zimmerman was obese based on his BMI on the night of the murder. It's true that he's gotten fatter since then.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Zimmerman was 195 pounds when he was arrested and his BMI was not in the range of obesity.
"It's true that he's gotten fatter since then" is a massive understatement. He's put on about a hundred and twenty pounds. Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Having not really followed this case beyond things said on this message board I decided to google some images of him. I'll say, he looks much less menacing to me now than in the pictures of him right after the incident.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
How serious are you about 'police and neighborhood watch groups have no issue with armed neighborhood watch members on patrol', Edgehopper?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Edgehopper: It is undisputed that if Zimmerman followed Martin, it was at a distance and Martin was the one who closed the distance. No legal code gives anyone the right to go up to a person following from a distance in public and physically attack them. So what's the prosecution's case?
The law doesn't work like magical elves: you break the rules and you lose your rights. It is perfectly possible to be guilty of murdering someone who was, at the time that you murdered them, breaking the law.
I am not saying I know that Zimmerman is guilty of murder, mind. I am saying that the fact of Martin attacking him (if we agree that it is a fact, and apparently the prosecution stipulates to this), is not in and of itself enough to dismiss ZImmerman's actions: there are matters of his intent, and his judgement to be considered.
Keep this in mind: if you set out to kill somebody, or intentionally set the stage for your chance to kill someone, even if they do attack you and even if you are "defending yourself," you can be guilty of murder. Intent is important in distinguishing between what is murder, and what isn't. And Zimmerman's act of following a fleeing person to his home, with no reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, may be the deciding factor here: he put himself into a confrontation, or precipitated one, possibly with no just cause to do so. It's a complicated problem, to say the least, but not open and shut because Martin attacked him, even if that is a stipulated fact in the trial: he initiated contact with Martin. How and why he did that has to be considered in the outcome.
Personally I suspect the prosecution should have (maybe have) offered a please of criminally negligent homicide. But who knows: maybe they did and Zimmerman didn't take it.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: How serious are you about 'police and neighborhood watch groups have no issue with armed neighborhood watch members on patrol', Edgehopper?
I'm not him but having worked for the police I can tell you that many would be all for it, some would not. My guess would be about 50/50 of the officers I have known.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think it's pretty difficult to prove murder given what we know. You'd need pretty damning evidence that he had at least some intention of committing the act before he even saw Martin, or perhaps that he planned on murdering him as soon as he saw him.
I don't think that's true. According to Florida Law second degree murder does not require an intent to kill.
quote:Murder with a Depraved Mind (i.e. second degree murder) occurs when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life.
emphasis mine
As I understand it, 2nd degree murder is a non-premeditated, unintentional killing resulting from an assault in which death was a distinct possibility. It is the most common charge when someone is killed in a brawl.
quote:I think negligent manslaughter, based on what we know, would be an easier charge to pin on him. Better judgment on Zimmerman's part, listening to the advice of law enforcement officials, and not carrying a gun with an itchy trigger finger all would have saved a life that night.
I would have agreed with you before reading the legal definitions. Manslaughter is defined as a killing that is the result of negligence. Zimmerman, by his own account, intentionally drew his gun and shot Martin in the chest at point blank range. It wasn't an accident or the result of negligence so it was not manslaughter. It could have been 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder or justifiable homicide (i.e. self defense) but manslaughter does seem to fit the circumstances at all.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: How serious are you about 'police and neighborhood watch groups have no issue with armed neighborhood watch members on patrol', Edgehopper?
I'm reporting the testimony that the jury heard. Maybe you should listen to it, because that's what the jury will be using to render a verdict, not your preconceived notions of the truth.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Edgehopper: It is undisputed that if Zimmerman followed Martin, it was at a distance and Martin was the one who closed the distance. No legal code gives anyone the right to go up to a person following from a distance in public and physically attack them. So what's the prosecution's case?
The law doesn't work like magical elves: you break the rules and you lose your rights. It is perfectly possible to be guilty of murdering someone who was, at the time that you murdered them, breaking the law.
I am not saying I know that Zimmerman is guilty of murder, mind. I am saying that the fact of Martin attacking him (if we agree that it is a fact, and apparently the prosecution stipulates to this), is not in and of itself enough to dismiss ZImmerman's actions: there are matters of his intent, and his judgement to be considered.
Keep this in mind: if you set out to kill somebody, or intentionally set the stage for your chance to kill someone, even if they do attack you and even if you are "defending yourself," you can be guilty of murder. Intent is important in distinguishing between what is murder, and what isn't. And Zimmerman's act of following a fleeing person to his home, with no reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, may be the deciding factor here: he put himself into a confrontation, or precipitated one, possibly with no just cause to do so. It's a complicated problem, to say the least, but not open and shut because Martin attacked him, even if that is a stipulated fact in the trial: he initiated contact with Martin. How and why he did that has to be considered in the outcome.
Personally I suspect the prosecution should have (maybe have) offered a please of criminally negligent homicide. But who knows: maybe they did and Zimmerman didn't take it.
You need evidence of intent!! And there isn't any!
The only thing the evidence shows is that Zimmerman at one point followed Martin from a distance, and at some time a little bit later Martin confronted Zimmerman (not at Martin's home). The evidence also strongly suggest that Martin threw the first and only punches. The rest of your post is pure speculation.
To get a guilty verdict on any charge, the prosecution has to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. To do that without prove that Zimmerman started the fight, the prosecution would have to prove that somehow Zimmerman intended to provoke Martin to attack him so that he would have a justification to shoot Martin. There is no evidence of such a plot.
When I've been on a subway station in New York, and seen what looks like a fight about to start, I've kept an eye on it from a distance so I can call the police or provide testimony if something turns bad. Occasionally I've followed from a distance, remaining in public, attempting to not be seen by the combatants, to do so. Does that justify their attacking me?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:To get a guilty verdict on any charge, the prosecution has to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
My understanding of the self-defense claim here is that Zimmerman actually has to prove self-defense, not the reverse.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:To get a guilty verdict on any charge, the prosecution has to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
My understanding of the self-defense claim here is that Zimmerman actually has to prove self-defense, not the reverse.
That was my understanding as well but it turns out I was wrong. Zimmerman only has to produce enough evidence to create a reasonable doubt that he was defending himself.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think it's pretty difficult to prove murder given what we know. You'd need pretty damning evidence that he had at least some intention of committing the act before he even saw Martin, or perhaps that he planned on murdering him as soon as he saw him.
I don't think that's true. According to Florida Law second degree murder does not require an intent to kill.
quote:Murder with a Depraved Mind (i.e. second degree murder) occurs when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life.
emphasis mine
As I understand it, 2nd degree murder is a non-premeditated, unintentional killing resulting from an assault in which death was a distinct possibility. It is the most common charge when someone is killed in a brawl.
quote:I think negligent manslaughter, based on what we know, would be an easier charge to pin on him. Better judgment on Zimmerman's part, listening to the advice of law enforcement officials, and not carrying a gun with an itchy trigger finger all would have saved a life that night.
I would have agreed with you before reading the legal definitions. Manslaughter is defined as a killing that is the result of negligence. Zimmerman, by his own account, intentionally drew his gun and shot Martin in the chest at point blank range. It wasn't an accident or the result of negligence so it was not manslaughter. It could have been 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder or justifiable homicide (i.e. self defense) but manslaughter does seem to fit the circumstances at all.
I'm just going to go out on a limb and assume you're not a lawyer, because almost nothing in there was right.
2nd degree murder includes the commonly understood intentional murder as well as "depraved heart" murder. Depraved heart murder covers a killing caused by conduct so recklessly indifferent to human life as to show a "depraved heart." Common examples are people who fire automatic weapons randomly into the air (no intent to kill anyone, but extremely reckless) or people who set off heavy explosives where people are expected to be walking. It does not cover a person killed in a two-sided brawl that isn't intended to be lethal.
Voluntary manslaughter is the intentional killing of another without malice aforethought, and typically occurs when a person is reasonably driven into an unthinking rage in which he kills someone. A bar brawl that results in a death is likely to be found here, as is the standard manslaughter scenario of a man catching his wife in bed with another man who kills the other man in a fit of rage.
Involuntary manslaughter is criminal negligence resulting in the death of another. To show negligence, you have to show that the defendant intentionally breached a duty of care, and that the breach proximately (in layman's terms, both actually and foreseeably) caused the other person's death. The key here is that there needs to be a legal duty that was breached. Following a person at a distance in public is not negligence, nor is legally carrying a concealed firearm with a permit. Criminally negligent homicide would be target shooting in your backyard without a backstop, missing the target and accidentally hitting and killing a neighbor. Not a nebulous charge of "failing to follow vague non-instructions."
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: How serious are you about 'police and neighborhood watch groups have no issue with armed neighborhood watch members on patrol', Edgehopper?
I'm not him but having worked for the police I can tell you that many would be all for it, some would not. My guess would be about 50/50 of the officers I have known.
When people talk about "police" opinions I suspect we are talking about official department policy and not the personally held beliefs of individual law enforcement officers.
It is a horrific idea for neighborhood watch volenteers to go armed with lethal force...pepper spray on the other hand...
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:To get a guilty verdict on any charge, the prosecution has to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
My understanding of the self-defense claim here is that Zimmerman actually has to prove self-defense, not the reverse.
I was talking about your beliefs personally, not the testimony.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Edgehopper: I'm just going to go out on a limb and assume you're not a lawyer, because almost nothing in there was right.
2nd degree murder includes the commonly understood intentional murder as well as "depraved heart" murder. Depraved heart murder covers a killing caused by conduct so recklessly indifferent to human life as to show a "depraved heart."
Step 1. Scoff at someone else for ignorance of the law.
Step 2. Site specific readings of the law with no reference to jurisdiction, as if violent criminal law was the same all over America.
Step 3. Next person repeats this process.
quote: Involuntary manslaughter is criminal negligence resulting in the death of another. To show negligence, you have to show that the defendant intentionally breached a duty of care, and that the breach proximately (in layman's terms, both actually and foreseeably) caused the other person's death. The key here is that there needs to be a legal duty that was breached. Following a person at a distance in public is not negligence, nor is legally carrying a concealed firearm with a permit. Criminally negligent homicide would be target shooting in your backyard without a backstop, missing the target and accidentally hitting and killing a neighbor. Not a nebulous charge of "failing to follow vague non-instructions."
Under the test you are applying, is not responsibility for the care of firearms in your possession a duty with the potential to be breached, for example? Not that this specifically applies, but its certainly a charge that ZImmerman might have pleaded to, had he felt murder would stick.
Also, and of course, IANAL, I wonder if some interpretation of involuntary manslaughter could be gleaned from following and or "harassing" and provoking a non-aggressor into violent reprisal? If the firing of the gun itself is not the initial criminal act, could it be interpreted as deriving from criminal trespass or assault (assault as in verbal harassment)? Because surely, some version of running around scaring the crap out of people until someone attacks you, and then shooting that person, might draw upon the whole running after people bit as the negligent act.
What I think baffles and angers people about this case is that it firmly straddles the line between the rights of a victim, and those of the accused. Zimmerman has every right to a trial, wherein his guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, everyone knows that Zimmermans actions, be they criminal or not, were at best in poor judgement, and resulted in the death of a person who, had Zimmerman not been who Zimmerman is, would still be alive. That's very frustrating: Martin is dead, and cannot give his peace on the matter, and ZImmerman may not be guilty, but he can never say that he is not, in some part, responsible.
[ July 03, 2013, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
That last paragraph is definitely one of the better summations of this mess that I've seen, Orincoro.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Wait, so if I catch a guy banging my wife, I can straight up kill him then and there, and probably get off on just manslaughter?
That is very handy information to have.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Except by posting that in a public forum you just admitted to planning it, which is murder 1.
Actually, running around while it is holstered and not drawn is legal, regardless of if others are scared by it or not.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: [Step 1. Scoff at someone else for ignorance of the law.
Step 2. Site specific readings of the law with no reference to jurisdiction, as if violent criminal law was the same all over America.
Step 3. Next person repeats this process.
Florida's criminal code is essentially the common law with respect to homicide crimes. We're not talking about a really weird jurisdiction or an area of law where states differ drastically. All black letter first year stuff.
quote:Under the test you are applying, is not responsibility for the care of firearms in your possession a duty with the potential to be breached, for example? Not that this specifically applies, but its certainly a charge that ZImmerman might have pleaded to, had he felt murder would stick.
Yes, but not broadly enough to encompass Zimmerman's alleged conduct. If you buy a gun without a safety course, point it at someone without checking it thinking it's empty, and pull the trigger as a joke, that's involuntary homicide. If you carry it legally, take a non-optimal legal action, get attacked, and intentionally shoot the attacker in self defense, that's not involuntary manslaughter.
quote:Also, and of course, IANAL, I wonder if some interpretation of involuntary manslaughter could be gleaned from following and or "harassing" and provoking a non-aggressor into violent reprisal? If the firing of the gun itself is not the initial criminal act, could it be interpreted as deriving from criminal trespass or assault (assault as in verbal harassment)? Because surely, some version of running around scaring the crap out of people until someone attacks you, and then shooting that person, might draw upon the whole running after people bit as the negligent act.
Assumes facts not in evidence, but hypothetically, with enough provocation, this would probably be voluntary manslaughter. If, as no one has presented any evidence suggesting, Zimmerman ran up to Martin pointing a loaded gun at him, yelled, "What you doin' in my neighborhood, boy?!," Martin attacked, and Zimmerman fired, it would likely be voluntary manslaughter. The focus would be on whether Zimmerman's behavior was egregious enough to reasonably provoke Martin--common law assault would probably be sufficient.
On the other hand, following at a distance without saying anything is never going to be sufficient provocation to justify a violent response, at least not in one incident (maybe if the same person did it multiple times it could count as stalking, but that's not the fact pattern here.)
quote:What I think baffles and angers people about this case is that it firmly straddles the line between the rights of a victim, and those of the accused. Zimmerman has every right to a trial, wherein his guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, everyone knows that Zimmermans actions, be they criminal or not, were at best in poor judgement, and resulted in the death of a person who, had Zimmerman not been who Zimmerman is, would still be alive. That's very frustrating: Martin is dead, and cannot give his peace on the matter, and ZImmerman may not be guilty, but he can never say that he is not, in some part, responsible. [/QB]
Assumes facts not in evidence again. The "poor judgment" is presumably that Zimmerman "followed" Martin against police "orders", right? But we know that the instruction wasn't an order--"You don't have to do that" is very different than "Don't follow him." And we don't know that Zimmerman continued following Martin after being told not to--the timing of Martin's comment to Jeantel "there's a creepy-ass cracker following me" and the dispatcher's comment "you don't need to do that" is unknown. It is fully consistent with all evidence and testimony that Zimmerman saw Martin acting suspiciously, called the nonemergency number to report, got out of his truck to keep an eye on Martin when Martin ran, was told he didn't need to do that, returned to his truck, and was confronted by Martin while returning to his truck. What poor judgment?
"Had Zimmerman not been who Zimmerman is"--what do you mean? Be specific. A racist? The guy stood up for black people who were being mistreated by police. A vigilante? He wanted to be a prosecutor, not a cop, according to today's testimony. A CCW permit holder? Nothing wrong with that.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Edgehopper: Assumes facts not in evidence again. The "poor judgment" is presumably that Zimmerman "followed" Martin against police "orders", right?
No, the police didn't give such orders. But Martin's judgement clearly failed him: he followed an innocent person to his own home. An innocent person who, up until that moment, had done nothing unlawful. That situation ended in a violent altercation, and in a death. Had it been Zimmerman's death, I would make the same evaluation: poor judgement to follow someone on foot, simply because that person is fleeing from you. He did so alone, at night, after having been advised *not* to. Especially given that he was not a police officer, was armed with a deadly weapon, and had no reasonable cause to pursue Martin. That was, from my subjective viewpoint, an unwise move.
I assume no facts not in evidence here. I assume, in making this judgement, that ZImmerman is telling the whole truth. Even if he is, he exercised poor judgement in my assertion: I would not have done what he did, and I believe that he did it because he lacked proper judgement.
quote: It is fully consistent with all evidence and testimony that Zimmerman saw Martin acting suspiciously, called the nonemergency number to report, got out of his truck to keep an eye on Martin when Martin ran, was told he didn't need to do that, returned to his truck, and was confronted by Martin while returning to his truck. What poor judgment?
No, I don't believe that's consistent with Zimmerman's own testimony. From what I recall, he himself stated that he followed Martin after speaking to the dispatcher. I do not hold to that as a fact, but it is my recollection of the order of events as they have been portrayed.
quote: "Had Zimmerman not been who Zimmerman is"--what do you mean? Be specific. A racist?
Frankly, an idiot. Judging not only from his account of the events of that night, but from his behavior up to that point, from his actions after being arrested, etc. This isn't a criminal court- I don't need to prove Zimmerman intended to kill someone. But I can, and do, assert that in his place, I wouldn't *be* in his place. And most people wouldn't, because he's a gun happy idiot. Not a crime to be an idiot, but his brand of idiocy resulted in a death that should not have happened. That's a shame.
quote: A CCW permit holder? Nothing wrong with that.
Actually, we disagree on this. I think there is something wrong with people like Zimmerman, who patrol the streets of quiet neighborhoods at night, alone, and carry guns with them, and ignore the advise of police who -and lets dispense with the drudgery of semantics over the wording- *suggest* that he not do so. And I think the world would be a better place if stupid people like him were not gambling about at night with guns. In fact, I think the world would be a better place if nobody was carrying guns. Not if guns were illegal to carry or to own, just if nobody had them. There's something wrong with the world when so many people do carry them.
[ July 03, 2013, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
Orincoro - I don't know how it works in Florida, but here in Portland, Oregon the 911 dispatchers are most definitely *not* police officers. I've sat in for a shift at the main 911 dispatch center in Portland and the people answering the phone are civilians who make about $20 an hour in a high-stress job.
So saying that Zimmerman ignored the advice of the police is most likely false.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
I'm not sure how whether Martin was in pain as he died is relevant to whether Zimmerman committed murder or not. The defense's objection should have been upheld.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah if there is one thing that has been consistently shown after the shooting, it's that Zimmerman is a complete goddamned fool. He had no business being an armed vigilante and it's nearly assured he was profiling Martin.
Yet it gets so damn easy for people to profile Martin instead. I mean, we all remember the 'violent thug' and subsequent goddamned meltdown in the other thread here about this.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yeah if there is one thing that has been consistently shown after the shooting, it's that Zimmerman is a complete goddamned fool. He had no business being an armed vigilante and it's nearly assured he was profiling Martin.
Yet it gets so damn easy for people to profile Martin instead. I mean, we all remember the 'violent thug' and subsequent goddamned meltdown in the other thread here about this.
All of that is quite true but also unfortunately fairly irrelevant. Whether you are black, white, green, yellow, red, human, animal or alien, if you have someone one the ground, are slamming his head into the pavement and he has a gun you either kill him quick with your bare hands or get shot yourself.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Orincoro - I don't know how it works in Florida, but here in Portland, Oregon the 911 dispatchers are most definitely *not* police officers. I've sat in for a shift at the main 911 dispatch center in Portland and the people answering the phone are civilians who make about $20 an hour in a high-stress job.
So saying that Zimmerman ignored the advice of the police is most likely false.
It's interesting how often this gets brought up. It's quite true, but I wonder-is it just precision about a technicality, or is it that people are suggesting 'you shouldn't necessarily listen to a dispatcher'?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I applied for a CHP 911 operator and must say that they highly trained, and paid by one law enforcement body or another, so while not police officers, they are unquestionably police representatives.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Orincoro - I don't know how it works in Florida, but here in Portland, Oregon the 911 dispatchers are most definitely *not* police officers. I've sat in for a shift at the main 911 dispatch center in Portland and the people answering the phone are civilians who make about $20 an hour in a high-stress job.
So saying that Zimmerman ignored the advice of the police is most likely false.
It's interesting how often this gets brought up. It's quite true, but I wonder-is it just precision about a technicality, or is it that people are suggesting 'you shouldn't necessarily listen to a dispatcher'?
Obviously he should have listened. If he had, Martin would be alive and he would not be on trial. That doesn't change the fact that legally he was under no obligation to do so. If dispatchers were law enforcement officers and if one had actually ordered him not to follow, then even if he did get off the murder charge you could at least charge him with failure to obey an officer (yeah, slap on the wrist so not exactly satisfying) and possibly could bring negligence into play. Since neither is true, legally it's mostly irrelevant. Might be able to use it establish character or something.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
You are not required to listen to a dispatcher, nor are they police officers. Martin AND Zimmerman each had the right to be there, and like it or not Zimmerman had the right to be armed. If he HAD listened, perhaps a crime committed by a high young black man would have been committed. Perhaps not.
I find it interesting that nothing about Martin's past...not his THC level (new or old), not his history of fighting or suspensions are allowed. They weren't even allowed to ask the young black girl who so ignorantly testified IF Martin had started it he would have TOLD her if he had in the past, during other situations...
But Zimmerman's past is fair game.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Orincoro - I don't know how it works in Florida, but here in Portland, Oregon the 911 dispatchers are most definitely *not* police officers. I've sat in for a shift at the main 911 dispatch center in Portland and the people answering the phone are civilians who make about $20 an hour in a high-stress job.
So saying that Zimmerman ignored the advice of the police is most likely false.
It's interesting how often this gets brought up. It's quite true, but I wonder-is it just precision about a technicality, or is it that people are suggesting 'you shouldn't necessarily listen to a dispatcher'?
To me, it's more like ignoring a doctor's advice. It's not that you shouldn't listen to a dispatcher (or doctor), but rather that your own experiences color how you react to said dispatcher. I wouldn't necessarily listen to a 911 operator. I would think "I'm here. I have all of the information and know better than they do how to proceed."
It's definitely related to personal pride, but it's probably a pretty common reaction.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If he HAD listened, perhaps a crime committed by a high young black man would have been committed. Perhaps not.
Oh, good, we're back to this. Ugh. 'Perhaps not' indeed. Legally you're absolutely right that Zimmerman had the right to be there and be armed. As an argument of good judgment it was profoundly stupid and reckless of Zimmerman to be there, armed, breaking multiple good practices of a neighborhood watch because 'these expletives always get away' (which freaking says everything about his judgment and state of mind, but let's pretend it's not clearly indicative of anything, because gosh scary).
But this tripe about 'oh, he had smoked some weed'. Christ. Let's just be clear here, Kwea, first of all do you think it's a good thing that marijuana is illegal? Second, do you think someone being high makes it likely they're going to be a criminal except for the smoking itself? Because the only way-the *only* way-you're not being a pretty shameless hypocrite on this particular aspect of the case is if your answer to both of those questions is an emphatic 'yes'.
Zimmerman seems likely to walk, which is the law, and I can't complain about that. But for pity's sake, drop this absurd bullshit about how it's reasonable to think Martin was gonna commit some sort of crime had Zimmerman not been there. He was freaking walking home with a snack and a drink. Life is (supposedly) scary but gimme a freaking break.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:To me, it's more like ignoring a doctor's advice. It's not that you shouldn't listen to a dispatcher (or doctor), but rather that your own experiences color how you react to said dispatcher. I wouldn't necessarily listen to a 911 operator. I would think "I'm here. I have all of the information and know better than they do how to proceed."
All of this is perfectly human, but that's a long way away from 'it's good sound judgment'. Generally the doctor is *right*, and in the case of the rampant 911 caller armed neighborhood patroller I don't particularly care that his reaction was natural (for, well, that sort of cop wannabe, I suppose) and predictable, even if his decision to ignore general neighborhood watch thinking and the dispatcher turned out (amazingly) to have been really bad.
It's like we're supposed to (the story goes) hold Zimmerman up as some paragon of sound crisis judgment and intuitive analyst. He was that night (and his behavior since, along with his wife) showed him to have *really bad* judgment which, as it turns out, wasn't sufficient to rationally overturn all of the things he did instead-going armed, following, getting out of the car, etc. If some careful, cautious, experienced person with a quick mind and ample past encounters overturns the conventional wisdom because of specifics, I'll be happy to credit that they did know better. If some half-assed jackass decides he knows better and then it turns out *he was completely wrong*, I don't understand what the commitment is towards defending him. I'm not talking about all of that means he's guilty because it doesn't. I'm taking about this insistence you hear all the time-and in this thread-along the lines of 'well wait now we can't say Zimmerman could have *known*'. We can, and we *should* say that he could have known.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I find it interesting that nothing about Martin's past...not his THC level (new or old), not his history of fighting or suspensions are allowed. They weren't even allowed to ask the young black girl who so ignorantly testified IF Martin had started it he would have TOLD her if he had in the past, during other situations...
And why should it have been brought up? I'm just curious. It seems you're all about the law on the one hand, when it means Zimmerman will likely walk, but what...is Zimmerman not likely to be sufficiently exonerated for you or something?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yeah if there is one thing that has been consistently shown after the shooting, it's that Zimmerman is a complete goddamned fool. He had no business being an armed vigilante and it's nearly assured he was profiling Martin.
Yet it gets so damn easy for people to profile Martin instead. I mean, we all remember the 'violent thug' and subsequent goddamned meltdown in the other thread here about this.
All of that is quite true but also unfortunately fairly irrelevant. Whether you are black, white, green, yellow, red, human, animal or alien, if you have someone one the ground, are slamming his head into the pavement and he has a gun you either kill him quick with your bare hands or get shot yourself.
1. so if zimmerman started the altercation in a physical sense, he alone is responsible for when he amped it up to lethal force with his vigilante popgun, and
2. as far as medical testimony can assert, zimmerman's wounds are superficial and not consistent with zimmerman's story that he was having his head repeatedly slammed into concrete.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
People have died from head injuries with NO visible wounds. Hard impacts into hard surfaces do not always crack skulls, if it had he would probably be incapable of shooting. It is quite easy to say that the beating someone is taking is not lethal so he should not risk further injury by fighting back but try doing it yourself.
As for number 1, what? I have heard nothing solid indicating that Zimmerman started the physical altercation. If you have heard otherwise, please inform all of us. Links would be most welcome and change a great many things.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
no. 1 is "if zimmerman started the altercation in a physical sense" — the power word is "if."
That people can die from head injuries with no visible wounds is not at issue here. The issue is that zimmerman claimed that martin repeatedly slammed his head into the concrete, but his wounds are not consistent with this story.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: As for number 1, what? I have heard nothing solid indicating that Zimmerman started the physical altercation. If you have heard otherwise, please inform all of us. Links would be most welcome and change a great many things.
WEll, in the most basic sense, considering that there is no eyewitness to this event, this is what the trial is supposed to determine, isn't it? Or did the prosecution stipulate to his version of events?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: As for number 1, what? I have heard nothing solid indicating that Zimmerman started the physical altercation. If you have heard otherwise, please inform all of us. Links would be most welcome and change a great many things.
WEll, in the most basic sense, considering that there is no eyewitness to this event, this is what the trial is supposed to determine, isn't it? Or did the prosecution stipulate to his version of events?
I don't know, I'm not watching the trial. But he says Martin attacked him first and if the prosecution can't prove otherwise, that is all that matters. Is it possible Zimmerman deliberately provoked it? Well yes and that would change everything. It's even possible that you and I were hiding in the woods, shot Martin and Zimmerman is taking the heat to protect us but without evidence to prove it, what can they do?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: As for number 1, what? I have heard nothing solid indicating that Zimmerman started the physical altercation. If you have heard otherwise, please inform all of us. Links would be most welcome and change a great many things.
WEll, in the most basic sense, considering that there is no eyewitness to this event, this is what the trial is supposed to determine, isn't it? Or did the prosecution stipulate to his version of events?
I don't know, I'm not watching the trial. But he says Martin attacked him first and if the prosecution can't prove otherwise, that is all that matters. Is it possible Zimmerman deliberately provoked it? Well yes and that would change everything. It's even possible that you and I were hiding in the woods, shot Martin and Zimmerman is taking the heat to protect us but without evidence to prove it, what can they do?
This is the purpose of a trial. It is not required of the jury that they *believe* Zimmerman's story. And if Zimmerman doesn't testify, we'll never actually get his version of events- only what he told police during questioning.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: As for number 1, what? I have heard nothing solid indicating that Zimmerman started the physical altercation. If you have heard otherwise, please inform all of us. Links would be most welcome and change a great many things.
WEll, in the most basic sense, considering that there is no eyewitness to this event, this is what the trial is supposed to determine, isn't it? Or did the prosecution stipulate to his version of events?
I don't know, I'm not watching the trial. But he says Martin attacked him first and if the prosecution can't prove otherwise, that is all that matters. Is it possible Zimmerman deliberately provoked it? Well yes and that would change everything. It's even possible that you and I were hiding in the woods, shot Martin and Zimmerman is taking the heat to protect us but without evidence to prove it, what can they do?
This is the purpose of a trial. It is not required of the jury that they *believe* Zimmerman's story. And if Zimmerman doesn't testify, we'll never actually get his version of events- only what he told police during questioning.
Yes but the prosecution does have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. If they have no evidence to do that, he walks. The burden is not on Zimmerman to prove his statement to the police, it's on the prosecution to disprove it.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: no. 1 is "if zimmerman started the altercation in a physical sense" — the power word is "if."
That people can die from head injuries with no visible wounds is not at issue here. The issue is that zimmerman claimed that martin repeatedly slammed his head into the concrete, but his wounds are not consistent with this story.
Did some reading on it.
1. She never examined Zimmerman personally. Her opinion is based on photos and videos.
2. Under cross she admitted that her opinion was the injuries came from a single blow but that it was possible the injuries resulted from multiple blows.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Yes but the prosecution does have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. If they have no evidence to do that, he walks. The burden is not on Zimmerman to prove his statement to the police, it's on the prosecution to disprove it.
That's not exactly the standard. It's not necessary for the prosecution to directly disprove ZImmerman's version of events- only to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of murder. That means they don't need to specifically discount his version, only present their version a highly convincing fashion. Of course, *it helps* to disprove his version, and since they probably can't, he will probably walk on a mistrial or two. Just my guess. Still, it's not that they have to prove he's lying, just that they have to show a sound, convincing version of events (again, which they probably can't do).
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
I have to admit that it would make me feel rather nervous to know, that a stranger can follow me in the night, shoot me to death without anyone seeing, and then simply say he did it for self defense, and walk away free.
While many details in the case are confused, we do know that the above is what *did* happen.
Unless the killer can prove *beyond any reasonable doubt*, that he he *had* to kill me for self defense, then he should go to prison. At least for a year or two, at minimum.
If there is any confusion on whether the act was absolutely necessary self-defense, or not, then the default position should be to send the killer to prison. The burden of proof should be on him. And there is a *lot* of confusion on this case. So to prison he should go.
Because as a society we don't really want people to start randomly killing each other. The laws should protect us from this.
But at least I now know a good way to kill strangers in the night, and walk away free.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: Is it possible Zimmerman deliberately provoked it? Well yes and that would change everything.
Well, no. Short of throwing the first punch, he has the right to be as provocative as he likes; there's no "fighting words".
quote:as far as medical testimony can assert, zimmerman's wounds are superficial and not consistent with zimmerman's story that he was having his head repeatedly slammed into concrete.
Well, let's see you stay a perfectly calm and objective observer during a fight. It is perfectly possible for a man to be reasonably in fear of his life, without actually having all that much damage inflicted on him. Anyway, what does "slammed" mean? You can get quite a hurtful bump without any visible damage.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote: Is it possible Zimmerman deliberately provoked it? Well yes and that would change everything.
Well, no. Short of throwing the first punch, he has the right to be as provocative as he likes; there's no "fighting words".
This is funny. I went looking for the specific statute in the SYG law that proves your statement wrong. I found it but unfortunately for my point, it has so many caveats to it that it basically proves you right:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
So basically they say it doesn't protect you if you are the aggressor but then puts in exceptions for all the usual things anyway. Figures. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Words should never be a valid reason for physical violence in and of them selves...unless of course you find really creative exeptions...but as a rule of thumb...
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I agree words should not lead to violence, but the whole "stand your ground" law states that if you are in fear of attack you have the right to defend yourself. Martin was conceivably in fear of attack from a strange man who had been stalking him. Does being stalked by a stranger give you the right to defend yourself with a gun? Martin didn't have a gun so he possibly defended himself with his fists.
Posted by Slavim (Member # 12546) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
So basically they say it doesn't protect you if you are the aggressor but then puts in exceptions for all the usual things anyway. Figures.
Basically it allows you to punch someone, say "Sorry", and if he punches you back you can shoot him.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: I have to admit that it would make me feel rather nervous to know, that a stranger can follow me in the night, shoot me to death without anyone seeing, and then simply say he did it for self defense, and walk away free.
Well, yes, this is my take on this situation as well. But to be fair, the man is receiving a trial.
And anyway, you would find it equally disturbing to imagine that you could be attacked while walking in the night, kill your attacker, and be sentenced to life in prison for murder. This is sort of what trials are all about: the details.
quote: Unless the killer can prove *beyond any reasonable doubt*, that he he *had* to kill me for self defense, then he should go to prison. At least for a year or two, at minimum.
A horrible, horrible idea. Putting the burden of proof upon the defendant is an invitation from on high to see every poor disadvantaged person found guilty of every possible crime. It is not a crime to be poor and possibly not very smart: a poor and possibly not very smart person has a right to the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote: Is it possible Zimmerman deliberately provoked it? Well yes and that would change everything.
Well, no. Short of throwing the first punch, he has the right to be as provocative as he likes; there's no "fighting words".
You're not a lawyer, of course. And this is not actually true. Common assault *is* a crime, and precipitating a murder, could be seen as making Zimmerman culpable.
Example: "I am going to kill your family," "I have killed your family," "I am going to ABCDE you or your family members," etc. There is such a thing as fighting words, and uttering them can make you criminally liable for the results. Martin would of course *also* be liable for attacking Zimmerman, but his escalation to physical violence does not absolve Zimmerman- especially in the case that Zimmerman killed Martin during the altercation: whatever Martin did or didn't do, he can't be charged with anything now.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Common assault *is* a crime
Right. Which is why I specified "short of throwing the first punch".
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Common assault *is* a crime
Right. Which is why I specified "short of throwing the first punch".
In which case you were wrong. One does not need to "throw the first punch" to commit assault. Under common law (and specifically Florida written law),
quote:An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to.
Any actionable threat can be considered an assault.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
If someone threatened you, they might well be guilty of assault...but if you punched them, you would be guilty of assault... and battery.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: If someone threatened you, they might well be guilty of assault...but if you punched them, you would be guilty of assault... and battery.
Not necessarily, no. If I walked up to you and said: "I have a gun, and I am going to shoot you," and you punched me, you would likely not be found guilty of a crime, as I had assaulted you first (and what you did in response might be seen as justified).
But yes, generally, people do confuse assault and battery, and frequently conflate them.
It's all in the context: the law, as I am fond of saying, is not magical fairies: the rules are not about what you do, but more often about *why* you do it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Fair point...but if someone walked up to you and said, "I'm going to kick your butt." and just stood there...and then you punched them, you both likey end up standing tall before the magistrate.
Same with a gun...it takes words AND actions to be a credible threat worthy of justifying self defense.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I must say that "making credible threats" is not the interpretation that would naturally fall out of "deliberately provoked it". To say that there exist words Zimmermann might have said which would excuse the use of violence in return is apparently true, but does not actually respond to the discussion we were having.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Fair point...but if someone walked up to you and said, "I'm going to kick your butt." and just stood there...and then you punched them, you both likey end up standing tall before the magistrate.
Same with a gun...it takes words AND actions to be a credible threat worthy of justifying self defense.
It *all* depends on the context. There is no magical key to making something a convictable offense- if you genuine *feel* threatened, and act on those feelings, and are seen as *justified* in those feelings, then no, no specific action has to be combined with a threat to justify self defense. Words are actions, after all.
Juries deal with these cases on an individual basis: if a defense establishes a justification seen by a jury as reasonable for virtually any act, a jury can acquit on that basis. Technically speaking (and keeping in mind IANAL), juries in the United States can acquit even on a confessed, stipulated first degree murder, if they feel that the actions have reasonable justification. There is a popular novel about this aspect of jury trials in fact, called "A Time to Kill."
Granted- this justification is murky and impossible to define in an academic sense (no amount of basic examples of yes/no binaries will give you an idea of what is and isn't reasonable), it is, in our system, possible.
[ July 07, 2013, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I must say that "making credible threats" is not the interpretation that would naturally fall out of "deliberately provoked it". To say that there exist words Zimmermann might have said which would excuse the use of violence in return is apparently true, but does not actually respond to the discussion we were having.
My initial point was to suggest that Zimmerman may have precipitated the encounter intentionally. In so doing, he may have established some foundation for a charge concerning his response to Martin's actions. I don't know if he did, I'm just saying he could. Martin's actions don't have to be justified in order for Zimmerman's *not* to be. It could be enough to deliberately precipitate violence in order to be held accountable for your reactions to it. It very much depends on state of mind and intention: if he was walking around with the assumption in his head that Martin was dangerous, and intentionally provoked him, then killed him, then he may be guilty of murder. It's just a possibility. My only point was to highlight that Zimmerman's intentions are very important in this determination.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Unfortunately, they are also more or less unknowable. The jury will presumably have to make its decision on the basis of the external acts - and even those won't be that easy to get - not the motivations.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
As you acknowledge, that's a whole lot of mays to sentence a man to life in prison.
Tuuka - He's stood trial, and even if he should be found not guilty he's spent two years in jail. He did not "walk."
Posted by DeltaMike (Member # 13011) on :
Not only does your assailant have to have the desire and/or intention of causing you "serious bodily injury" they also have to have the ability to do so. If you were a police officer and a handcuffed prisoner in the back of your squad car said he was going to stab you, you still can't shoot him because he is handcuffed and unarmed and therefore does not pose a significant threat.
I find it hard to believe that Zimmerman truly thought he was going to be beaten by bare hands to such an extent that it could be classified as serious bodily injury.
(Georgia Code § 12-5-53, (4) The term 'serious bodily injury' means bodily injury which involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.)
The testimony that he received only superficial injuries certainly doesn't support the idea that he was in such danger even if he may have believed he was. Just because you have a gun does not mean you are legally justified to use deadly force in EVERY encounter of physical violence. This is, in my opinion, going to be the crux of determining his justification or degree of crime.
They'll probably never be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt who started the actual violence, so it can't (or perhaps more realistically: shouldn't) be used against a defendant to prove guilt. The undisputed facts are that Zimmerman received at least some level of injury and responded with deadly force. If the jury believes that he had a reasonable expectation of incurring serious bodily injury he'll more than likely be considered justified in the shooting.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Welcome to Hatrack!
Posted by DeltaMike (Member # 13011) on :
Hey, thanks for the warm welcome!
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
DeltaMike - Why is it so hard to believe that Zimmerman may have feared for his life? People can and do die in fights where no one is using anything but their bare hands, accidentally or otherwise. They can likewise suffer serious bodily harm - broken bones, internal injuries, brain damage. Trayvon Martin may have been a minor, but physically he was a full grown man.
That's not taking into account that Martin may (or may not) have seen the gun and reached for it. If that happened, it immediately became a life or death situation for them both.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DeltaMike: The testimony that he received only superficial injuries certainly doesn't support the idea that he was in such danger even if he may have believed he was.
It is more important to reasonably believe that you are in danger. This is the same distinction that excuses cops shooting people who point painted water pistols at them (this does happen), they have a reasonable belief that they are in danger. It's not necessary to be right about this, only to reasonably believe it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: If someone threatened you, they might well be guilty of assault...but if you punched them, you would be guilty of assault... and battery.
Not necessarily. The law allows you to defend yourself if you are assaulted. If, for example, someone lunges at you, you can take reasonable measures to defend yourself, such as punching them, even if they never actually make contact.
[ July 08, 2013, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by DeltaMike (Member # 13011) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: It is more important to reasonably believe that you are in danger. This is the same distinction that excuses cops shooting people who point painted water pistols at them (this does happen), they have a reasonable belief that they are in danger. It's not necessary to be right about this, only to reasonably believe it.
The key here is reasonably believe and if you can't convince a jury that he was reasonable in his belief than the justification falls apart. If your water pistol is painted to look like a real gun, the police officer is excused, if your water pistol is clear neon green plastic and says "super soaker" on the side he doesn't get a pass for shooting you because no one could reasonably think that was a real gun.
quote:Originally posted by Obama: People can and do die in fights where no one is using anything but their bare hands, accidentally or otherwise.
I agree with you on this Obama, my point is that the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this could not reasonably be expected to happen. Certainly we both can agree that not every fist fight becomes a life-or-death conflict. Merely Getting beat up is not grounds to shoot somebody. If you're being beaten to the point where you can legitimately fear for your life you don't walk away with only superficial injuries.
If during the fight Martin tried to grab Zimmerman's gun it becomes a much clearer issue. Is anyone alleging that this happened? I haven't been following this thing awfully closely to be honest.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by DeltaMike: If during the fight Martin tried to grab Zimmerman's gun it becomes a much clearer issue. Is anyone alleging that this happened? I haven't been following this thing awfully closely to be honest.
Yes, Zimmerman said Martin did reach for the gun in his statement.
Posted by DeltaMike (Member # 13011) on :
I see. I'd have to say that it's pretty reasonable to shoot somebody who's wailing on you and tries to get your gun.
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: I have to admit that it would make me feel rather nervous to know, that a stranger can follow me in the night, shoot me to death without anyone seeing, and then simply say he did it for self defense, and walk away free.
While many details in the case are confused, we do know that the above is what *did* happen.
Unless the killer can prove *beyond any reasonable doubt*, that he he *had* to kill me for self defense, then he should go to prison. At least for a year or two, at minimum.
If there is any confusion on whether the act was absolutely necessary self-defense, or not, then the default position should be to send the killer to prison. The burden of proof should be on him. And there is a *lot* of confusion on this case. So to prison he should go.
Because as a society we don't really want people to start randomly killing each other. The laws should protect us from this.
But at least I now know a good way to kill strangers in the night, and walk away free.
Yep, my own view is that this is a free pass for stalkers to murder their victims, an unintended consequence of the unintended (or intended) ideas of those that support Zimmerman's defense.
I can imagine myself being followed, and shot dead in numerous neighborhoods near where I live outside Lake Tahoe if Zimmerman's defense flies.
In a world in which the concept of justice has any value or merit at all, you don't get to stalk and harass strangers as you please, and shoot them if they eventually respond to your stalking and harassment aggressively (which is essentially automatic in most male stranger on male stranger interactions that involve following), whether they're beating your --- or not. You instigated this garbage to begin with for justifiable reason, and when your victim responds to stalking with fearfulness, or anger, its reasonable. Your stalking IS NOT.
The defenses I see of this guy are ridiculous in my view, even if his version of events are 100% true, and to live in a world where his actions are seen as defensible, or not criminal is truly sad, and a world bereft of justice, and without justice, the law really means nothing at all.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
That's an awful small violin you're playing there, graywolfe.
If your natural reaction to someone following you is to physically assault them, then it sounds to me like you're the one with violence issues. Stop projecting.
George Zimmerman isn't the first man to have to explain a body to the cops as self defense, with no witnesses. He won't be the last. I can assure you that this case isn't going to open the floodgates of people committing murder and trying to pass it off as self defense.
A man is dead, and that's a tragedy. It would also be a tragedy, convicting another man of murder and putting him behind bars for life, if he was innocent. He didn't just shoot someone and walk away. He's on trial for his life, and if he can make a reasonable case that he acted in self defense, and the prosecution can't tear his story down, then the only travesty of justice would be a guilty verdict.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:"I can imagine myself being followed, and shot dead in numerous neighborhoods near where I live outside Lake Tahoe if Zimmerman's defense flies."
Just don't physically attack the people that follow you, perhaps call the police instead (like Zimmerman did), or even call out for help out loud (like Zimmerman did).
In that case Zimmerman's defense does nothing to hurt you.
The only people it hurts is the people who think it's okay to punch repeatedly the people that follow them, and that the latter have no right to defend themselves.
quote:and shoot them if they eventually respond to your stalking and harassment aggressively
Stalking has a precise definition in Florida law, and what Zimmerman did doesn't qualify. ('stalking' requires repeated following in Florida law, for starters, it's not a one-time thing)
quote:(which is essentially automatic in most male stranger on male stranger interactions that involve following)
Perhaps people should work to change the macho culture that treats physical violence as acceptable to an act of mere following.
I see justifications of *Martin's* actions as enabling horrid violence. A world where *Martin's* actions are seen as defensible is a world bereft of justice according to me. He responded with savage violence against someone merely FOLLOWING him. So, no sympathy for him from me.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Took me a few minutes to find it, but here's a story of a self defense shooting that I actually do find extremely suspicious, and yet the shooter didn't even stand trial. Perhaps you can point me to the masses of murders passed off as self-defense as a result of this case, graywolfe? It happened a few years ago, we must have had dozens at least, if you're to be taken seriously.
eta - My mistake. Fish did end up standing trial, and he walked out a free man. His story was about a hundred times more suspicious then Zimmerman's though. Easier way to get a good look at the case is to google "Fish" and "Kuenzli," the names of the shooter and the deceased.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I think that's the key distinction, 'Obama'. That very few know of that case on a national level.
(Though I don't think it likely there will be copy-cats, your counter-example doesn't mean much in dismissing the possibility.)
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Funny how this much more obvious case of shooting someone when it wasn't necessary didn't get that kind of media exposure, isn't it, 'Xavier?'
It's almost like the media saw what they thought was an open and shut case of some white guy (woops, our mistake, he's not white) shooting a poor innocent black kid and decided that that thar molehill needed some expansion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, "Obama," it's rather ridiculous of you to get snarky when you've deliberately chosen the name of the current President. Blayne went by "Sid Meyer" for a while here, and the criticism he received for that decision was just as valid.
Your pseudonym is a bad idea and you should change it.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Thank you for the advice, "TomDavidson," but I think I'll keep it as is. If putting quotes around people's names makes me look mean and snarky, I guess that'll have to be my cross to bear. We'll see how long everyone else keeps on with the passive aggressive method of telling me to change it. At least you're direct.
eta - I mean, what, are we afraid that someone is going to mistake me for the President?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Yeah, I've had hundreds of discussions on this board in the past 14 years, and yours is probably the only one I've felt the need to put quotes around.
It just seems odd to direct my comments towards "Obama" in a non-ironic way.
Edit: I'd probably do the same if your username was "Angelina Jolie" or something like that as well. It's adopting a real person's name as a pseudonym. That its the current president is a contributing factor, I'm sure.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Well, nobody's perfect, "Xavier." I'm sure with a little effort you can overcome it. Take all the time you need, I'm a patient man.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I mean, what, are we afraid that someone is going to mistake me for the President?
No. But believe me, it makes you look like an ass. You really should change it.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
If people want to believe that I'm an ass because I use a famous name as a pseudonym, Tom, then honestly, that's their problem, not mine.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I think that's a bit disingenuous, else you wouldn't have made a kerfuffle over it.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
I didn't make a kerfluffle about it. Everytime someone decided to get their passive aggressiveness on by putting my pseudonym in quotes when addressing me, all I did was put their name in quotes without saying anything.
Tom, being more direct then any of the rest of you, told me directly that he didn't like the name, and that I should change it. I declined to do so.
Where, exactly, is the kerfluffle?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
People are probably referring to your choice of the name and your reaction to people remarking on it as though it were a surprising and unintentional side effect.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I don't know that you look like an ass just because of the handle, but it does strike me as weird to use the name of a living person, famous or not, as a pseudonym. It's an identity that already belongs to someone else, so it's at the very least distracting to see it attached to the words of a different person.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
you chose a name for your latest alt which is also the name of an important figure which will also be frequently talked about and then get hassled by the fact that people are taking measures to textually differentiate Obama (president) from "obama" (alt)
yea ok
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
I honestly don't understand what the big deal is. It's a pseudonym. I bounced through a few options that I didn't like, and Obama jumped into my head. I thought it would be funny. I mean, nobody's going to come on here and mistake me for Barack or Michelle Obama. I'll admit, at this point it's stubborness, but I'm confused as to why it's eliciting the type of response and quiet glares that are normally reserved for someone who tells you they've started dating your mother.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: you chose a name for your latest alt which is also the name of an important figure which will also be frequently talked about and then get hassled by the fact that people are taking measures to textually differentiate Obama (president) from "obama" (alt)
yea ok
Well yes, we wouldn't want people to think you all are talking to the President. Best take precautionary measures.
Not to mention, I haven't said a word to object to people using quotes; I've just been putting quotes around their names in return, and then *they* started getting pissy.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
The defense calling Tracy Martin as a witness was a dumb move. Also, this judge seems fairly biased towards the state.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ok do you think it's really remotely that dramatic
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: you chose a name for your latest alt which is also the name of an important figure which will also be frequently talked about and then get hassled by the fact that people are taking measures to textually differentiate Obama (president) from "obama" (alt)
yea ok
Well yes, we wouldn't want people to think you all are talking to the President. Best take precautionary measures.
ok you don't get it, cool
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
As a cucumber.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: The defense calling Tracy Martin as a witness was a dumb move. Also, this judge seems fairly biased towards the state.
Agreed on both points. I mentioned the other day that I didn't understand how the judge thought whether Martin was in pain as he died or not was relevant, yet he squashed the defense's objections.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
What are you people talking about?
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Serious Business.
Also, Zimmerman's trial.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Thank you for the advice, "TomDavidson," but I think I'll keep it as is. If putting quotes around people's names makes me look mean and snarky, I guess that'll have to be my cross to bear. We'll see how long everyone else keeps on with the passive aggressive method of telling me to change it. At least you're direct.
eta - I mean, what, are we afraid that someone is going to mistake me for the President?
Because that's what you want when you're new to a forum. Ongoing conflicts stemming from your abrasive behavior. Trust me, I would know.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Orincoro
I know you're trying to help, and thanks for that, (no sarcasm) but I don't see how I'm being abrasive. I've got a name that apparently is annoying people, but I feel my posts haven't been disruptive and I've contributed positively to conversations, if not always in topics that this board has much of an interest in.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by graywolfe: Yep, my own view is that this is a free pass for stalkers to murder their victims...
I can imagine myself being followed, and shot dead in numerous neighborhoods near where I live outside Lake Tahoe if Zimmerman's defense flies.
...you don't get to stalk and harass strangers as you please, and shoot them if they eventually respond to your stalking and harassment...
Beside the fact that you're ignoring entire elements of this little drama, from what we've seen so far, there's no convincing evidence that Zimmerman "stalked" or "harassed" Martin - especially to the point of retaliatory violence. There's nothing illegal, immoral, irresponsible, uncouth, yadda yadda yadda about approaching a suspicious stranger in your neighborhood in order to ascertain their reason for being there. If you think Martin was profiled, or if you don't like people carrying guns around your Tahoe suburb, or if you think Zimmerman is just a dirty rotten person for not minding his own business, just say it. But this "stalk and harass" mumbo jumbo you just laid before us is ridiculous.
quote:The defenses I see of this guy are ridiculous in my view, even if his version of events are 100% true, and to live in a world where his actions are seen as defensible, or not criminal is truly sad, and a world bereft of justice, and without justice, the law really means nothing at all.
graywolfe - The Moral Dictator and Arbiter of Justice! Who needs trials and evidence when we have internet forum users to mete out justice according to their whims?
Let us all know when you're done being the paragon of righteous indignation...
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama: If people want to believe that I'm an ass because I use a famous name as a pseudonym, Tom, then honestly, that's their problem, not mine.
It's not the only reason, nor the most noticeable. It doesn't prove them wrong, that's for sure.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Hey Kwea, you should adjust your pants. That hard-on you have for me is kind of noticeable.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
But since I'm always open to suggestions, what besides my name bothers you so much, Kwea? Feel free to take this to the Down with the British thread, since it's already dead and I see no reason to pollute this one further.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Wow, you sure proved ME wrong. LOL
Since you asked....I dislike idiots who think they are smarter than everyone else. Particularly when they are so obviously not to everyone else in the room. I've watched people TRY to engage you in multiple threads, and watched you try to sneer at some of the smartest people on Hatrack. It amazes me that anyone could fail so horribly and yet have no clue they failed.
I don't hate you. You don't even particularly annoy me. I just don't like you, and have yet to see one single instance where you added a single positive thing to Hatrack.
::shrugs:: It's OK, if you don't agree, or have a favorable view of me at this point. If you did, I'd have to rethink my life.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Right...well...anyways, I take back what I said before about the judge being biased since she said Trayvon's marijuana use can be admitted in the trial, which I think is strange. My (inexperienced and under qualified) opinion is that she just isn't a very competent judge because she's sustained some objections that I thought were iffy and overruled some that I thought had a point.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Wow, you sure proved ME wrong. LOL
Since you asked....I dislike idiots who think they are smarter than everyone else. Particularly when they are so obviously not to everyone else in the room. I've watched people TRY to engage you in multiple threads, and watched you try to sneer at some of the smartest people on Hatrack. It amazes me that anyone could fail so horribly and yet have no clue they failed.
I don't hate you. You don't even particularly annoy me. I just don't like you, and have yet to see one single instance where you added a single positive thing to Hatrack.
::shrugs:: It's OK, if you don't agree, or have a favorable view of me at this point. If you did, I'd have to rethink my life.
Well, okay then. No silly grudge there, no sirree.
Where in Imaginationland may I find these posts of me sneering at the "smartest people on Hatrack?" I can think of, maybe, one. I was a little blunt with Lyrhawn when he tried to imply that it was King George in the title of the thread and not something else. That was wrong of me. Unlike some others, Lyrhawn is calm, respectful, and argues on the argument, not the poster. Lyrhawn is good folks. Sorry Lyrhawn!
Anything else? Go on, I've got almost a hundred posts. Shouldn't be hard at all.
Anyone else agree with Kwea, here, that my posting style has been sneering and dismissive(moreso then the style employed by several of Hatrack's finest) and overall not at all positive? I've obviously ran over his dog or something, but if others agree I can make adjustments.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Right...well...anyways, I take back what I said before about the judge being biased since she said Trayvon's marijuana use can be admitted in the trial, which I think is strange. My (inexperienced and under qualified) opinion is that she just isn't a very competent judge because she's sustained some objections that I thought were iffy and overruled some that I thought had a point.
Yeah, you're right, Martin's THC levels have nothing to do with the case. It kind of, in a warped way, balances out some strange decisions she made going the other way, but she's coming across as pretty incompetant.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Right...well...anyways, I take back what I said before about the judge being biased since she said Trayvon's marijuana use can be admitted in the trial, which I think is strange. My (inexperienced and under qualified) opinion is that she just isn't a very competent judge because she's sustained some objections that I thought were iffy and overruled some that I thought had a point.
Yeah, you're right, Martin's THC levels have nothing to do with the case. It kind of, in a warped way, balances out some strange decisions she made going the other way, but she's coming across as pretty incompetant.
Next comes testimony regarding Zimmerman's THC detection device that he carries around with him, which is why he was following Martin!
This sideshow really needs a tricorder controversy.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Or the prosecution brings in an expert with proof that the amount of THC in martin's system would've caused him to be too high to attack someone.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nono, remember, it's somehow unreasonable that the jury didn't get to hear about his THC levels because they made him a criminal and stuff, and...and pot, blagghh!!!
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote: I mean, what, are we afraid that someone is going to mistake me for the President?
The problem, "Obama", is that in political forums people often need to refer to the President of the United States. Since you're a participant in the discussion, sometimes they'll also need to refer to you. So we need a frigging way to differentiate between the two of you.
As it currently stands, if I say "Obama is a bozo." people will have to rely on context to understand whether I'm referring to you or to the president.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Or the prosecution brings in an expert with proof that the amount of THC in martin's system would've caused him to be too high to attack someone.
Well played, sir. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Orincoro
I know you're trying to help, and thanks for that, (no sarcasm) but I don't see how I'm being abrasive. I've got a name that apparently is annoying people, but I feel my posts haven't been disruptive and I've contributed positively to conversations, if not always in topics that this board has much of an interest in.
quote: Thank you for the advice, "TomDavidson," but I think I'll keep it as is. If putting quotes around people's names makes me look mean and snarky, I guess that'll have to be my cross to bear.
You're not aware that this is abrasive? Did you think it was polite?
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Hey Kwea, you should adjust your pants. That hard-on you have for me is kind of noticeable.
We call this trolling. At best, it's simply abrasive.
Kwea:
quote: It amazes me that anyone could fail so horribly and yet have no clue they failed.
So you still have the capacity to be amazed by that? I guess I'm impressed. Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
I did think it was polite, actually. I wasn't being sarcastic when I thanked Tom, just like I wasn't being sarcastic when I thanked you. I know you think I should change my name too, but assume for a second that you were in my position. How would you have worded it?
As for Kwea, he came out of nowhere, once again, with some personal attacks(which he has yet to back up.) That wasn't a troll, that was a response to a troll, and you're damned right it was meant to be abrasive, since his last such attack in the British thread went unmoderated. Do you agree with his assertions about my short posting history?
[ July 09, 2013, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Obama ]
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Obama: If people want to believe that I'm an ass because I use a famous name as a pseudonym, Tom, then honestly, that's their problem, not mine.
It's not the only reason, nor the most noticeable. It doesn't prove them wrong, that's for sure.
You know, the post right above the one you quoted.
eta - Bonus footage of Kwea absolutely NOT being a troll and/or dick.
-----
See...I was right. You attempted it. And failed, as you usually do at most things. Things like carrying on a civil conversation, appearing intelligent, and making others care about your opinion even a little bit.
Congrats!
(That's how to be snide. Keep practicing, grasshopper)
[ July 09, 2013, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: Obama ]
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
"Aris"
In the example you made, sure, quotes could make sense, I guess, although I'm pretty sure everybody here is good at that whole context thing.
But that's not the case when someone is speaking directly to me, is it? Unless people make a habit of addressing one of the Obamas directly on this board? In that case, it's just passive aggressive snark.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Or the prosecution brings in an expert with proof that the amount of THC in martin's system would've caused him to be too high to attack someone.
Well played, sir.
Is anyone saying THC levels should *not be admissible? Whether you think THC would make a person more passive or more agressive is debatable, and it could potentially help either defendant or victim. THC having an effect on a person's state of mind is documented. When a case centers around both victim and defendant's state of mind I'm not sure why anyone feels it should be hands-off. Unless I'm missing the objection?
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
ScottF
When was the last time you met a violent person who was high solely off cannibis? If you don't associate with such people, then I'll let you in on the secret - they're not violent.
Funny music video on the subject. NSFW, and the music itself isn't good, but the lyrics are humorous.
Even if you dispute that, it's still irrelevant. The levels of THC in Martin's blood did not indicate that he was stoned at the time of the confrontation. THC, once it's done it's thing and is in it's inactive form, gets absorbed by fat cells. When the cells are used for energy, the THC is released back into the body, to eventually be flushed out in urine. What this means is that a person can have THC in their system for a week or two after their last dose, up to a month in heavy users or those who try the heavily concentrated varieties. That he had low levels of THC in his system in no way indicates that he was high at the time of the shooting.
Look, I think Zimmerman should take a walk on this, I've made that pretty clear, but this evidence is absolutely irrelevant when it comes to whether GZ committed murder, or was forced to defend himself by Martin. It shouldn't have been allowed. The judge has made several questionable decisions and this one happened to go against the prosecution.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To be fair:
1) The level of THC in Martin's blood suggests that he was indeed mildly stoned, but not staggering. 2) THC can cause paranoia, and paranoia can lead to violent behavior even if you're otherwise quite relaxed.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
My mistake on one, then.
I've never met a person who was only mildly stoned (2-4 hours after inhaling the drug) who was also paranoid. Even the stoners that I've known, when they went into paranoia, showed it by telling us about government conspiracies, stuff like that. I've never seen or even heard second or third hand of someone getting violently paranoid. That's entirely anecdotal and doesn't mean much, I understand.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I have known an extremely violent stoner. Though in fairness, he was usually drinking at the same time. He was a really nice guy sober but drunk and/or stoned, he was downright pathologically violent to the point where I had to chase him off with a baseball bat. I damn near took his head off when he reached into his pocket. Fortunately I hesitated just long enough to see it was a cigarette pack. I still think I would have been justified since he did go to jail shortly afterwards for shooting someone.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Hah. Well, it's interesting to hear of one, but if I had to make an entirely uneducated guess, it would be that the booze had a lot more to do with it.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
Bottom line is THC alters state of mind, which is most definitely in play here. He could have been jittery and nervous, or pliable as putty - but it's relevant. To treat it like it's some kind of unfair profiling move, instead of legitimate information is puzzling to me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: [QB]there's no convincing evidence that Zimmerman "stalked" or "harassed" Martin
I assume of course in order to take this view you are hoping we entirely forget the transcript of his call while he was stalking martin and got out of his car to continue doing so.
ffs this is getting completely ridiculous. Can't wait to again hear that zimmerman couldn't have been much of a threat because obesity
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: [QB]there's no convincing evidence that Zimmerman "stalked" or "harassed" Martin
I assume of course in order to take this view you are hoping we entirely forget the transcript of his call while he was stalking martin and got out of his car to continue doing so.
The 911 call doesn't indicate Zimmerman was "stalking" Martin (and even less so that he was "harassing" him). Following or pursuing someone isn't the same as stalking.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Seems pretty (that is, totally) a question of semantics and perspective to me.
We're supposed to believe that Zimmerman reasonably believed Martin either was a criminal or was contemplating a crime. The closest actual physical evidence we can get for this is some light pot smoking, that Zimmerman simply would not have been able to detect, at night, at that distance.
Well, alright, if people are going to suggest we ought to take seriously that claim, please for pity's sake don't tell me that someone seeing another person following them, at night, over a period of minutes, while they were doing nothing wrong, might feel they were being stalked.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, alright, if people are going to suggest we ought to take seriously that claim, please for pity's sake don't tell me that someone seeing another person following them, at night, over a period of minutes, while they were doing nothing wrong, might feel they were being stalked.
Depends on which definition of stalking you are using. By the legal definition, I do not believe he could be charged with stalking. One incidence of following someone around for a few minutes isn't enough. By the broader dictionary definition, I suppose you could call it stalking, though I think there are other words that are more accurate.
Since we are talking about a trial here, I can see why someone would object to the use of the word stalking. I bet Zimmerman's lawyer would as well.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Or the prosecution brings in an expert with proof that the amount of THC in martin's system would've caused him to be too high to attack someone.
Well played, sir.
Is anyone saying THC levels should *not be admissible? Whether you think THC would make a person more passive or more agressive is debatable, and it could potentially help either defendant or victim. THC having an effect on a person's state of mind is documented. When a case centers around both victim and defendant's state of mind I'm not sure why anyone feels it should be hands-off. Unless I'm missing the objection?
I was under the impression that he had THC stored in his system but was not under the influence at the time of incident. I thought the defense wanted to use his marijuana use to profile him as a criminal.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Since we are talking about a trial here, I can see why someone would object to the use of the word stalking. I bet Zimmerman's lawyer would as well.
Zimmerman's lawyer would also object to the description of Zimmerman as an idiot wannabe cop.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
and as should be so profoundly evident as to need to be restated, I think it was pretty obvious that zimmerman was stalking martin. It is even attested that martin's perception that he was being stalked (in one of zimmerman's five inconsistent or contradictory accounts at least) that led to the savage assault! by one of the 'these assholes that always get away'
if there was no stalking then it means that we have to conclude that martin either just saw a dude and absent any connection to the idea that he was being pursued, followed, harassed, etc, was like 'oh cool a dude! i can totally attack him, cause he is here. i don't even need to put my iced tea and skittles down first'
or zimmerman up and assailed him first
defense team doesn't need a jury deciding which of those two is closer to the razor
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
You're effectively arguing that anyone following anyone should be called "stalking".
But if the words are identical in meaning, why are you deliberately using "stalking" instead of "following"?
We know why: because "stalking" has negative connotations which "following" does not. So gee, the words aren't the same after all, and you *should* differentiate between them. And therefore NO the police call doesn't indicate that Zimmerman was "stalking" Martin, it only indicates that he was following Martin.
You can't have it both ways, you can't in the same breath effectively argue that following=stalking, *and* show such a preference for the word stalking. Either the words carry the same meaning or they don't.
But I'm not surprised at the sheer amounts of double-think displayed by the Zimmerman haters.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: You're effectively arguing that anyone following anyone should be called "stalking".
But if the words are identical in meaning, why are you deliberately using "stalking" instead of "following"?
We know why: because "stalking" has negative connotations which "following" does not. So gee, the words aren't the same after all, and you *should* differentiate between them. And therefore NO the police call doesn't indicate that Zimmerman was "stalking" Martin, it only indicates that he was following Martin.
You can't have it both ways, you can't in the same breath effectively argue that following=stalking, *and* show such a preference for the word stalking. Either the words carry the same meaning or they don't.
But I'm not surprised at the sheer amounts of double-think displayed by the Zimmerman haters.
Hey, how about you go "follow" someone on a dark street long enough for them to notice. Bonus points if you do it to someone of a different race. Extra bonus points if you're a man and you "follow" a woman.
See how well that works out for you. When they react to you, say "hey, I'm just following you."
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Foust, you're just bashing on Zimmerman because you are prejudiced against African-American lesbians like her.
When young white southerner male Martin started punching her, causing her to bleed from multiple wounds, we're supposed to believe that her "stalking" him was sufficient reason for him to start beating her up, and sufficient reason for her to be charged with second-degree murder, even though she had shouted for help dozens of times and sustained multiple head injuries before actually resorting to shooting him.
The photos of her bleeding and bruised just after the incident, aren't enough to move the hearts of those right-wingers who I suppose imagine their own sisters and daughters should have suffered even more injuries from their attackers before fighting back.
The Zimmerman haters instead try to present her as a mad racist stalker that was just out to murder some random poor white kid; they present acts of mere carelessness as indicative of malice without the slightest shred of evidence. Or with evidence as flimsy as that she used the word 'punks' and 'assholes'.
Can anyone doubt that these right-wing haters of Zimmerman are actually motivated by tribe allegiance games where everything done by the white southerner kid Martin must be seen as somehow justifiable, and therefore his killing be made unjustifiable?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Since we are talking about a trial here, I can see why someone would object to the use of the word stalking. I bet Zimmerman's lawyer would as well.
Zimmerman's lawyer would also object to the description of Zimmerman as an idiot wannabe cop.
There is no legal definition I am aware of for the terms "idiot" or "wannabe cop", they merely express your opinion of him. Yes, his lawyers might object to it but I don't and you are free to call him that all you want.
Now if it were a crime to be an "idiot" and this was legally defined as having an IQ below 50 but Zimmerman was tested as having an IQ of 55, you could say he is really stupid but continually calling him an idiot when legally, he has been proven not to be would be just plain asinine.
Now you may think that his actions should be considered stalking but unfortunately for you, the law disagrees. You are in essence, continually accusing him of a crime he did not commit. You might as well call him a pedophile, j-walker, child pornographer, tax evader and car thief while you're at it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: You're effectively arguing that anyone following anyone should be called "stalking".
But if the words are identical in meaning, why are you deliberately using "stalking" instead of "following"?
We know why: because "stalking" has negative connotations which "following" does not. So gee, the words aren't the same after all, and you *should* differentiate between them. And therefore NO the police call doesn't indicate that Zimmerman was "stalking" Martin, it only indicates that he was following Martin.
You can't have it both ways, you can't in the same breath effectively argue that following=stalking, *and* show such a preference for the word stalking. Either the words carry the same meaning or they don't.
But I'm not surprised at the sheer amounts of double-think displayed by the Zimmerman haters.
It's like you skipped over the entire (central) part of the discussion where, no, nobody is arguing that the words are identical, rather pointing out that a reasonable person, in Martin's shoes in that scenario, could have felt stalked and that there is evidence that he did.
So...nice try, I guess?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To Aris, this is all about race-baiting. He's made that clear on Ornery, too. It's apparently very hard for him to understand why some people might not blame Martin for being angry and scared about someone "following" him home in the dark.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:nobody is arguing that the words are identical, rather pointing out that a reasonable person, in Martin's shoes in that scenario, could have felt stalked and that there is evidence that he did.
Rakeesh, if the argument had really been "Martin may have felt stalked" I'd be in full agreement with that.
Samprimary's argument however was effectively that Zimmerman stalked Martin, as supposedly proven by the police call. NOT what Martin may have subjectively felt, but rather what is supposedly proven that Zimmerman did.
quote:To Aris, this is all about race-baiting.
I certainly believe it's about politics in general and racial politics more specifically. "Race-baiting"? I'm not sure what that means actually, and therefore I don't use the term.
I believe that some people are choosing to defend a member of an allied tribe (Martin), regardless of whether he's right or wrong, and to exact vengeance against the one who harmed him (Zimmerman), regardless of whether said harm was justified or not.
If that's race baiting, then okay -- on my part I just call it "tribal politics" like when Greeks support the fellow-orthodox Serbs against the Muslims, and like when Arabs support Palestinians against the Israelis, regardless of whether Serbs or Palestinians are on the right or on the wrong.
Rightness or wrongness just doesn't affect one iota whether they'll choose to "support" or "oppose" -- the decision is predetermined and set by tribal allegiance.
quote:It's apparently very hard for him to understand why some people might not blame Martin for being angry and scared about someone "following" him home in the dark.
It's very hard for me to understand why anyone can ignore, excuse, or forgive someone repeating hitting a man who's on the ground repeatedly shouting for help.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ...nobody is arguing that the words are identical, rather pointing out that a reasonable person, in Martin's shoes in that scenario, could have felt stalked and that there is evidence that he did.
You're the one that argued it's merely semantics, as if we're trying to use a different word for effectively the same thing. Following and stalking are different according to definition and the law.
Martin's perspective is important (though I think there are other courses of action a reasonable person would take instead of confronting their pursuer) but the trial is attempting to ascertain Zimmerman's intent. If there is evidence Zimmerman's real intention was to threaten, intimidate, and scare Martin, with the hope that such behavior would lead to a physical confrontation, you might be able to make a case that he was stalking.
Following a suspicious stranger in a gated community not long after a rash of burglaries and break-ins? It's hard to argue that Zimmerman's initial reaction was unreasonable. It seems like those against Zimmerman want to portray his actions as stalking due to the mounting evidence that Martin instigated the physical violence, because were he being "stalked", he would have been justified in doing so.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's very hard for me to understand why anyone can ignore, excuse, or forgive someone repeating hitting a man who's on the ground repeatedly shouting for help.
For my part, I'm very skeptical that this is what happened.
And if you'll recall my post from Ornery, I actually better understand why you might continue beating someone on the ground -- especially if you know he has a gun -- than why you might bring a gun to go stalking your neighborhood.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: I actually better understand why you might continue beating someone on the ground
And if you don't believe Tom, just ask Ender.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
Just read that the judge wont allow the jury to see Martins text's and pictures. I agree with the judge's decision. That said, knowing he was very much into fighting and guns makes it less difficult for me to envision him deciding to attack the creepy ass cracker who was following him.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
ScottF: Based on what? I think the judge was right in the end to exclude the texts, but on a technical legal point (hearsay not quite within any exception), not on relevance or prejudice.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It's very hard for me to understand why anyone can ignore, excuse, or forgive someone repeating hitting a man who's on the ground repeatedly shouting for help.
For my part, I'm very skeptical that this is what happened.
There is both physical evidence and witness testimony to support Zimmerman's story - Martin on top, hitting Zimmerman's head on the concrete, while he called for help. You can remain skeptical (moreso, and unreasonably skeptical, IMO, than everyone else closely following this trial) but you're always welcome to present what you believe to be a more likely scenario and back it up with evidence and testimony.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think Martin probably struck Zimmerman against the concrete a couple times. If you think that's enough to decisively win a fight against someone with a gun, you're wrong.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
It clearly wasn't enough to decisively win a fight against someone with a gun.
Martin appears to have been winning the fight. But he still lost.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, no argument. It's a risky strategy and a poor decision to engage at all, gun or not, and the presence of a gun made it even more dangerous. But if Martin had managed to stun Zimmerman or knock him unconscious, he'd've had a non-zero chance of survival.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Oh, no argument. It's a risky strategy and a poor decision to engage at all, gun or not, and the presence of a gun made it even more dangerous. But if Martin had managed to stun Zimmerman or knock him unconscious, he'd've had a non-zero chance of survival.
And a non-zero chance of killing Zimmerman.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
Right. While obviously true, I'm not sure what the point is in indicating Martin wouldn't have been shot if he'd managed to KO or otherwise bash Zimmerman's skull more thoroughly.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by Edgehopper: ScottF: Based on what? I think the judge was right in the end to exclude the texts, but on a technical legal point (hearsay not quite within any exception), not on relevance or prejudice.
I'm not sure what you're asking me here...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm not sure what the point is in indicating Martin wouldn't have been shot if he'd managed to KO or otherwise bash Zimmerman's skull more thoroughly...
I'm pointing out that portraying Martin as some kind of senseless, monstrous thug for bashing Zimmerman's head against the concrete does him a disservice, as bashing Zimmerman's head against the concrete was probably the best strategy for surviving that fight once it began.
This doesn't resolve the question of how the fight began, of course, or who is to blame for it. But once Martin realized he was in a fistfight with a gunman, the decision to win that fight decisively was no more savage than Zimmerman's decision to shoot him.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Since we are talking about a trial here, I can see why someone would object to the use of the word stalking. I bet Zimmerman's lawyer would as well.
Zimmerman's lawyer would also object to the description of Zimmerman as an idiot wannabe cop.
There is no legal definition I am aware of for the terms "idiot" or "wannabe cop", they merely express your opinion of him. Yes, his lawyers might object to it but I don't and you are free to call him that all you want.
Now if it were a crime to be an "idiot" and this was legally defined as having an IQ below 50 but Zimmerman was tested as having an IQ of 55, you could say he is really stupid but continually calling him an idiot when legally, he has been proven not to be would be just plain asinine.
Now you may think that his actions should be considered stalking but unfortunately for you, the law disagrees. You are in essence, continually accusing him of a crime he did not commit. You might as well call him a pedophile, j-walker, child pornographer, tax evader and car thief while you're at it.
I'm not a court of law and I'm not accusing him of being a criminal for virtue of being an idiot wannabe cop. I'm saying that he's an idiot wannabe cop who probably stalked martin, and I don't care if zimmerman's defense would object to this language on the basis of it not being legally applicable law language in the eyes of the law or whatever.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
Doesn't your last sentence assume Martin did the bashing only after he saw a gun? If the timing of the bashing/gun discovery is part of Zimmerman's testimony then fair enough.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: I certainly believe it's about politics in general and racial politics more specifically. "Race-baiting"? I'm not sure what that means actually
We know, but keep telling us about "tribal politics" and explain away why people are defending confirmed "violent thug" martin because they are of his "tribe"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If the timing of the bashing/gun discovery is part of Zimmerman's testimony then fair enough.
Zimmerman has testified that Martin saw his gun, although some people wonder how that'd be possible given how Zimmerman says he was carrying it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm pointing out that portraying Martin as some kind of senseless, monstrous thug for bashing Zimmerman's head against the concrete does him a disservice, as bashing Zimmerman's head against the concrete was probably the best strategy for surviving that fight once it began.
So imagine for a sec the counterfactual (according to you) where Martin *is* a senseless, monstrous thug.
What would that counterfactual Martin be doing? Would he perhaps be sometimes texting things like saying that another person that 'snitched' on him "hasn't bled enough for him, only his nose"?
Once we consider that Zimmerman also indeed snitched on Martin in the sense of calling the cops on him, I wonder whether that counterfactual Martin would be attempting to exact blood from Zimmerman.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sure. Heck, why not just say the "counterfactual" is that Martin was a psychopath and just needed a little trigger to start trying to kill anybody, and Zimmerman saved lives by killing him young?
You can say pretty much what you like about the kid, since he's completely dead and you won't hurt his feelings.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Well of course the thing is that the counterfactual Martin (according to you), is the factual Martin according to the evidence, since he really did text things like that a person who had snitched on him hadn't "bled enough".
quote:You can say pretty much what you like about the kid, since he's completely dead and you won't hurt his feelings.
I only say things that I believe to be true, because that's what my ethics allow. I only wish that Zimmerman's detractors acted according to a similar code.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*snort* No room for honest disagreement then. Climb further up onto that cross, could you? And while you're at it, further assert that you're clueless on the whole race-baiting thing. Despite, you know, multiple remarks that make people wonder, 'man, there's a whiff of something racial here'.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:*snort* No room for honest disagreement then. Climb further up onto that cross, could you? And while you're at it, further assert that you're clueless on the whole race-baiting thing. Despite, you know, multiple remarks that make people wonder, 'man, there's a whiff of something racial here'.
I can't parse what you're saying.
I'm the one who *is* arguing that this involves racial politics, despite e.g. Tom's claims to the contrary.
Perhaps you've trained yourself to speak in that deceitful way long enough, that you can't actually communicate meaning directly and straightforwardly even if you tried.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
there ain't just a "whiff" of racial crap here. it's a full blown klaxxon gale.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Well of course the thing is that the counterfactual Martin (according to you), is the factual Martin according to the evidence
No, not really. We're talking about two different scenarios -- unless you think that "thuggishness" is a universal quality that applies in all cases.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:"unless you think that "thuggishness" is a universal quality that applies in all cases."
I think that thuggishness is a personality trait, and as with all personality traits it'll reveal itself in more than one scenario.
According to the text conversation Martin was "always fighting" (according to his friend), and Martin said that the kid he just beat up will have to see him again because he didn't "bleed enough" to satisfy Martin.
Is this truly irrelevant in determining who is likely to have started the fight between Zimmerman and Martin?
When the Zimmerman haters were willing to use as evidence that Zimmerman had once shoved a person, a decade or so back, is it truly not at all evidence if Martin is shown to want to make people bleed, and not just their noses either?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Is this truly irrelevant in determining who is likely to have started the fight between Zimmerman and Martin?
Nope. It's not irrelevant at all. But of course it's merely speculation. Do you believe that your opinion of Zimmerman's innocence hinges on whether he threw the first punch or not?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Do you believe that your opinion of Zimmerman's innocence hinges on whether he threw the first punch or not?
If there was evidence to suggest he threw the first punch, I'd believe he should be found guilty of assault at the very least.
I consider his shouts for "help" an attempt to stop the fight regardless of who started it by bringing the community into this, so I'd still not consider him guilty of manslaughter.
But if he had neither shouted for help *and* had thrown the first punch, I'd probably consider Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Perhaps you've trained yourself to speak in that deceitful way long enough, that you can't actually communicate meaning directly and straightforwardly even if you tried.
It's a good sign of your own objectivity and thoroughness when anyone who disagrees with you is, by default, hopelessly mired in dishonesty-in unintended, instinctive dishonesty no less.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But if he had neither shouted for help *and* had thrown the first punch, I'd probably consider Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter.
What would it take for you to find him guilty of Murder 2?
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
I have to admit, if Zimmerman had both thrown the first punch, and not shouted for help, I'd convict on murder 2.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:It's a good sign of your own objectivity and thoroughness when anyone who disagrees with you is, by default, hopelessly mired in dishonesty-in unintended, instinctive dishonesty
Don't assume that some few people here are a representative of "anyone who disagrees with me", so that you can make assumptions about all that great group just based on my views on a few people here.
quote:What would it take for you to find him guilty of Murder 2?
My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that Florida law demands for Murder 2 "a depraved mind showing no regard for human life."
So, if I thought that *Martin* was shouting for help, and Zimmerman had shot him, I'd see that as murder two.
Actually if I thought it had been Martin who was shouting for help, I'd not care even if Martin had thrown the first punch, I'd want a murder two for Zimmerman anyway.
It'd be also what I'd want for Martin, if no shooting had occurred and Martin had killed Zimmerman with his fists, after Zimmerman was shouting for help.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
If Martin hadn't confronted Zimmerman and just either walked away or had just spoken to Zimmerman letting him know he lived in the neighborhood, none of this would have happened. If Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of his car none of this would have happened. Unfortunately both made decisions they shouldn't have, but only one of those decisions was against the law. (Martin attacking Zimmerman) This caused the end of his life.
It is unfortunate, but you can't place all of the blame on Zimmerman's actions. At least from the evidence I have seen.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Don't assume that some few people here are a representative of "anyone who disagrees with me", so that you can make assumptions about all that great group just based on my views on a few people here.
On this topic? It's not an isolated observation and it's with respect to more than a few people. For months now, your default position to anyone on this topic has frequently-as it did just now-included an insistence that opponents are either so mired in dishonesty they don't even know honesty anymore, or that they're simply lying for 'tribal politics' (totes not race baiting, either, not that you know what that is, right?).
-------
quote:If Martin hadn't confronted Zimmerman and just either walked away or had just spoken to Zimmerman letting him know he lived in the neighborhood, none of this would have happened. If Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of his car none of this would have happened. Unfortunately both made decisions they shouldn't have, but only one of those decisions was against the law. (Martin attacking Zimmerman) This caused the end of his life.
Wait a second, so now it's been proven that Martin attacked? Or is this just more 'default to believe Zimmerman'? Seems likely that Zimmerman will walk and, from what I've seen of the trial, that would be lawful and I don't complain. But very little in this trial has substantially corroborated Zimmerman's account of events. He'll get off because the prosecution won't be able to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, but that's not at all the same thing as Zimmerman having demonstrated his account was accurate. He hasn't.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
If an young-and-healthy-looking adult male (especially one larger and heavier than me) is clearly following me at night, he's lucky if I can evade him. He's also lucky if I can outrun him.
He's probably going to need medical care if I can't get away no matter what his intentions originally were.
Granted, I do have a...naturally-overactive...threat response, that has been further trained into hyperactivity by years and years of martial arts training. However, I've never needed to use my martial arts training to protect myself, even around some very dangerous people. However, if a Zimmerman type had followed me last night while I was taking a leisurely late night stroll, and I couldn't evade or outrun him....no matter what his intentions, I'd have probably hurt him. If I had seen a gun, I'd probably have gotten control of the weapon and used it on him. Letting me see a gun in a situation like that, if I don't think running away will work, is asking to visit the hospital.
And to expect a different attitude from the average young male is unrealistic. That's just how I see it. Following someone and carrying a gun that they can see, AT NIGHT, is kind of an unspoken declaration of deadly intent.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
^I don't really understand the point of this post other than to brag about your l33t pwnage skillz Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: If Martin hadn't confronted Zimmerman and just either walked away or had just spoken to Zimmerman letting him know he lived in the neighborhood, none of this would have happened.
You can't envision a scenario in which martin shouts at zimmerman to leave him alone, he lives here, and zimmerman disbelieves this or otherwise chooses to continue in pursuit, or demand that martin hold still and not try to 'get away' ..?
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Steven - Your violence issues have nothing to do with the law. Assaulting someone for following you is illegal.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Steven - Your violence issues have nothing to do with the law. Assaulting someone for following you is illegal.
I'd rather err toward being illegal versus dead, if I'm forced to make the choice. But I'm far more happy about evading and running than about fighting. Fights are usually a result of poor planning, not keeping a cool head, poor understanding of how to manipulate others, a pointless attachment to the contents of your pockets, and/or a pointless attachment to your own pride. IMHO.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: ^I don't really understand the point of this post other than to brag about your l33t pwnage skillz
Sounds like you got the point to me.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I'd rather err toward being illegal versus dead, if I'm forced to make the choice.
The exact same argument your pursuer could make for shooting you.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
Looks like the prosecution is taking ridiculous to the next level. Some people will stop at nothing for a little drama...
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote: Some people will stop at nothing for a little drama...
Sorta like Zimmerman when he got out of his vehicle?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
The new definition for "murder two" seems to be "getting out of a vehicle in the presence of strangers".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Looks like the prosecution is taking ridiculous to the next level. Some people will stop at nothing for a little drama...
Given some of the silliness here, that you would describe it so one-sidedly speaks really to your own bias rather than an accurate observation.
In other words: they've both done silly stuff.
------
Semi-related remark: when the hell exactly did so many almost totally uninformed laypeople become legal experts? I've heard so often random slobs go on about how stupid the judge is or how little sense her decisions make, from people who would need the rules of Clue carefully explained twice.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Looks like the prosecution is taking ridiculous to the next level. Some people will stop at nothing for a little drama...
Apropos of which i really liked your little joke during the trial opening
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Looks like the prosecution is taking ridiculous to the next level. Some people will stop at nothing for a little drama...
Given some of the silliness here, that you would describe it so one-sidedly speaks really to your own bias rather than an accurate observation.
In other words: they've both done silly stuff.
------
Semi-related remark: when the hell exactly did so many almost totally uninformed laypeople become legal experts? I've heard so often random slobs go on about how stupid the judge is or how little sense her decisions make, from people who would need the rules of Clue carefully explained twice.
Claiming someone is biased has been your go-to rebuttal in this conversation. It's like you believe your opinion to be the only informed one. Anyone making a statement you disagree with is "biased." That plan of attack does nothing to support your claims.
When it comes to silly, the prosecution really has out-performed the defense. The theatrical appeals emotion that book-ended their arguments were for those rare individuals that failed to realized the prosecution didn't have, and didn't present, a very good case against Zimmerman. This third degree murder thing is their fourth quarter Hail Mary pass.
Regarding your semi-related remark, as long as you're counting yourself among the "totally uniformed" laypersons and random slobs, then I have no point of contention. It is an odd bit of human behavior we all engage in. At least some of us have logic and cool-headed reasoning on our side.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Claiming someone is biased has been your go-to rebuttal in this conversation. It's like you believe your opinion to be the only informed one. Anyone making a statement you disagree with is "biased." That plan of attack does nothing to support your claims.
This has been what I've said in response to unreasonable and unsupported certainty. I've got nothing against anyone who thinks 'Zimmerman should be found not guilty'-in fact, I'm leaning that way myself, capax. Got anything else to say about 'bias'?
For example, I pointed out your bias when you said there was 'no evidence' Zimmerman stalked or harrassed Martin. By his own words, Zimmerman was following Martin at night, in his own neighbhorhood. I pointed out your bias in simply accepting as given that Martin was, in fact, a 'suspicious person'. You didn't say 'Zimmerman might have thought', you've bought his line straight on down the list. That's the bias. You're not even attempting to deal in uncertainties-you made up your mind quite awhile ago.
quote:Regarding your semi-related remark, as long as you're counting yourself among the "totally uniformed" laypersons and random slobs, then I have no point of contention. It is an odd bit of human behavior we all engage in. At least some of us have logic and cool-headed reasoning on our side.
I'm sorry, have I been here saying 'boy, that judge's decision made no sense'? Have I been posing as though my own armchair quarterback analysis ought to take the place of legal proceedings? No. So, you know, contend with that. It's not an odd bit of human behavior at all, and in this respect I haven't engaged in it.
As for your 'some of us'. Heh. It's so strange. It's like you simply haven't heard me, and others, say at multiple points over the months of this particular bit of current events, "I'm not at all sure Zimmerman ought to be convicted," but as for you, capax, so far as I can tell you've had certainty from the start. Very cool-headed and logical of you to simply believe, even before a trial, those things which support the shooter's claims which he would be saying if he were innocent or guilty.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Judges can make mistakes. Me, I believe that she's made mistakes benefitting both the prosecution and the defense. I don't think she's being delibrately biased. You don't have to have gone to law school to ask questions like whether Martin was in pain as he died, or whether he had THC in his blood, should be relevant.
I also withheld my own judgement until the trial showed the the prosecution flat out doesn't have a case for murder 2. That included not jumping on the "lynch him" bandwagon even before the trial started.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
'His story sounds like bull' doesn't at all equal 'lynch him', despite rhetoric common to several Zimmerman defenders in this discussion.
As for not needing law school...wait, so your reasoning is that to have a good idea what a legal professional should do, you don't need to have gone to law school, because...why? That wasn't actually an argument.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
My reasoning is that you don't need to go to automotive school to know how to change a tire. Again, there might well be sufficient reason to allow things like how much Martin suffered, or his THC levels, into evidence. But I haven't heard any compelling arguments for it. And I'm pretty sure that if I spent a couple minutes looking online, I could find actual lawyers saying the same thing.
Can we agree that judges make mistakes, sometimes? We need judges to make judgments because the issues at question don't always have a clearcut answer. No one in the world is going to get it right every time.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: For example, I pointed out your bias when you said there was 'no evidence' Zimmerman stalked or harrassed Martin. By his own words, Zimmerman was following Martin at night, in his own neighbhorhood.
More of the stalking/harassing mumbo jumbo? Let's try this again: What constitutes stalking? Describe the behavior that Zimmerman engaged in that could be construed as stalking/harassing. (Following someone is not stalking so why don't you try to get further than that this time.) The prosecution has revealed practically nothing to cast doubt on this element of Zimmerman's story. If I "bought his line" it's because there's no evidence to the contrary. You've taken the position that Zimmerman is lying, so produce some substantial evidence that he was indeed actually stalking Martin.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's a sign of how little you're listening that you come up with 'Rakeesh says Zimmerman is lying'.
Seriously, that's not what I'm saying and since you insist on responding as if it was all I can ask is that you please re read and keep that in mind.
Posted by Sevenar (Member # 9660) on :
Another idiotic term thrown around by the anti-Zimmerman crowd is "profiling". Individuals cannot deprive someone of their civil rights. Only the State and its agents can do that. My ethics professor, (a sitting state court judge), told me this, and gave some trivial examples: if someone tells you to "shut up", you have no cause of action for him trying to deprive you of your First Amendment right to free speech. If a store posts a "no guns allowed" sign, and you walk in with a lawfully-carried firearm, you cannot sue them for trying to deprive you of your Second Amendment rights, and so on.
The police are not supposed to single people out for undue scrutiny just because of their race, because that is a violation of their rights to due process under the 14th Amendment. (The operative word there is "undue". If there's an APB out for a 7-foot tall white murder suspect, however, it's not "profiling" to question every freakishly-tall Caucasian they run across on patrol.)
But Private citizens can't "profile" anybody. They have no ongoing duty to arrest on behalf of the state except in extreme circumstances. The pro-Trayvon faction loves to throw the term around in order to blur perceptions of the public.
As Mr. Card commonly argues, people who have to rely on lies to stir up support for their position expose quickly just how weak their position is.
If you're a young kid out after curfew in an unfamiliar neighborhood, that's not exactly the smartest idea, no matter what color you happen to be. If you're really scared of someone following you, turning around and confronting them isn't a good idea, either. If you were walking through the woods and spotted a bear following you, turning around and punching it in the snout is a good way to wind up as a pile of bear dung the next day. That doesn't make it the bear's fault. If she was trying to determine the threat you posed to her cubs, you were an idiot for approaching the bear in the first place.
While it is regrettable that Trayvon wound up dead, it appears that he definitely contributed to the escalation of the incident.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you're a young kid out after curfew...
Was there a curfew in effect?
Posted by Sevenar (Member # 9660) on :
I'm not sure. "Out after dark", then.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If you're a young kid out after curfew...
Was there a curfew in effect?
Yes, for 16 years old and under. Martin was 17 so not for him.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sevenar, for someone so defiantly smug about speaking the truth and disapproving of lies, you might want to get (most of) your facts straight. First: Martin lived nearby, so calling it an 'unfamiliar neighborhood' is misleading and inaccurate at best. Two, he wasn't subject to a curfew. Three, when people say profiling they are pretty sure not to mean it in the 'civic institution' sense but rather the 'saw a scary black man and immediately assumed he was a criminal' and four, Zimmerman had made up his mind that Martin was a criminal, hence the whole 'people using a close term' thing.
There's quite a bit of reason to think Zimmerman should walk. Completely fair case to make. What you're saying is tripe.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sevenar: I'm not sure. "Out after dark", then.
If you weren't sure, why did you say it? Care to revise your self-righteous chest thumping a bit?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Hardly. He thought he look suspicious, and followed him to see if he could help the police, whom he had called, locate him.
I think he will walk, and with the horrible job the prosecutor did almost every legal expert agrees.
They BOTH had the right to do what they did, up to the point of the fight. Every piece of physical evidence seems to back Zimmerman's story up, and the only inconsistencies I have heard from him are completely understandable considering the stress of what had happened.
If they BOTH had a right to walk along that path, all the crap that happened before is moot.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Hardly. He thought he look suspicious, and followed him to see if he could help the police, whom he had called, locate him.
Obviously. The question is, why? Why was Zimmerman so sure on sight that Martin was a criminal? We can't really know, of course, but it'd be great if we could all stop pretending like there aren't some very obvious reasons that center on, yknow, scary black kid.
As for the physical evidence, it (somewhat) backs up (parts of) Zimmerman's account, but goes almost nowhere towards corroborating the most important parts, such as who actually started it. Which is a good reason to want Zimmerman to walk. But-again-that's not at all the same thing as saying 'the trial has proved Zimmerman's story'. It hasn't.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sevenar: But Private citizens can't "profile" anybody.
You completely and to a ridiculous extent are buffeting or fail to understand what people mean when they talk about racial profiling.
Here's the short form: when people are talking about racial profiling, they are obviously not using a term or concept of profiling which is not applicable to individuals. We're talking about a thing which I or you can do easily as individuals, or that individuals can do as groups, or that organizations can do as an entity, or that the state can do.
The use of the term is obviously modeled after the phenomenon as used to describe racial profiling by police and law enforcement.
If you are going to absolutely insist that we must follow some prescriptive legal technical whatever that makes this SO TOTALLY WRONG than we could write up some sort of script that replaces any instance of 'racial profiling' with 'discriminatory racial targeting' just to keep this from being an issue even though people are still going to mean the exact same thing, so
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Semantics aside, the point is he definitely may have done his best to "profile" Martin.
[ July 12, 2013, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Why was Zimmerman so sure on sight that Martin was a criminal?
Zimmerman *suspected* Martin was a criminal, there's a difference between suspecting someone for something and being "so sure on sight".
And he offered his explanation at the call: "It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about" "looking at all the houses" -- namely the things that a burglar would do, investigating which houses to burgle.
Now you may want to say that's just an lie and it was really because Martin was black?
Except that there were more than 40 minutes between the time Trayvon Martin bought that tea and skittle, and the time Zimmerman saw him and called the police; so it actually matches up with the timeline what Zimmerman said: Martin was provably not in a haste to return home even though it was raining.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
John Guy is an embarrassment. He should have gone into theater.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Aris, you should just stop making proposals to apparently Inquisitive Minds about what we should rightly think Martin was doing or how to read the actions of Zimmerman. Because we already know what you have decided of Martin and Zimmerman, and how they influence your emotional position and what you say, and in no realm of the unknowns of this case are they not, ultimately, disgusting.
In addition, you would be wildly positively served by learning how to, if not to not be susceptible to race-baiting polemic, to at least try to conceal your racism.
You can even pretend you aren't racist. We'll play along as long as you keep shut about Martin's "tribe" or "tribal politics." Forever.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: There's quite a bit of reason to think Zimmerman should walk. Completely fair case to make.
I actually ATM think that from a legal perspective, the state has not adequately made the case necessary to justify the imprisonment of Zimmerman under Murder 2, and categorically he should not be convicted.
I suppose that in Florida one of the greater effective defenses provided in tandem with the terrible SYG/castle doctrine laws is that you can possibly expect for the prosecution to either be incompetent or give you a free pass (subject to being the right kind of guy, of course, and in this case it seems pretty evident that the police had limited effort or interest in detailing this case for a future prosecution).
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
So if he is not convicted as you've described will it be because of general incompetence or because it was ultimately the correct verdict?
I realize both can be true, but your description reads like Zimmerman (potentially) not being convicted will primarily be a result of incompetence and not justice. Is that your opinion?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's easy for us to sit here and armchair-convict Zimmerman. It's actually extraordinarily easy, because Zimmerman's five (!) conflicting accounts are easy to poke holes through, and his actions after the event including his perjury and the litany of circumspect acts and recorded history as a caller/wannabe vigilante make it so that had the police done a full investigation and hadn't been obviously uninterested in committing to prosecuting zimmerman and/or incompetent in making their charges, zimmerman could have easily been sent away for what I consider him to be at least guilty of: negligent acts leading to the death of Martin.
But to prosecute someone, you damn well better be able to make the case in court. And even if I think other state prosecutors could easily have done so, this one hasn't. They haven't made a good enough case for that at all. I think if there's still any chance that the prosecution gets anything at all, it's not because of a compelling case by the prosecution but because of dysfunction and stupidity on the part of the defense during this case.
And you can't prosecute someone with layman presumption of guilt or probable guilt. I don't accept criminal punishment without a successful criminal case.
So even as a person who presumes Zimmerman is most likely guilty of at least criminal negligence spawning from his lack of sense and his big vigilante complex (and who knows may have flat out just murdered the kid) and should receive some jail time for it and/or be used as a seminal moment in the case for the destruction of SYG and other similarly terrible laws, I do not see a case justifying imprisonment.
quote:I realize both can be true, but your description reads like Zimmerman (potentially) not being convicted will primarily be a result of incompetence and not justice. Is that your opinion?
I can't have an opinion on that without knowing what "justice" is intended to mean. I don't think "justice" is a meaningful enough concept on its own. Zimmerman not going to jail could be "justice" in the sense that it is unjust to send someone to jail without compelling and valid prosecution of charges, but also "unjust" in that it could simultaneously involve that Zimmerman did turn out to have done something that warrants imprisonment, like murdering Martin cold. And even if Zimmerman did murder Martin, it's not exactly "just" to convict him for murder if you have no evidence reasonably confirming this murder. "justice" becomes a rather weak or contradictory concept in the face of a world of ambiguities.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Because we already know what you have decided of Martin and Zimmerman, and how they influence your emotional position and what you say, and in no realm of the unknowns of this case are they not, ultimately, disgusting.
Oh, I'm accustomed to be considered "disgusting" by various vile individuals of all sorts.
I'm disgusting because I didn't support the Serbs against the Muslims, though Serbs were the politically correct allied tribe for a good Greek, a good Orthodox, a good anti-imperialist leftist.
I'm disgusting because I don't support Arabs against the Israelis, though Arabs are the politically correct allied tribe for a good Greek, a good anti-imperialist, a good apartheid-opposing leftist.
(EDIT: More recently I'm disgusting because I don't blame the Germans for Greece's woes, as every good Greek is supposed to be doing)
And I'm disgusting because I don't support Martin against Zimmerman, though Martin is of the politically correct allied tribe for a good supposedly anti-racist American.
Yes, I've heard your tribal politics before. I've been hearing them decades now, since highschool even. Stick to the politically correct tribe. Bash individuals of the enemy tribe.
quote:You can even pretend you aren't racist.
...According to some definitions all white people are racists, given how they all enjoy racial power and privilege over other races. ...According to my own past usage, I believe every single human being is a racist, given how they all unconsciously group people together and have their perceptions be biased according to such groupings.
Those are two definitions (just as an example of many more) by which I clearly *am* racist and would be incapable to not be one. What definition are you're using by which I could 'pretend' to *not* be racist?
quote:We'll play along as long as you keep shut about Martin's "tribe" or "tribal politics." Forever.
No. I'll never shut up about that. The whole case is *purely* about tribal politics.
You are of course as free to call me a "racist" as I am free to call you one.
Hell, give me a precise definition of "racist", and I'll even tell you straight out if I qualify or not. It differs based on what definition you use.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The whole case is *purely* about tribal politics.
Cool I thought it was about a guy shooting a kid, and might circumstantially involve some racial issues. Silly me.
quote:What definition are you're using by which I could 'pretend' to *not* be racist?
One in which you at least conceal your racism by not doing things like dismissing some people's support of Martin to be because they are part of his "tribe," or call blacks a "tribe" with their "tribal politics" that allies them "tribally" with democrats, conclude that Martin was a "bloodthirsty thug" or "violent thug" (I didn't know you were a mindreader thank you for determining martin's mindset for us with your majicks) with his "tribal" "gangsta" culture do you see a theme here
quote:Oh, I'm accustomed to be considered "disgusting" by various vile individuals of all sorts.
Yeah you're a dude who said you're essentially glad Martin got killed because he was totally going to grow up to be a murderer anyway. You basically conclude that Martin deserved to be shot, in absence of compelling evidence, and then you whinge about "tribal politics" just in case people didn't start to figure out how idiotic you sound when you, a dude who probably hardly knows any black people and are practially literally on the other side of the world from the united states while presuming to lecture us about our racial issues.
To be considered vile by you for this is, ultimately, a compliment. Your behavior in the threads about this support that.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
So, you're not going to offer a definition, you're just saying that I did things you don't like. Cool, the new definition of racist, ladies and gentlemen: "Whatever Samprimary doesn't like."
quote:You basically conclude that Martin deserved to be shot,
Yes. As I've said already, I cannot forgive someone beating a person who's on the ground shouting for help.
You may choose to find this disgusting, and I likewise find it disgusting that you are willing to excuse such people.
quote:a dude who probably hardly knows any black people and are practically literally on the other side of the world from the united states while presuming to lecture us about our racial issues.
That I'm not involved with either of your tribes, neither Democrats, nor Republicans, nor African Americans, nor white Americans, nor Latino Americans, if anything makes me more objective.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:So, you're not going to offer a definition, you're just saying that I did things you don't like. Cool, the new definition of racist, ladies and gentlemen: "Whatever Samprimary doesn't like."
ok so you don't see the pattern. got it.
quote:Yes. As I've said already, I cannot forgive someone beating a person who's on the ground shouting for help.
And I'm glad you are part of the precognitive crimes division which is sure that this is absolutely what happened and come to this conclusion devoid of context for how one person ended up probably under the other person on the ground and that you may self-righteously conclude that they deserved to die.
quote:That I'm not involved with either of your tribes, neither Democrats, nor Republicans, nor African Americans, nor white Americans, nor Latino Americans, if anything makes me more objective.
Sure, that's the kind of erroneous version of events that the naturally feeble-minded people in your part of the world can't rise above. I mean, that's kind of just the hallmark of your tribe, and so I suppose you should be forgiven for having such limited sociological prescience.
And don't dare contradict my summary of your tribe or your politics! As someone not involved with them at all, I am more objective about you guys than you could ever be OH WAIT DID I BLOW A HOLE IN THAT TERRIBLE REASONING I guess I did.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
and just to make sure that it is around for posterity I just want everyone to know exactly why I use the language 'disgusting' to describe your statements in regard to this case.
quote:Originally Posted By Aris "Tribal Politics" Katsaris if I had to say "glad or sad" I'd pick *glad* that Martin is dead, because such a person would have turned murderer on *someone* sooner or later.
If Zimmerman was not armed, this might have even been Martin's first murder.
quote:Originally Posted By Aris "Tribal Politics" Katsaris Martin would have eventually found *someone* who pissed him off enough to bash his head against the concrete. It's probably a lucky happenstance that his first victim happened to be armed.
quelle surrrrprise. it was martin on trial all along. He has been convicted in absentia by Precog Crimes Division Aris of being a pretty much guaranteed future murderer (those bloodthirsty thugs, yanno). The sentence is righteous death at the hands of the guy who may or may not have killed him in self defense.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Ah, lest I forget.
With my awesome mindreading powers I've figured out your trick: You turned discussion towards your insults of me, in order to distract from the facts I mentioned.
Rakeesh asked a direct question. "How come Zimmerman was so sure on sight" -- by which Rakeesh implied racial profiling. I answered him directly, that Zimmerman just suspected, never claimed certainty, and that Zimmerman had offered his reasons for why he suspected based on Martin's observed behaviour.
You also meant to distract from another inconvenient fact I mentioned. That it was more than 40 minutes earlier that Martin had been to the store, and this fits with Martin NOT just focusing on returning home; but strangely delaying, as Zimmerman observed.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Oh, and btw, I still stand by those statements.
Thanks for screenshotting that, I urge people to read the comment in its entirety, as I still stand by the whole comment in question.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm terribly sorry, Aris, but Zimmerman's remarks about which bleepers 'always get away' doesn't indicate 'suspicion' to me.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
He starts his call with "a real suspicious guy" and saying "looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something". Then later he says "he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is".
These all indicate uncertainty to me. Saying "these a$$holes get away", okay, that sounds less uncertain, but it's just one statement in the midst of a half dozen others that claim uncertainty.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:With my awesome mindreading powers I've figured out your trick: You turned discussion towards your insults of me, in order to distract from the facts I mentioned.
Rakeesh asked a direct question. "How come Zimmerman was so sure on sight" -- by which Rakeesh implied racial profiling. I answered him directly, that Zimmerman just suspected, never claimed certainty, and that Zimmerman had offered his reasons for why he suspected based on Martin's observed behaviour.
Cool dude, I'm sure that's what's totally going on here is me actually talking about that, and the overall ridiculousness of your "tribal politics" presumed objectivity and expertise, your racially problematic language and racebaiting, and ridiculous conclusion of Martin being a bloodthirsty thug who you are glad was killed and who deserved death are all just extra credit on a test I already passed to "distract from the facts [you] mentioned." Haha, wait, no.
Well, I think this will escape you anyway (and you will probably rely yet again on some kind of seemingly profound statement in response about how you are capable of disagreeing with me - woa!) but here goes.
AHEM.
Here's the deal.
You are a dude who claims some or any level of expertise and objectivity in "tribal politics" and in turn offer ridiculous sentiments stemming from this that show what your actual 'expertise and objectivity' actually is — and it's not. It's bad, and you're silly. Rakeesh & co have already done a super fine job of picking apart the little bits, but it escapes you entirely. I'll pick apart the big and ridiculous racial crap you've decided to stand proudly by!
Like the idea that you can talk about black culture or black american cultural issues to blacks or to us better than we can represent them because you are not "involved with that tribe."
Yeah, not involved with them (and probably honestly don't hardly even know or interface with black people or a black community at all) and thus are more objective than we can be and see no problem with talking over connected experiences, all the while dismissing people's support of martin as being an overriding "tribal" loyalty from negroes to negroes, etc, and so forth.
And then all while claiming this proficiency in "tribal politics" you show how actually proficient you are in matters of racial issues by effectively racebaiting your way through three threads (and counting) and then when people correctly call you out on it you go "golly what is race baiting I do not know what that is??" — wow, who would have guessed?
I can't make this up. I could not even properly satirize the Aris™ take on this trial.
You're blitzing forward on a jet rocket powered by pure dunning-kruger for race issues or the actual complexity of this case. Be sure to tell your inevitable one or two black guys you kind of know (well, maybe not in your case) how awesome you are at summing up a race debate in florida that people have their knickers in a twist about and shouldn't, cause the black kid was obviously a future murderer and needed to get killed, and people are only irrationally defending him if they are part of his own "tribe." I mean even the idea that I can type this all out for you and you still don't see how insanely and conspicuously moronic this all is? It's almost poetic, in a way.
I'm just basically wolf blitzer right now, delving into this maelstrom of crazy and remembering all the separate parts about it, including your fantastically emotional flame-outs that even ended up with you told to leave the previous thread.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Wolf Blizter, stunned and as if in a trance, repeats the words, "Amazing, Amazing" Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Samprimary, you should get a grip.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: He starts his call with "a real suspicious guy" and saying "looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something". Then later he says "he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is".
These all indicate uncertainty to me. Saying "these a$$holes get away", okay, that sounds less uncertain, but it's just one statement in the midst of a half dozen others that claim uncertainty.
I can only point out that those quotes of yours clearly *don't* indicate someone who is uncertain whether someone else is a bad guy. Of those four quotes, only the third actually shows much uncertainty at all-until you factor in that Zimmerman has *called the cops* on the guy and that rather lowers the prospect of whether or not he hadn't made up his mind.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And lemme also point out that the fourth quote doesnt indicate uncertainty at all. It's a clear statement that, to him, Martin is a criminal who will escape.
Not long after this 'criminal' who was heading home with candy turned up dead. It would be nice if you could credit people viewing that with deep *suspicion* with something other than dishonesty, but that doesn't seem likely.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:It would be nice if you could credit people viewing that with deep *suspicion* with something other than dishonesty, but that doesn't seem likely.
Such a reasonable person you sound like here, Rakeesh.
Are you willing to treat me as an honest individual, that I should treat you the same?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's an interesting assertion of grievance considering your stance has been to assume that opponents here aren't just lying, but are so mired in deceit you can't even be sure they notice.
If you're willing to stop doing that...well, I guess I wouldn't continue challenging you with it?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
At least Zimmerman was brought to trial, even if he's not convicted. If he hadn't been brought to trial, it might have started a wave of murdering young black men in Florida, and then trying to use the SYG defense.
The one good thing about all the handgun addiction is that non-gun-owners like me are very unlikely to be shot, relative to gun owners. The odds of someone getting shot in your home go WAY, WAY up if you own guns. I don't. It's a risk taken mostly by idiots, that mostly just affects those same idiots.
I don't like living in a country where simply going for a walk late at night can get me stalked and potentially shot, though. Surely there are better outcomes for a young man's life than dying at the gunpoint of George Zimmerman.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I find some humor in the fact that we're talking about a murdertrial and no one is looking to the law: mens rea, actus reus, burden of proof, the affirmative defenses here. This is a trial governed by Florida Law, morality and personal opinion has nothing to do with it.
As angry as you get about certain things, can you explain how under Florida law self-defense is proven? Most likely not. I'm always amazed how often people argue about the law and know next to nothing about it.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: At least Zimmerman was brought to trial, even if he's not convicted. If he hadn't been brought to trial, it might have started a wave of murdering young black men in Florida, and then trying to use the SYG defense.
The one good thing about all the handgun addiction is that non-gun-owners like me are very unlikely to be shot, relative to gun owners. The odds of someone getting shot in your home go WAY, WAY up if you own guns. I don't. It's a risk taken mostly by idiots, that mostly just affects those same idiots.
I don't like living in a country where simply going for a walk late at night can get me stalked and potentially shot, though. Surely there are better outcomes for a young man's life than dying at the gunpoint of George Zimmerman.
Do you even know how the SYG defense works? You realize in this instance he still needs to prove that he was attacked. The Florida statute, from my 10 second analysis, seems to require at least that when you're in a place that you are lawfully allowed to be.
Also, I'm fairly certain that the individuals that would do such acts are not being held back by the law.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: The one good thing about all the handgun addiction is that non-gun-owners like me are very unlikely to be shot, relative to gun owners.
Yes, and the one good thing about all the drinking and driving is that people like me who don't drink and drive are less likely, relatively speaking, to die as a result of drunk driving. What a strange comment.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: I find some humor in the fact that we're talking about a murdertrial and no one is looking to the law: mens rea, actus reus, burden of proof, the affirmative defenses here. This is a trial governed by Florida Law, morality and personal opinion has nothing to do with it.
As angry as you get about certain things, can you explain how under Florida law self-defense is proven? Most likely not. I'm always amazed how often people argue about the law and know next to nothing about it.
We kind of totally were? There was a discussion that went back and forth about what either side had to prove re: florida self defense laws/SYG.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote: Are you willing to treat me as an honest individual, that I should treat you the same?
quote:That's an interesting assertion of grievance considering your stance has been to assume that opponents here aren't just lying, but are so mired in deceit you can't even be sure they notice.
If you're willing to stop doing that...well, I guess I wouldn't continue challenging you with it?
I asked if you would treat me as an honest individual if I treated you as an honest individual.
Your counteroffer seems to me to be that I must accuse *nobody* of deceit (not just you), and in return you will simply not mention that I accuse people of deceit.
That's a rather different bargain, since it would still allow *you* to accuse me of lying, while preventing me to respond in kind. Given how one of your customary tactics in the previous thread on the topic was indeed to accuse me of lying, when I had done nothing of the sort, I obviously don't see that bargain as fair.
So, it seems we have no bargain, alas, alas.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF:
quote:Originally posted by steven: The one good thing about all the handgun addiction is that non-gun-owners like me are very unlikely to be shot, relative to gun owners.
Yes, and the one good thing about all the drinking and driving is that people like me who don't drink and drive are less likely, relatively speaking, to die as a result of drunk driving. What a strange comment.
The difference being that a drunk driver is endangering everyone on the road he encounters while drunk. Gun owners, at most, are endangering people in their home/property, and possibly neighbors. That's assuming the gun is kept in the home.
If someone is carrying it out and about, like Zimmerman, things change. To be fair, though, most gun owners are like everyone else--they spend the largest part of their free time at home, which means the gun (and the danger) is there.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: [QUOTE]Originally posted by steven: [qb] Also, I'm fairly certain that the individuals that would do such acts are not being held back by the law.
You have proof?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: [QUOTE]Originally posted by steven: [qb] Also, I'm fairly certain that the individuals that would do such acts are not being held back by the law.
You have proof?
Well that's easy. It has been illegal to murder people pretty much since law was invented, yet murders still happen.
I'll admit that if Zimmerman gets off, it MAY embolden certain "vigilante" types to be a bit more trigger happy. Then again, an equal or greater number might see all the trouble this has caused Zimmerman despite the acquittal that they may actually be discouraged to do such things without absolute necessity. My guess is that it changes nothing but of course, I have zero proof for any of it because it is impossible to make any sure assertions about the effects of an event that hasn't even happened yet (the event being Zimmerman's acquittal).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That's a rather different bargain, since it would still allow *you* to accuse me of lying, while preventing me to respond in kind. Given how one of your customary tactics in the previous thread on the topic was indeed to accuse me of lying, when I had done nothing of the sort, I obviously don't see that bargain as fair.
It's almost as though you were never serious about the 'bargain' in the first place, and used it only as a means to assert your own victim status. Or something like that.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:It's almost as though you were never serious about the 'bargain' in the first place, and used it only as a means to assert your own victim status.
Why, did you just again accuse me of deceit and dishonesty? While arguing that I wrongly present myself as having been accused of deceit and dishonesty? Why, yes, you did.
How ironic.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: [QUOTE]Originally posted by steven: [qb] Also, I'm fairly certain that the individuals that would do such acts are not being held back by the law.
You have proof?
Well that's easy. It has been illegal to murder people pretty much since law was invented, yet murders still happen.
I'll admit that if Zimmerman gets off, it MAY embolden certain "vigilante" types to be a bit more trigger happy. Then again, an equal or greater number might see all the trouble this has caused Zimmerman despite the acquittal that they may actually be discouraged to do such things without absolute necessity. My guess is that it changes nothing but of course, I have zero proof for any of it because it is impossible to make any sure assertions about the effects of an event that hasn't even happened yet (the event being Zimmerman's acquittal).
IOW, no proof. Yeah, I'm not shocked.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh and by the way, I checked just now, Aris: your *very first* post on the subject was to claim that all of the testimony and all of the evidence supported Zimmerman, and everything else-your own words-was 'racially motivated bullshit'. Anyone who would like to check may do so in the thread 'How to kill a child and get away with with' back in 2012.
That was before anyone had said anything to you at all on this topic. Your starting premise was that *anyone* who claimed doubts about Zimmerman's account were, themselves, racists.
You didn't like it in that thread when that sort of crap was pointed out and I suspect you won't like it now. If so, I'm not even asking you stop acting like you're a victim (because obviously you won't)-just to stop trying to sneak it into contention.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Your starting premise was that *anyone* who claimed doubts about Zimmerman's account were, themselves, racists.
Hardly. Since myself in that post I offered 20% probability that Zimmerman wasn't struggling for his life, it's obvious that there were even higher doubts about his account as a whole.
And, btw, "race-motivated" and "racists" are far from the same thing. According to some definitions of racism anyway. I don't know what you're using as a definition.
Btw pretty much every post of yours on the topic of Zimmerman-vs-Martin mentioned race. You had 7 comments before I added my own thought, and they had the following sentences: 1st post: "We are *almost* to the point where, as a society, we default to disbelief and scorn for the suspect if he killed a white guy as if when he kills a black guy." 2nd post: "How will he then feel safe enough to keep an eye on the dangerous skittles eating black teens out there? So dangerous! Scary! " 3rd post: "Hidden in there I think is the subconscious notion that the only racial issues that matter are white/everyone else" 4th post: "And maybe I flatter myself that I'm not a fool, but I'm certainly not a racist." 5th post: "...because let's face it, black teen wearing...well, a hoodie but damn near anything at all will do...a black teen in YOUR neighborhood that you don't already know? Who wouldn't be a little scared!" 7th post: "I will be surprised if racism doesn't play a key role in Zimmerman's motives for whatever happened"
So in 6 out of 7 posts, you interjected talk of race and racism, and then you complain when I judge the whole thing to be race-motivated?
Ha. Ha. Ha. Yes, for you and Samprimary at least it's COMPLETELY race-motivated. You're the huge anti-racist warriors, and for *you* anti-racism meaning defending black people from white oppression.
quote:Anyone who would like to check may do so in the thread 'How to kill a child and get away with with' back in 2012.
Why go to the bother, I'll quote my whole post, exactly:
quote:We know that Zimmerman had injuries on both the back and the front of his head. Trayvon on the other hand didn't seem to have any injuries other than the killing shot.
This seems consistent with Trayvon attacking Zimmerman, not vice versa.
All the rest is race-motivated bullshit. I'd bet 80% in favour that Zimmerman *was* struggling for his life at the time he shot Tray. He is being witch-hunted by people that *assume* he was the bad guy. Celebrities like Roseanne Barr and Spike Lee attempted to form lynch mobs, attempting to tweet his address and posting things like "nobody can hide" and "reach out and touch him".
This is unacceptable. This is *criminal*.
quote:I find it rather sad that you are so willing to scapegoat the victim here Kwea. I'm over six feet tall. Now all I need is a few minor drug offenses (god knows, it could have happened when I was in school), and I won't be an angel if someone shoots me.
Yeah, well, I suggest you don't go around bashing people's heads on pavements, Orincoro. If the people whose heads you bash on pavements are armed, you may indeed get shot.
Right now every piece of physical evidence seems in favour of Zimmerman, and every piece of testimony seems to be in favour of Zimmerman.
And to the contrary we have what, exactly? Just a popular narrative that in every confrontation between a black guy and a white guy, the white guy is most likely the villain.
Well, find a better case than this one, because right now Zimmerman is not looking a villain. Atleast he looks far from *certainly* a villain.
I stand by my above post, except in my probabilistic estimations which subsequent evidence in favour of Zimmerman have caused to have gone up to 99.5% or so.
That "every piece of testimony" supported Zimmerman was amusingly made clear even by the trial itself, where the prosecution's own witnesses ended up offering evidence in favour of Zimmerman, as many people have noted.
I urge anyone who's interested to read that entire thread (http://www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/ubbmain/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=058858;p=0&r=nfx), to see what kind of bullshit is that I was talking about.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
wow the comment basically proves what rakeesh was saying, cool
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: wow the comment basically proves what rakeesh was saying, cool
No it doesn't.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
In regards (or with regards?) to Zimmerman being acquitted and people thinking it's okay to do what he did, I couldn't disagree more. I doubt I would have ever put myself in the position he did, but I'm damn sure I won't ever do that now because I don't want to end up in his situation. If I'm ever driving through my neighborhood and I see a suspicious character walking around, if the thought would've even crossed my mind to get out of my car to help give the police a more accurate description of where he is (the only situation in which I can think of that I would consider getting out of my car) I'm sure as heck not doing it after this incident. I'll call the police and go on my way. I learned from his mistake.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: wow the comment basically proves what rakeesh was saying, cool
No it doesn't.
I'm very glad that aris has noted ally and arbiter of truth capax on his side in this thread, he needed the help
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
He's innocent. Easy as Pi.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
When did Hatrack discussions become so petty and full of personal attacks? Bunch of n00bs, ya'll are.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Boys and girls, can't we instead be annoyed with the jury that is still deliberating, and making my F5 key tired?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Seriously, how long does it take to flip a coin...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Verdict: Not guilty.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
He walks!
Well, eventually.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I can see why they returned that verdict. I think I probably would have as well, and likely not guilty on all charges.
I don't really believe Zimmerman's account, though. What else would he have said? Of course he would say-whether he had or not-that he was the victim, that it wasn't racially inspired (in the beginning, when 'hooded black teen' equaled 'suspicious lurker'), that he didn't get out of his truck looking to confront.
But someone-anyone, by the way-feel free to point me to any piece of physical evidence or testimony that directly speaks to any of those points, that of themselves make it likelier than not that Zimmerman's account is true. *shrug* Verdict seems lawful to me, but who can say whether it's justice?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Well they did at least consider a lesser charge since they asked for a clarification on the requirements for manslaughter (which they could have given him instead of murder). Sounds to me like they felt the same way most of us did. Couldn't get him for murder but really felt he should be guilty of something.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
i agree with rakeesh
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Universe Rolls: Pi
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
I feel they returned the correct verdict.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I can see why they returned that verdict. I think I probably would have as well, and likely not guilty on all charges.
I don't really believe Zimmerman's account, though. What else would he have said? Of course he would say-whether he had or not-that he was the victim, that it wasn't racially inspired (in the beginning, when 'hooded black teen' equaled 'suspicious lurker'), that he didn't get out of his truck looking to confront.
But someone-anyone, by the way-feel free to point me to any piece of physical evidence or testimony that directly speaks to any of those points, that of themselves make it likelier than not that Zimmerman's account is true. *shrug* Verdict seems lawful to me, but who can say whether it's justice?
This is a reasoned post. It's too bad the outpouring of "celebrity" reactions isn't one tenth as informed. Twitter relays ignorance more efficiently than any other channel in history.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
The football player who tweeted the jurors should go home and kill themselves is a highlight.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Tittles?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: When did Hatrack discussions become so petty and full of personal attacks?
I don't know exactly(probably around 2005), but I feel it proves my point about OSC. IMHO, it's the tone of his columns that attracted trolls and angry arch-conservatives, and turned the place bad. I believe he crapped up his own forum. Not intentionally, of course...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Steven, you are so frigging full of crap. By your own admission you came to this forum as a deliberate troll because you were angry at Card, and now you're gonna point at *other* people (conveniently, political opponents) as though they were the problem...because they did *exactly what you admit to having done*.
I would ask if you realized how absurd and hypocritical that outlook of yours was if there wasn't ample experience telling me you would easily shrug it off.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I love that Stephen describes the place as full of arch-conservatives. Really? Where?
I can think of some folk who are more conservative than the previous average, maybe (but not necessarily the average from even further back)... But arch conservatives? That's a harder sell. I'm not buying.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It's all relative.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'm surprised a post relaying Roddy White's questionable tweet was what rang the bell for you, others seemed to pick it up more quickly. But yeah, I figured the name Shiggles would have been a bit obvious.
I've been a good boy, though. I even requested a name change from Blackblade once everyone shut up about it for a couple days.
I'm sorry for my previous actions on the board, but I wasn't kidding about a lot of what I said back then. My mental state was...questionable. What can I say? I apologize.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I'm kind of ashamed I didn't come to this conclusion from that 4th of July thread. It's like watching The Prestige. Its a cool plot twist, but you feel like an idiot for not seeing it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, twigged to it pretty quick, then questioned it because of the new politeness. Then reaffirmed it in the 4th thread; A brit living in the US with familiar opinions.
Frankly I didn't think you we're a "bad" boy before. Wrong about plenty of stuff, absolutely. Blunt and utterly uninterested in people's feelings? Roger. But I disagreed with the assessment of you as a pure troll, then and now.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Man, I want to watch the prestige again.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Frankly I didn't think you we're a "bad" boy before.
you must have missed a lot.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
We have had our fair share of archconservatives. We still have some here today. Few of them will admit being archconservative (and I'm ultimately pleased for the reasons why) so it's a useless endeavor to expect an affirmative response to the label, especially when most people who otherwise could perhaps be considered archconservative simply don't speak their mind on divisive political issues here anymore and feel that they need a much more safe space to admit their positions.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I thought this comment from Tim Freeman (CNN) to be the most accurate assessment of the situation.
quote:And since people on both sides seemed to have decided the case before the testimony was heard, the verdict was bound to be disturbing no matter how it tilted. Simply put, preconceived notions effectively had people watching two different trials, with every bit of testimony and evidence producing different, and often opposing, reactions in those dueling audiences.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That about sums up how I feel about it.
I hate show trials. They become media spectacles where we try the case in our minds based on our world view and perceptions. It has nothing to do with the rule of law or evidence.
In reality, none of know what really happened in that courtroom, let alone what really happened on that street one night. So to call this either a confirmation or travesty of justice...no one has any idea what they are talking about.
I have my gut instincts about what this case means and what happened. But I think the public reaction to the case is where our national conversation should be. But we won't have that conversation. We've been avoiding it for a long, long time.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This was not a "show trial" that had nothing to do with the rule of law or evidence.
If anything the (in my opinion correct) verdict against Zimmerman is actually quite specifically a considerably important commentary on the state of Florida law — which is by all accounts pretty terrible — and ideas like castle doctrine, stand your ground, and the notion that if you get into a fight with someone in the way it probably went down with Zimmerman, and you're in a state where self-defense is something the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, you're honestly better off shooting the black kid so that they can't testify, and you can then put that "bloodthirsty thug" on trial as opposed to yourself and create a scenario in which a jury pretty much has to say he deserved to die.
The "greater national condition" however is that this is a world in which black kids need to learn about their potentially fatal or criminally persecutable condition of being a negro (a study on Stand Your Ground determined that the courts overwhelmingly preference its use as a defense to whites, so it's not something you can bank on if you're black) and where whole sections of the country have created a legal precedent in which in many circumstances if you start a fight your best legal option is to kill the other party so they cannot testify.
(don't do this if you're black though)
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
That is, of course, assuming that it was Zimmerman who started a physical altercation.
There should definitely be a conversation about profiling. Zimmerman was undoubtedly a dumbass in all of this. And I'll not be the one to say it shouldn't be enraging to be assumed a criminal or a thug because you're male and black.
That being said, that's not an excuse to assault someone. And yes, I know, that's on Zimmerman's word. But there's also not enough to show that Zimmerman laid hands on Martin first, certainly not enough to put him away on murder 2.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If anything the (in my opinion correct) verdict against Zimmerman is actually quite specifically a considerably important commentary on the state of Florida law — which is by all accounts pretty terrible — and ideas like castle doctrine, stand your ground,
Do you think the laws in most other states are also pretty terrible?
I ask because half the states have SYG laws and most of the ones that don't have some form of Castle Law. As do Britain, Israel, Italy and Australia. The few states that don't have Castle Law still uphold it through case law, they just don't legislate it.
If you don't like these laws, fine. I disagree but understand your position. Just don't single out Florida for something that is standard in US States and even internationally.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Steven, you are so frigging full of crap. By your own admission you came to this forum as a deliberate troll because you were angry at Card, and now you're gonna point at *other* people (conveniently, political opponents) as though they were the problem...because they did *exactly what you admit to having done*.
I would ask if you realized how absurd and hypocritical that outlook of yours was if there wasn't ample experience telling me you would easily shrug it off.
Oh, I don't necessarily mind that OSC accidentally ruined his own forum. I actually have mixed feelings about that. It's nice to see karma in action, so there's a little schadenfreude there. However, it really was a better place in most ways before the Lisa/KoM years, and it's not always fun to watch the ugliness go down up close, in real time, etc.. I don't have much appetite for seeing people be that small and ugly.
I was really hoping that people like me would make it into a joke of a forum, where nothing could be discussed seriously, full of almost nothing but non-mean-spirited court jester types. That was my vision. What it has really become is mostly what the arch-conservatives (and their bitter opponents) have turned it into. The goofy court jesters never showed up much, and/or they were more mean-spirited to everyone than I could stomach.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The media aspect of this was absolutely a show trial. I think the trial itself was legitimate, I think the media spectacle was horribly damaging to the country.
I know that's not the dictionary definition of a show trial, but I'm not sure what term you use for the media spectacle.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think the trial itself was legitimate...
Anything you do to a large grown man stalking you at night with a gun is legit, IMHO. Therefore, anything Trayvon did was legit, and Zimmerman took advantage of a terrible, terrible law to get away with murdering a boy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, steven, at least you're a convenient prop with which to point out to various folks here that I haven't actually 'made up my mind' or are tribally loyal or mired in deceit or so on and so forth because...
You've got no way of knowing if Zimmerman murdered Martin. None at all. Also your casual misuse of 'legal' illustrates that some folks shouldn't be let out of the house to gab about current events-it's ridiculous to say something is legal in your opinion when that opinion flatly contradicts, you know, *the law*.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, steven, at least you're a convenient prop with which to point out to various folks here that I haven't actually 'made up my mind' or are tribally loyal or mired in deceit or so on and so forth because...
You've got no way of knowing if Zimmerman murdered Martin. None at all. Also your casual misuse of 'legal' illustrates that some folks shouldn't be let out of the house to gab about current events-it's ridiculous to say something is legal in your opinion when that opinion flatly contradicts, you know, *the law*.
I used the word "legit". Had I meant a different word, I'd have used one.
You're not so great with the reading comprehension, are you?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
rakeesh i'll make you a puppet rakeesh if you're going to be needing one soon
quote:Do you think the laws in most other states are also pretty terrible?
generally yes. some states are worse than others. florida is one of the worst. they have some of the shittiest lawmakers this side of venezuela
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If by 'legit' you meant 'morally acceptable' and absolutely nothing else, then my bad, I was mistaken.
Now, that said, you've got...what basis, exactly for your certainty that Zimmerman murdered Martin? I mean I notice you mysteriously totally avoided addressing that point. I realize we're not out on the street where you can karate chop anything you didn't like with your leet martial arts skills, but if you could get around to it that'd be great.
Or did your reading comprehension skills just miss that central question?
Sheesh. This is a rhetorical exercise. I have a much higher degree of certainty why you didn't respond to that question than you do that Zimmerman murdered Martin. You know why too, Steven-because you were talking out of your ass, once again making all kinds of people on your side of the issue cringe in embarrassment and hope they don't get challenged with your blathering.
I just had some fun pointing out what a hack you are, steven, but for the record I will dig in wrist-deep into some crow if you can offer anything to substantiate your certainty.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Well it's not over yet. The DOJ is stepping in to determine if federal prosecutors should file criminal civil rights charges.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I feel like this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. This guy killed somebody and now he's basically a celebrity. Or maybe it's better to say he's infamous. Either way, he's on talk shows and being talked about and everyone knows who he is. I really don't like that about the media. They latch onto these stories and the person becomes so famous that it makes me wonder how long it will take for people to start doing these kinds of things just so that they can get into the spotlight, too. I mean, look at Jodie Arias. She has her own lifetime movie!
If the public's reaction to this trial is any indication of how Zimmerman is going to be treated, he should be terrified. There are a lot of fanatics out there who would love to get ahold of this guy. I'd be terrified if I were in his position.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Zimmerman isn't just a person accused of a crime. He represents a test of what can happen under Stand Your Ground. He's an indictment of the legislation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I'd be terrified if I were in his position.
Yeah he's now like an amped-up version of the Joe Horn controversy. And, much like Joe Horn, Zimmerman won't sleep easy anymore.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Zimmerman isn't just a person accused of a crime. He represents a test of what can happen under Stand Your Ground. He's an indictment of the legislation.
The defense didn't end up invoking SYG. It was a run-of-the-mill Self Defense um.. defense.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Yeah he's now like an amped-up version of the Joe Horn controversy. And, much like Joe Horn, Zimmerman won't sleep easy anymore.
Well his brother did go on national TV to express his concern that someone might take the law into their own hands and shoot him.
. . .
[ July 15, 2013, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, for his own sake, Zimmerman should really keep his brother out of the national media.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Zimmerman isn't just a person accused of a crime. He represents a test of what can happen under Stand Your Ground. He's an indictment of the legislation.
The defense didn't end up invoking SYG. It was a run-of-the-mill Self Defense um.. defense.
Interesting, I hadn't heard that.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
If one was intent on "getting back" at Zimmerman (to be clear: I am not), they could follow him around all day hurling insults, attempting to provoke a fight.
If Zimmerman did ever break and attempt to attack the provocateur, that person can then shoot him. Would make for an interesting case.
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
"I feared for my life officer, you know he's killed before, it was obviously an imminent threat to life and limb..."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
"These assholes always get away"
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
If they "follow him around all day," that really is stalking.
But if various people just reconize him on sight and insult him when they see him, sure. You don't have a right not to be annoyed by people.
Anyway, if he attempted to physically assault someone who was doing that, I certainly hope they would defend themselves, which may include shooting him. What's the problem?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: If one was intent on "getting back" at Zimmerman (to be clear: I am not), they could follow him around all day hurling insults, attempting to provoke a fight.
If Zimmerman did ever break and attempt to attack the provocateur, that person can then shoot him. Would make for an interesting case.
Are you suggesting that the scenario you've describe is approximately what happened the night Zimmerman shot Martin?
Regardless, I think anyone stupid enough to try and murder Zimmerman is too stupid to find him, let alone orchestrate such a deceitful attack. Were they able to kill him, but get caught after, they better pray to God they don't get defense lawyers as incompetent as the prosecution in the Zimmerman trial.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Are you suggesting that the scenario you've describe is approximately what happened the night Zimmerman shot Martin?
Not really.
I do think the precedent, had Zimmerman not been charged with a crime, might have led to copycats from white supremacists. It'd be really easy to follow around a young tough looking minority every night and just legally kill the ones who attack you. Which many would.
But since they arrested him and tried him for a few months, that at least limits how frequently one could pull off that trick.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I do think the precedent, had Zimmerman not been charged with a crime, might have led to copycats from white supremacists. It'd be really easy to follow around a young tough looking minority every night and just legally kill the ones who attack you. Which many would.
But since they arrested him and tried him for a few months, that at least limits how frequently one could pull off that trick. [/QB]
That's just nonsensical. Unless you're saying Zimmerman was somehow plugged into a network of white supremacists? Nobody would have ever heard of GZ if he *hadn't* been charged and the trial made into a national spectacle.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF:
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I do think the precedent, had Zimmerman not been charged with a crime, might have led to copycats from white supremacists. It'd be really easy to follow around a young tough looking minority every night and just legally kill the ones who attack you. Which many would.
But since they arrested him and tried him for a few months, that at least limits how frequently one could pull off that trick.
That's just nonsensical. Unless you're saying Zimmerman was somehow plugged into a network of white supremacists? Nobody would have ever heard of GZ if he *hadn't* been charged and the trial made into a national spectacle. [/QB]
IIRC, everyone heard of GZ originally because he wasn't charged with murder and wasn't being put on trial for the incident.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
My bad, you're correct. I had personally never heard of him until he was formally charged.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Interesting, but it's a very one sided story. I'm not saying it's wrong, just doesn't even make an attempt to explore the other side. Doing a little digging, I found this:
" An eyewitness, who appeared on camera but has requested anonymity, said that he did not hear any threat in the seconds before Scott killed Ables. The witness was pumping gas and standing 15 feet away from Ables when a bullet ricocheted past him and struck his car. The bullet left a noticeable impression on the witness’s car.
As for Scott’s version of events, the witness said that if Ables had shouted or banged on the car, he would have heard it. “What drew my attention was the gunshot,” said the witness. “I just want to be sure that I do everything in my power that everything is fair. I care about it being fair,” he said. The Harris County sheriff’s department has not yet responded to Spero News’ request for any security footage of the shooting."
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
steven, all that really happened is that people laughed at you and Dr. Price, proved you wrong, and moved on.
You give yourself far too much credit...both for the strength of your opinions and your overall influence.
Seriously....name one other person here that actually cares what your opinions are, or takes you even a little bit seriously...
Yeah, I couldn't think of one either.
This place goes in cycles. I imagine a new one will start fairly soon. ::shrugs::
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If by 'legit' you meant 'morally acceptable' and absolutely nothing else, then my bad, I was mistaken.
Now, that said, you've got...what basis, exactly for your certainty that Zimmerman murdered Martin? I mean I notice you mysteriously totally avoided addressing that point. I realize we're not out on the street where you can karate chop anything you didn't like with your leet martial arts skills, but if you could get around to it that'd be great.
Or did your reading comprehension skills just miss that central question?
Sheesh. This is a rhetorical exercise. I have a much higher degree of certainty why you didn't respond to that question than you do that Zimmerman murdered Martin. You know why too, Steven-because you were talking out of your ass, once again making all kinds of people on your side of the issue cringe in embarrassment and hope they don't get challenged with your blathering.
I just had some fun pointing out what a hack you are, steven, but for the record I will dig in wrist-deep into some crow if you can offer anything to substantiate your certainty.
OK, not to get ugly here, but it's "murder" because he stalked and killed an unarmed kid. You may say that Zimmerman didn't get out of his car with murderous intent. Theoretically, yes, that's possible. But how probable is it? Surely he realized that a very common young-male response to being stalked at night is to evade the stalker, followed by ambushing the stalker if the evasion fails.
And that's assuming that Trayvon actually ambushed Zimmerman. Personally, I think he DID ambush him...and it is still worth a couple decades of prison time for Zimmerman, either way. Not as punishment, either, but rather as a matter of public safety. I doubt we're any safer because of this verdict. Zimmerman didn't learn any good lessons from all this, and probably other would-be vigilantes didn't either. I doubt there will be LESS deadly violence as a result of this verdict.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: steven, all that really happened is that people laughed at you and Dr. Price, proved you wrong, and moved on.
You give yourself far too much credit...both for the strength of your opinions and your overall influence.
Seriously....name one other person here that actually cares what your opinions are, or takes you even a little bit seriously...
Yeah, I couldn't think of one either.
This place goes in cycles. I imagine a new one will start fairly soon. ::shrugs::
Oh, I KNOW I had very little effect. That's OK with me, too, because I get to avoid guilt for the degeneration of the forum. I never did put a lot of energy into figuring out exactly HOW to troll, or what I wanted to accomplish, so I didn't accomplish much. And, like I said, I'm OK with that. You know what I mean, Vern?
And your cycles theory is hilarious...there's no getting back to the old days, because new patterns of rudeness and assuming-the-worst have taken over. These are patterns that are VERY dominant throughout the internet, and are far more robust.
I will say that the Ender's Game movie coming out is going to be a new day here...but not a GOOD one. It's going to be thousands of 12-year-old Aspergers' kids fresh off marathon sessions of Call of Duty, Red Bull, and Cheetos....fun stuff. ROFL
On another subject, though...if I had no effect on YOU specifically, why do you keep addressing me? You address me directly far more than any other poster except Rakeesh and Sam, and they post x50 what you do, these days. It's like you mainly show up here to refute me. And that doesn't jibe with the "steven had nothing important to say, nor any effect on me personally" line of BS that you're pushing. ROFL
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
in what universe do rakeesh and I post fifty times as much as kwea
quote:And your cycles theory is hilarious...there's no getting back to the old days, because new patterns of rudeness and assuming-the-worst have taken over.
yeah right, this place is way better than it was two or three years ago
also: people aren't showing up specifically to refute you, you just make posts which easily attract refutation from some people. the extra attention that bad posting generates doesn't imply anything more than that it attracts this attention
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: in what universe do rakeesh and I post fifty times as much as kwea
quote:And your cycles theory is hilarious...there's no getting back to the old days, because new patterns of rudeness and assuming-the-worst have taken over.
yeah right, this place is way better than it was two or three years ago
also: people aren't showing up specifically to refute you, you just make posts which easily attract refutation from some people. the extra attention that bad posting generates doesn't imply anything more than that it attracts this attention
Well sam, it took you about 8 or 9 days to make your last 50 posts, and Rakeesh is pretty much exactly the same, as far as numbers.
It took Kwea about 4.5 months to contribute 50 posts.
So you're right, it's not x50. It's about x15 or x16, roughly. I'd say those numbers still support my point, though, wouldn't you?
As far as refuting goes, Kwea is the only person who still talks about Dr. Price here. I haven't mentioned Dr. Price (without someone else bringing him up first), except as a joke, in at least 5 or 6 years. There's nothing to refute. I almost never talk about nutrition here. I jump in on other peoples' nutrition threads about once every two years on average, and even then, I don't mention Price. Why should I? The paleo diet is getting bigger and bigger, and I simply eat a raw version of that. "Paleo diet" is a far easier reference point for most Americans to grasp.
And as far as refuting goes...Kwea doesn't follow anyone else around this forum except me. In fact, noone else except Rakeesh follows me around on this forum, and even then, it's only right after I make a personal crack about him.
It's not refuting. Kwea is the one who keeps bringing up Dr. Price. I don't even know what he thinks he's refuting. The paleo diet? That's a tall order. Lots of people are gluten-sensitive, and a diet with moderate amounts of meat, fish, fruit, and some veggies (and no junk food, soft drinks, etc.) is hard to argue with.
Maybe he thinks he's refuting the raw diet. That's fine. I don't eat 100% raw, probably more like 98% or so. I mainly avoid cooking my food so I can maximize my aerobic capacity. It's possible that steaming would not cause the same aerobic issues that heavier cooking methods do, I just haven't bothered to try it.
In all fairness, it's possible that steamed brown rice might be a problem-free addition to my diet, or even most raw foodists' diets. Again, I just haven't tried it. My main concern would be slightly faster aging, as well as reduced aerobic capacity, but there aren't enough people trying a "paleo (or raw paleo) plus steamed brown rice" diet to really know, as far as I am aware.
I think he thought I meant (in one of my posts on the previous page) that my Dr. Price threads were trolling, but they were not intended to be so. I felt I had spread misinformation back in 2001 when I posted about raw veganism, and I sought to correct that. That was my main motivation for those threads, plus the desire to "spread the good news" (yeah, I'm aware it's irritating), and the desire to discuss nutrition/diet in general, hoping to find someone who had already run across all these ideas, and who wasn't one of the mindless followers in the alternative nutrition online forum world.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Oh, and I agree, Sam, that this place is far better with Lisa and KoM gone. What of it? You weren't around from 2000-2005 or so, so you wouldn't know how much more supportive this place was, and how much LESS assuming-the-worst-of-your-opponent went on.
That's not coming back. It's a delicate flower, and it's dead, dried, and stuck in the leaves of a scrapbook somewhere.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I almost never talk about nutrition here.
I am going to ask that you really severely reconsider this statement.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I almost never talk about nutrition here.
I am going to ask that you really severely reconsider this statement.
Well that was hilarious. I'm not totally sure how it applied to this situation, but I LOL'd.
then get outside THE BOX man
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: then get outside THE BOX man
Yeah, I was kind of hoping that someone had dramatized that particular xkcd strip, when I first saw the title of the video.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I almost never talk about nutrition here.
I am going to ask that you really severely reconsider this statement.
Point out 5 different threads where I engage in a nutrition discussion, from the last 3 years. Just 5.
You mean five threads where you talk about nutrition, right? Or .. are you shifting the goalposts on purpose?
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
It's kind of like a credit score though.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I almost never talk about nutrition here.
I am going to ask that you really severely reconsider this statement.
Point out 5 different threads where I engage in a nutrition discussion, from the last 3 years. Just 5.
You mean five threads where you talk about nutrition, right? Or .. are you shifting the goalposts on purpose?
Actually, I'll make it even easier for your overconfident, inaccurate self. Find three threads. I challenge you to find more than three threads in the last 3 years.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Sam, just wondering, how in the HECK do you define "almost never talk about 'x' here"? I'd say "less than once a year" or "less than once in a hundred posts" would be a pretty good example, wouldn't you?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
And I wait while Sam feverishly uses the search function, trying SO HARD to prove me wrong...ROFL
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I can see Sam arriving at a forum for the first time in his life, and then getting into this kind of year-post histroy thing after participating in like five threads.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: I can see Sam arriving at a forum for the first time in his life, and then getting into this kind of year-post histroy thing after participating in like five threads.
Rakeesh in about 7 threads.
Those boys own a timeshare in the Box.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Calm down, geezer. I haven't even looked yet. Not that the goalposts you set have anything to do with the fact that you still discuss nutrition on this forum.
Also the box thing was always dumb enough I kind of hoped you'd start trying to use it on me. I am pleased. Tonight is a bellweather night.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: I can see Sam arriving at a forum for the first time in his life, and then getting into this kind of year-post histroy thing after participating in like five threads.
Rakeesh in about 7 threads.
Those boys own a timeshare in the Box.
Don't think I've ever noticed Rakeesh really do that. But I'm probably wrong.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah ok I just threw 'nutri' and 'food' together in an and/or for the search and then picked whatever it came up with for that alone
and this thread that you are currently discussing nutrition in now
I dunno that's already outside your threshold so I'll stop there, I remember a couple of recent other examples but horray i already won? or whatever? — I'd rather just hear you walk around this. Maybe you'll say there's a sort of a specific threshold you think has to be achieved in terms of response and counterresponse before it counts about you 'talking about nutrition' who even knows.
point is, when you're around, there's always a good chance you will engage on the subject of nutrition as a total percentage of your energies here, so saying you almost never do (while talking nutrition, natch) is kinda silly.
in addition
quote:So you're right, it's not x50. It's about x15 or x16, roughly. I'd say those numbers still support my point, though, wouldn't you?
nope
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Wow, you found 3 threads from the last 3 years. So it looks like I discuss it all the time, right?
Oh wait.
dude, you need to step away from this forum for a bit. You are far too emotionally invested, and that's some friendly advice.
If you disagree, think about what just happened. I went from posting mostly about to nutrition to posting in maybe 1 thread a year about it. Yet you still took the time to try to prove me wrong. Why? Because you had a tremendous misperception about how much I actually post about it? Maybe...Or maybe it's also because you're far, far too invested in tiny little details of the behavior of members you don't like here.
Oh, and I hate when people do this, but...you're intelligent enough to get this right, so....it's "bellwether", not "bellweather". If I were a more patient person, I'd have tried to work that word into my post in a less obvious way, but...
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Wow, you found 3 threads from the last 3 years. So it looks like I discuss it all the time, right?
Actually, 3 threads from this year alone.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:dude, you need to step away from this forum for a bit. You are far too emotionally invested, and that's some friendly advice.
get out of the box steven!!
quote:Wow, you found 3 threads from the last 3 years. So it looks like I discuss it all the time, right?
i provided four examples, with literally the first search terms i put in.
then i stopped, because i had already surpassed the number of examples you thought i couldn't find. THRESHOLD CLEAR
setting an easy (arbitrary) challenge for me to surpass and then being smug about my having surpassed it is an odd choice!
[ July 27, 2013, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Mentioning that someone probably has a food intolerance isn't exactly droning on about Dr. Price. Making a couple of short, moderate posts about GMOs isn't either. That first thread you linked is an excellent example of my nutrition obession, but a terrible example of me droning on about Dr. Price.
But keep proving my point, I guess...
You do realize that, if anything, you're probably bringing more people to pay attention to what I'm saying about nutrition, right? The less you argue with me on this, the less people will notice what I've actually said about it. If you/Kwea really wanted to effectively reduce the amount of attention my nutrition posts get, you'd completely ignore them, and make no reference to them at all.
And I know you know that, but, even knowing that, you still can't stop yourselves. Either of you.
Now what does that say? ROFL
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I'm literally laughing at the fact that you simply do not have what it takes to reduce your obsession with this forum. On a more serious note, though, I don't think that's going to help you in the long run. Be aware that there are other hobbies/activities you can spend time on.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Mentioning that someone probably has a food intolerance isn't exactly droning on about Dr. Price.
ok, did i say you were droning on about dr. price, or are you mistaking other people and/or puppets for me again?
gonna go with puppets. stop talking to puppets steven, get out of the box steven
quote:You do realize that, if anything, you're probably bringing more people to pay attention to what I'm saying about nutrition, right? The less you argue with me on this, the less people will notice what I've actually said about it. If you/Kwea really wanted to effectively reduce the amount of attention my nutrition posts get, you'd completely ignore them, and make no reference to them at all.
where are you getting that i care about how much attention your posts about nutrition get, no seriously: do you have some kind of postopagnosia and are confusing other words i didn't write for my position again
what is this
quote:I'm literally laughing at the fact that you simply do not have what it takes to reduce your obsession with this forum. On a more serious note, though, I don't think that's going to help you in the long run. Be aware that there are other hobbies/activities you can spend time on.
i was literally unaware that i could do other things in life besides type posts on a forum, thank you wise guru!
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Mentioning that someone probably has a food intolerance isn't exactly droning on about Dr. Price.
ok, did i say you were droning on about dr. price, or are you mistaking other people and/or puppets for me again?
gonna go with puppets. stop talking to puppets steven, get out of the box steven
quote:You do realize that, if anything, you're probably bringing more people to pay attention to what I'm saying about nutrition, right? The less you argue with me on this, the less people will notice what I've actually said about it. If you/Kwea really wanted to effectively reduce the amount of attention my nutrition posts get, you'd completely ignore them, and make no reference to them at all.
where are you getting that i care about how much attention your posts about nutrition get, no seriously: do you have some kind of postopagnosia and are confusing other words i didn't write for my position again
what is this
quote:I'm literally laughing at the fact that you simply do not have what it takes to reduce your obsession with this forum. On a more serious note, though, I don't think that's going to help you in the long run. Be aware that there are other hobbies/activities you can spend time on.
i was literally unaware that i could do other things in life besides type posts on a forum, thank you wise guru!
Are you joking? Are you really THIS INVOLVED with what happens here?
If it's not about me droning on about Dr. Price, then what's even the point? So I've posted, in passing, about nutrition a few times over the last 3-5 years (and once in more depth, on the first thread you linked.). what is remarkable about it? Why is it worthy of comment? It's not like I'm spamming thread after thread. I haven't started any nutrition threads in at least 6 years or more. I very occasionally comment in someone else's thread, and usually in passing, with that one exception.
If you don't think Hatrackers have at least half a brain and/or are not able to do their own thinking for themsels, then...why are you hanging out here? it doesn't sound like you have much respect for the locals. Do you believe they need you to do their thinking for them? ROFL
Yeah, see, that's the issue that you're inevitably going to run into. either
1. You think hatrackers need you to do their thinking for them, or
2.you think my nutrition posting is excessive in amount (not supported by the evidence, IMO, but whatever), or
3. you think my nutrition posting so expertly weaves truth and dangerous lies together as to be something to be constantly on guard against (which is really just #1 again), or
4. You are way too involved in this forum.
I'm betting on 4 with a side of 1. What do you think? Before you answer Sam, recognize that, though I have many flaws, I'm also a lot older, and have a lot more life experience. I know things that there's simply no way for someone in your position to know. I've watched myself go through many-years-long arcs in many areas of my life, as well as watched other people go through similar arcs. There is some life wisdom that comes from that. Even old jerks and fools have more wisdom (and usually compassion) than the average person in their early 20s.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Steven, you're aware you're speaking to just one person, right?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Steven, you're aware you're speaking to just one person, right?
I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that you may be found in the Box, sir.
I plead the Box.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm not gone. I just lost interest in most of the topics now discussed here.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Just push the button Rak, I'm sure steven's going to be the person who bites it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Are you joking? Are you really THIS INVOLVED with what happens here?
If it's not about me droning on about Dr. Price, then what's even the point? So I've posted, in passing, about nutrition a few times over the last 3-5 years (and once in more depth, on the first thread you linked.). what is remarkable about it? Why is it worthy of comment? It's not like I'm spamming thread after thread. I haven't started any nutrition threads in at least 6 years or more. I very occasionally comment in someone else's thread, and usually in passing, with that one exception.
If you don't think Hatrackers have at least half a brain and/or are not able to do their own thinking for themsels, then...why are you hanging out here? it doesn't sound like you have much respect for the locals. Do you believe they need you to do their thinking for them? ROFL
Yeah, see, that's the issue that you're inevitably going to run into. either
1. You think hatrackers need you to do their thinking for them, or
2.you think my nutrition posting is excessive in amount (not supported by the evidence, IMO, but whatever), or
3. you think my nutrition posting so expertly weaves truth and dangerous lies together as to be something to be constantly on guard against (which is really just #1 again), or
4. You are way too involved in this forum.
I'm betting on 4 with a side of 1. What do you think? Before you answer Sam, recognize that, though I have many flaws, I'm also a lot older, and have a lot more life experience. I know things that there's simply no way for someone in your position to know. I've watched myself go through many-years-long arcs in many areas of my life, as well as watched other people go through similar arcs. There is some life wisdom that comes from that. Even old jerks and fools have more wisdom (and usually compassion) than the average person in their early 20s.
who are you talking to. Are you talking to just me, or some weird collection of other posters that you have kind of jumbled up in your head and assume you can address using me as their avatar?
I am impressed to see an Appeal to Oldness, though. "You're younger than me, what could you know?" got old after the first 72 tries to bolster your ethos or credibility with it.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Between Obama's name, Aris' race-baiting, and steven's views on nutrition, this has to be one of the most derailed threads on such a hot topic Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
In fairness to me, I asked for a name change 2(3?) weeks ago. The ball's out of my court on that one. I actually used my real email address for this account, not a throwaway, and I like to keep things centralized, so what other options do I have?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: Even old jerks and fools have more wisdom (and usually compassion) than the average person in their early 20s
In my more compassionate and wise age of twenty-five (as compared to when I started) I can see now that I come here for the hack comedy rather than the intelligent discourse. Please proceed as if we are laughing with you, not at you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama: In fairness to me, I asked for a name change 2(3?) weeks ago. The ball's out of my court on that one. I actually used my real email address for this account, not a throwaway, and I like to keep things centralized, so what other options do I have?
McCain
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Hilary Clinton.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ron Paul Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
George Bush III
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Very funny.
What I meant was, what options do I have other then to wait until the admin changes my name? I've requested Heisenberg or Dioxide.
Actually, George Bush III is kind of funny, but...nah.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote: Aris' race-baiting
What do you mean by "race-baiting"?
You know, Gaal, when Tom mentioned my name in connection to "race-baiting" his meaning was that I was wrongly accusing *others* of "race-baiting". (to which I responded that I don't use the word because I'm not clear on what it means)
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I apologize. I skimmed over those posts, I only remembered your name being connected to race-baiting.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)