quote:I'm rather more interested in this specific situation- you know, an armed adult confronts an unarmed minor and shoots him.
Being armed is a right in the United States.
Shooting someone without justification is not a right. Shooting someone, in general, is not a right. Defending oneself, in a given limited set of reasonable circumstances, is a right. These reasonable circumstances have yet to be established, and I remain highly dubious that they will be.
quote: And being a "minor" means less than nothing when the minor is physically stronger than the adult (as a 17-year old footballer is stronger than a fat 30-year old).
No, I'm afraid it means more than nothing, rather a lot, that a grown man in his late twenties, carrying a deadly weapon, approached a young man who was not an adult, when he was advised by police not to do so, and that he subsequently shot that minor to death in the street. I find the fact that this young man was a minor to be significant.
quote:As for me, I consider it of a very low prior probability that deliberate murderers call the police beforehand.
I have not accused Zimmerman of deliberate murder. I have implied that he was negligent, and reckless, and that he may very well have caused, through his negligence and recklessness, the death of a minor. Don't you dare make this about me calling him a murderer. That's beyond low.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, you've still not replied to my question. Saying a simple "yes" "no" "depends" isn't that difficult, so at this point, I have to assume you're deliberately evading to reply.
And therefore I have to call BULLSHIT, on the idea that what I'm talking about being such a "strawman" -- you *really* don't care about whether Trey initiated violence or not, you really don't care about whether Zimmerman was in legitimate self-defense or not.
quote:Please, Aris, tell us more about how bad white people have it re: racism, wouldya?
Well in this particular case, a particular white person has it bad enough that the media deliberately distorted his words in order to make him appear racist, to pretend that he said "This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black." instead of "This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about."
In regards to this particular story, this is MUCH MUCH MORE RELEVANT that any other nonsense you care to talk about. He's white, and he happened to have killed a black kid, so let's all pretend that he must be a racist.
This was evident in the very first post of this thread also. Are you telling me that Samprimary's initial post wasn't heavily biased in favour of this white dude being a racist that was looking for "young black men" to hunt down and kill?
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have not accused Zimmerman of deliberate murder. I have implied that he was negligent, and reckless, and that he may very well have caused, through his negligence and recklessness, the death of a minor.
Neither you nor anyone else here used either the words "negligence" nor the words "recklessness" -- or I may very well have agreed with you wholeheartedly.
This thread, judging from its first post, is about Zimmerman wanting "to kill someone and get away with it".
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
eheh. I *implied* that he was negligent and reckless. Neither did I once say the word murder, murderer, or deliberate murder until you brought it up.
This thread, judging from its *content,* is about someone *having* killed someone, and gotten away with it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The issue, if one is interested in using common sense, is not whether Zimmerman is a murderer. The ISSUE is, is he stable/calm enough to be allowed back out on the street?
Hell no. And we all know it, too.
This isn't a situation where we don't know who was involved. There are plenty of murders that happen where people are acquitted because we're not absolutely sure who did it. We know EXACTLY who was there that night.
If Zimmerman was 3 feet tall, and 55 pounds, and wheelchair bound, and for certain could never get a gun again, I wouldn't care if he was on the streets or not.
None of those things are TRUE, though. He could walk into a gun show TOMORROW and pick up 50 or 100 guns, if he wanted. For that matter, he probably has supporters who would GIVE him FREE guns.
Even if you took away all his guns, and made it impossible for him to legally buy more, Zimmmerman is not the type to take that as a sign from God that he SHOULDN'T own guns. If he wanted one, he'd just go buy it, legal or not. That's my guess, anyway.
I think the whole thing's a tragedy, but we're not going to solve anything by letting him back out on the streets.
I have a feeling this is going to end up like the Casey Anthony situation, though.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yes, I'd like to see him go to jail. Maybe the Muslim Brotherhood would "educate" him re: respecting members of other races. Heh.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, not a fan of taking pleasure in prison violence. Which is a pretty stupid thing to wish for re: racial justice, given how much more likely it is that blacks will be victims of prison violence than whites, given disproportionate incarceration rates.
--------
Aris, I didn't answer yes or no to your absurd question because it was a dishonest one. I don't think you *actually believe* I don't care if Zimmerman was defending himself, that he was in the wrong no matter what happened. I simply don't think you're that stupid. I didn't answer the question because it was about a claim I never made and never suggested, either. How about I demand an answer from you that, I don't know, you tell me yes or no if cancer is bad! Now! Or I call BS!
As for the first post, read it again. And as for how bad Zimmerman's got it, how's about this for bad? When he roughed up a cop, the charges were dropped. Didn't impact his concealed permit. When he got into domestic trouble with his wife, and she filed a restraining order, didn't impact the permit. When he made dozens and dozens of 911 calls for non-emergencies, didn't impact his permit. When he elected to appoint himself the armed patrolman of his neighborhood watch, not even recognized by police, didn't impact his permit.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yeah, not a fan of taking pleasure in prison violence.
I'd rather it happen in prison than out here. Unless he hides for a LOOOONG time, some angry brother will kill him, unless he goes to prison.
Wherein he will ALSO be killed by an angry brother, unless he is in protective custody the entire time.
Would he DESERVE protective custody?
What about child molesters in prison? They get protective custody in prison. Do they deserve it?
I'm not saying there are easy answers. It's a discussion forum, and I certainly haven't come to my final conclusions on this subject yet, or hopefully on anything.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ugh, what on Earth are you talking about? Anybody in danger of being hurt deserves protective custody in prison. Prisoners have rights.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is an easy question: prison violence is bad, and we should care more about preventing it. Not just because they do or don't deserve it (which is so often a dangerous question-what do you deserve, or I? What does, for example, a child born addicted to crack deserve, so maybe let's cut the crap about 'deserve'), but preventing peope from being beaten and raped really SHOULD be something we try to prevent wherever it happens, especially when incarcerate someone...but it's also bad because it harms society. Tell me, Drummer, do you think someone who has been shanked or raped while in prison is more likely, as likely, or less likely to exit prison a nonviolent citizen?
There. Easy question.
It's also odd to revel in the idea of someone getting him, given how it's not unlikely he'd y'know shoot first and ask questions later!
------
Aris: no. That's a 'no' to answering your question, btw, not an answer itself. You know the answer. Your trap is incredibly feeble and silly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka is right, 911 dispatch isn't the police.
To be fair, though, it is in the minds of most people, and the police would very likely not told him to follow Martin. Or, well, they shouldn't but Sanford police are...sketchy sometimes, as it turns out.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Ugh, what on Earth are you talking about? Anybody in danger of being hurt deserves protective custody in prison. Prisoners have rights.
I was just raising the question. Did you read my whole post? I SAID I don't think there are easy answers.
But, for that matter, have you heard of Polly Klaas? Does HER killer deserve protective custody? And I'm not saying he does or doesn't. I'm raising the question.
Here's a quote from the wiki , just to stir the pot:
"A San Jose, California, Superior Court jury recommended the death sentence for Davis on August 5, 1996. After the verdict was read, Davis stood and gestured obscenely at the courtroom with both hands. Later, at his formal sentencing, Davis read a statement claiming that Klaas had said to Davis, "Just don’t do me like my dad," just before Davis killed her, implying that Klaas' father was a child molester. "
What does he deserve? Again, I'm raising the question, not providing my conclusions. My mind is open.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, you just laughed about how maybe the Muslim Brotherhood would school Zimmerman in prison about race relations.
Tell us again about how your mind isn't made up, you're just raising the question. See if you can keep a straight face.
But even if you were 'just raising the question', it's an easy one: we don't torture people, or countenance others doing it for us, or at least we shouldn't. We become worse human beings when we do it or permit it to be done. Open and shut. I don't really care if someone thinks an awful, despicable child molester being raped and beaten on a daily or weekly basis for decades is a good thing. I don't care that if it had happened to me or particularly a child of mine, I might very well relish that happening. It's wrong.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It is an easy question: prison violence is bad, and we should care more about preventing it. Not just because they do or don't deserve it (which is so often a dangerous question-what do you deserve, or I? What does, for example, a child born addicted to crack deserve, so maybe let's cut the crap about 'deserve'), but preventing peope from being beaten and raped really SHOULD be something we try to prevent wherever it happens, especially when incarcerate someone...but it's also bad because it harms society. Tell me, Drummer, do you think someone who has been shanked or raped while in prison is more likely, as likely, or less likely to exit prison a nonviolent citizen?
There. Easy question.
It's also odd to revel in the idea of someone getting him, given how it's not unlikely he'd y'know shoot first and ask questions later!
------
People get shanked in prison every day, though. And raped, and beaten, etc.. You're acting like it doesn't happen. The reality is, though, that people in protective custody are LESS likely to get attacked, which INCLUDES child molesters, and EXCLUDES people in for marijuana possession, or other petty non-violent crimes.
Again, just raising points, not offering conclusions.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
How on Earth am I acting as though it doesn't happen, Drummer? Where did I say or even hint at that?
And yes, there are easy answers. To some questions. This is one of them. I've explained why, whereas you chuckle at the idea of Zimmerman getting some racially charged prison violence. So don't get smug with me.
And just to demonstrate both how absurd and how dishonest your posts on this subject are: I note without surprise you didn't answer my question about what sort of ex-con a victim of prison violence is likely to be, I note that while you claim to just be raising questions and have an open mind, you already laughed at the idea of Zimmerman being targeted in prison, and finally that your mention of non-violent offenders is an obvious red herring. They shouldn't be in prison with violent offenders in the first place.
Hell, if we're gonna incarcerate for pot possession and dealing, I'm sure we could use something like inexpensive land maintenance or litter pickup or something, rather than confinement with violent felons.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Aris: no. That's a 'no' to answering your question, btw, not an answer itself. You know the answer. Your trap is incredibly feeble and silly.
Rakeesh, what is this "trap" you are talking about?
And, no, I don't know the answer. It's quite clear that there are exist a number of people who don't give a damn about whether Zimmerman was acting in self-defense or not -- "I Used To Be a Drummer" is clearly one of them, for example. So why should I have automatically assumed you are one of the people who do give a damn?
One of the things that "I Used to Be a Drummer" explained to you quite clearly though, is that because of anti-white racism in black gangs, Zimmerman will now effectively need to be in hiding for the rest of his life.
Regardless of whether he did anything illegal or not. Even if he was in perfectly legitimate self-defense.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: How on Earth am I acting as though it doesn't happen, Drummer? Where did I say or even hint at that?
And yes, there are easy answers. To some questions. This is one of them. I've explained why, whereas you chuckle at the idea of Zimmerman getting some racially charged prison violence. So don't get smug with me.
I'm not smug, brother. Unless he is in hiding outside of prison, or in protective custody inside, he will get killed by an angry brother. If the first angry brother failed, the next one wouldn't.
And like I said, I'd rather it happen IN prison than outside of prison. That's not because I'd rather him be in prison, although I would. It's because we're all safer out here if violence is confined to prison.
Are you planning to address my point about child molesters getting better protection than non-violent drug offenders? Again, on that matter, I'm just testing you, I'm not offering a final conclusion, my friend.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And just to demonstrate both how absurd and how dishonest your posts on this subject are: I note without surprise you didn't answer my question about what sort of ex-con a victim of prison violence is likely to be, I note that while you claim to just be raising questions and have an open mind, you already laughed at the idea of Zimmerman being targeted in prison, and finally that your mention of non-violent offenders is an obvious red herring. They shouldn't be in prison with violent offenders in the first place.
Hell, if we're gonna incarcerate for pot possession and dealing, I'm sure we could use something like inexpensive land maintenance or litter pickup or something, rather than confinement with violent felons.
I'm fine with incarcerating violent and non-violent offenders separately.
Do you have the money or political power to make it happen? For that matter, I don't think anybody does. Most of the wealthy/elderly/powerful people in this country don't care enough about non-violent offenders to protect them. It's also those same wealthy/elderly/powerful people who could actually change our prison system.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by I Used to Be a Drummer: I'm not smug, brother. Unless he is in hiding outside of prison, or in protective custody inside, he will get killed by an angry brother. If the first angry brother failed, the next one wouldn't.
posted
Aris, the fact is that Trayvon Martin wouldn't be dead if George Zimmerman hadn't decided to play amateur cop and follow him. "Legitimate self defense" is a little problematic when the guy claiming it is the person who initiated the confrontation.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by I Used to Be a Drummer: I'm not smug, brother. Unless he is in hiding outside of prison, or in protective custody inside, he will get killed by an angry brother. If the first angry brother failed, the next one wouldn't.
Uhm... wow...
I don't think you know just how angry many young black men are at Zimmerman. I don't think you have any idea at all, unless I've misunderstood your post.
I remember how older people used to act afraid of me on the street, when I was a young man. I dressed fairly well (I didn't look dirty/unkempt, anyway, just like a typical teenager/young adult dressed casually), and I acted completely innocuously, but I could see the fear in their eyes. They'd cross the street to avoid me, etc..
It saddened me. I wanted to allay their fears, tell them I wasn't a criminal. However, because I was a young male, and not in a suit/tie, I was automatically suspect. It really made me sad, and bewildered me.
Now that I'm older, I totally get it. I avoid young men too, out on the street. And I'm sure some of them feel sad and bewildered too, just like I did, back when I was a younger man.
How much worse must it be for young black men?
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you planning to address my point about child molesters getting better protection than non-violent drug offenders? Again, on that matter, I'm just testing you, I'm not offering a final conclusion, my friend.
I did address it: it's a BS question, you're in no position to test me, and I'm not your friend. I already said violent offenders shouldn't be incarcerated with violent ones-are you even reading? But, hey, since you're going on about unanswered questions, I'm still waiting to hear about the impact of prison violence on cons when they get out.
As for why prison violence happens, as much a reason as wealthy and influential apathy is the fact that most people are apathetic to prison violence period, or take pleasure in the idea like you (yes, you did). All that money and influence is used to buy advertising to persuade voters, but guess what? If those voters started out caring whether or not a convict is being beaten, stabbed, raped, killed, or all four on our dime, it might actually be an issue instead of something glossed over when it's noticed at all.
Next time you go on about how it'll never happen because fat cats don't want it, remember: you help make it happen when you hope for prison violence to exist for child molesters and Zimmermans.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now that I'm older, I totally get it. I avoid young men too, out on the street. And I'm sure some of them feel sad and bewildered too, just like I did, back when I was a younger man.
You shouldn't. That's not enough to merit a fearful response. If your only criteria is 'young man' to physically avoid them, you're not paying attention to other things that might matter more in terms of danger. Are they watching you, for example? Do they seem to be doing anything remarkable, aside from having been born male and lived for 15-25 years all in a row? Do they appear to just be loitering, or on their way somewhere? So on and so forth. By all means, keep your eyes on the young men just because they're young men (you as a man) with no other qualifier, and maybe you won't see the middle aged junkie looking to rob you, or you won't see that car weaving across lanes up the street, or you'll miss that big lump in the sidewalk.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by I Used to Be a Drummer:
quote:Originally posted by Corwin:
quote:Originally posted by I Used to Be a Drummer: I'm not smug, brother. Unless he is in hiding outside of prison, or in protective custody inside, he will get killed by an angry brother. If the first angry brother failed, the next one wouldn't.
Uhm... wow...
I don't think you know just how angry many young black men are at Zimmerman.
From that to thinking that there will be repeated attempts on Zimmerman's life is a huge step.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you planning to address my point about child molesters getting better protection than non-violent drug offenders? Again, on that matter, I'm just testing you, I'm not offering a final conclusion, my friend.
I did address it: it's a BS question, you're in no position to test me, and I'm not your friend. I already said violent offenders shouldn't be incarcerated with violent ones-are you even reading? But, hey, since you're going on about unanswered questions, I'm still waiting to hear about the impact of prison violence on cons when they get out.
As for why prison violence happens, as much a reason as wealthy and influential apathy is the fact that most people are apathetic to prison violence period, or take pleasure in the idea like you (yes, you did). All that money and influence is used to buy advertising to persuade voters, but guess what? If those voters started out caring whether or not a convict is being beaten, stabbed, raped, killed, or all four on our dime, it might actually be an issue instead of something glossed over when it's noticed at all.
Next time you go on about how it'll never happen because fat cats don't want it, remember: you help make it happen when you hope for prison violence to exist for child molesters and Zimmermans.
Let me ask a different question, then, since you did address the one I originally asked.
Let's say the impossible happens and non-violent and violent offenders are separated in prisons. Does Richard Allen Davis, killer of Polly Klaas, deserve the more expensive protection that he gets since he murdered a little girl?
I apologize if you think you already answered that.
And it's not my job to change the world. I'm one person, with very little money, and zero power to convince people of anything.
I also didn't SAY fat cats, exactly. "Fat cats" might mean people in their early 40s. I'm think more of elderly senators and congresspeople (and their elderly friends and donors) from rural/conservative states and districts.
The elderly automatically fear the young, anyway, and assume every man ages 16-23 is going to mug them. Their attitude is "well, they're ALL violent."
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now that I'm older, I totally get it. I avoid young men too, out on the street. And I'm sure some of them feel sad and bewildered too, just like I did, back when I was a younger man.
You shouldn't. That's not enough to merit a fearful response. If your only criteria is 'young man' to physically avoid them, you're not paying attention to other things that might matter more in terms of danger. Are they watching you, for example? Do they seem to be doing anything remarkable, aside from having been born male and lived for 15-25 years all in a row? Do they appear to just be loitering, or on their way somewhere? So on and so forth. By all means, keep your eyes on the young men just because they're young men (you as a man) with no other qualifier, and maybe you won't see the middle aged junkie looking to rob you, or you won't see that car weaving across lanes up the street, or you'll miss that big lump in the sidewalk.
Good point, but I cross the street so I don't HAVE to focus on them.
I worry about hurting their feelings, even when I do it. I often do my best to make it look like I'm NOT avoiding them, using body language and direction of gaze.
But just to be clear, the middle-aged junkie can't CATCH me, if I decide to run. I'm quite a good sprinter, for a white guy in his late 30s. ROFL
It's not young men like the kind I used to be that I am concerned about. It's more young men like the kind a few of my schoolmates used to be.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not impossible. It happens because people-such as yourself-abandon their responsibility as citizens of a representative government by saying 'I have no power, nothing I do matters, and it's not my job anyway'. Thirty years ago it would've been impossible to seriously consider equal rights for homosexuals. Eighty years ago equal rights for women was not much of a political mover. One hundred and fifty years ago, the idea that blacks might be peaceful, intelligent, productive members of society in America was an absurd dream. Four hundred years ago, the idea of not owing allegiance to a king or local noble from birth was bizarre.
And so on and so forth. These changes didn't happen because the wealthy and powerful wanted them to happen-quite the opposite. So I don't want to hear about how it's not you job or how you've no power. That's a cop-out. You just don't care very much, that's all.
Now as to your question about the killer: if he is in greater danger, he deserves more protection. Or more accurately, we are obligated to provide that protection, because he's under our charge. He's our prisoner, and that necessitates responsibilities. If we're not going to take serious steps towards making sure our prisoners can't do violence to one another, we ought either just kill them or release them.
And before you jump on that, no, we ought not kill or release them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You draw more attention to yourself by crossing the street than just by walking. Also, that middle aged junkie, he's not gonna challenge you to a 40 yd dash, loser gets mugged. He's gonna look for passersby who aren't paying attention and who stand out and who don't see them because that teen across the street is scary because teens are scary.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Under Florida law, you can be charged with assault if you threaten someone with bodily harm by word or action. It's aggravated assault if a deadly weapon is involved.
While we don't know exactly how the fight started between the two, we do know that Zimmerman was following Martin in order to apprehend him. He got out of his car to approach Martin and he was carrying a gun. I think a reasonable person could easily have believed those actions constituted a threat of bodily harm. I have been taught, in numerous self defense workshops, to interpret those exact actions as a threat.
The issue at hand is not whether or not Zimmerman should have been convicted, its whether or not he should have been arrested and charged. The appropriate standard for an arrest is not "beyond reasonable doubt" its "probable cause". We know more than enough about what happened to conclude that the fight between these two men most probably started because Zimmerman threatened (i.e assaulted) Martin.
I simply can't imagine that "stand your ground" laws mean its OK to assault someone and then kill them when they fight back. If they do, the laws are hideously unjust.
If the fight started because Zimmerman committed aggravated assault (which is the most probable case), it shouldn't matter whether or not Zimmerman was injured in the fight or whether he was screaming for help. Once you've assaulted someone, you are no longer innocently defending yourself. The most probable scenario is that Zimmerman assaulted Martin which lead to a fight which resulted in Martin's death. There was unquestionably probable cause for arresting Zimmerman.
I agree that we don't know all the facts. The most probable explanation is not always the correct one, that's why we have trials. But when it's known that someone has killed a 17 year boy in a fight they most likely started, they should be charged with a crime. The decision of whether or not they are guilty of said crime should be made in a proper trial where all sides of the story.
[ April 02, 2012, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
2. Has gotten older, and does the same thing to young men now.
I don't care if the middle-aged junkie accosts me. If he has a gun, he can have all my money/credit cards/iPhone. If he has a knife, and looks away for a second or two, or just looks fat and out-of-shape, I might make a break for it. Otherwise, I'll willingly give him all my stuff then, too.
It's the young man who worries me, precisely because younger people are much more excitable. The older man probably just wants the stuff. The younger man might get irrationally angry and still try to hurt me. That's my concern, anyway.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You draw more attention to yourself by crossing the street than just by walking. Also, that middle aged junkie, he's not gonna challenge you to a 40 yd dash, loser gets mugged. He's gonna look for passersby who aren't paying attention and who stand out and who don't see them because that teen across the street is scary because teens are scary.
Like I said, I cross the street so I don't HAVE to worry about the young man. Once we're on different sides of the street, I feel safe. I know I can outrun him if I see him coming from that distance. Well, I FEEL I probably can, anyway.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Aris, the fact is that Trayvon Martin wouldn't be dead if George Zimmerman hadn't decided to play amateur cop and follow him. "Legitimate self defense" is a little problematic when the guy claiming it is the person who initiated the confrontation.
I'm not really interested in commenting on the case itself, as I don't think enough facts are available.
But I sort of object to this sentiment. (Be aware, what follows is my opinion of what is moral, not what is legal.)
Behavior like following someone in a public space or otherwise making them uncomfortable is not justification for violence, whereas I think violence is a justification for violence in return.
That was a broad statement, so what I mean is: If I follow someone down a public sidewalk, or even follow them and call them names and otherwise act like a jerk, that doesn't give them the right to physically assault me. No matter how hurtful my words are, physical assault in response is unjustified and immoral in my opinion.
And if someone is physically assaulting you, I think you have the right to defend yourself by whatever means available, and I don't think that using a gun to stop someone from beating you up with their fists is immoral or unjustified.
So I don't think the idea that Zimmerman followed him, therefore he is responsible, is sensible. In a causal sense, yes, his doing so may have been the action that led to the following events, but my walking down a dark alley in a bad part of town might lead to me being mugged, and yet I don't think it's logical to say I bear the responsible for my being mugged. (Hey this reminds me of our other conversation!)
Just to reiterate, though: At the end of the day, my objection to this idea is broad and philosophical. I have no particular reason to think Trayvon was or was not the one who initiated physical violence. I don't know, and don't have an opinion on that.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This whole incident is a perfect example of why I'm so against
1. handguns (for cops or anyone else)
2. concealed carry laws.
Both those things had to be legal for this to happen.
Anybody who thinks Zimmerman got out of his car without violent intent is crazy or a fool. Technically yes it's theoretically possible he didn't...but only a fool or a crazy person would seriously entertain the possibility without a mountain of new evidence. A mountain.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The answer to the question as to what "anti white racism" from the people whose views have been similar/exactly the same as Aris on this issue tend to say it's "affirmative action denying more qualified white people from going to college". Of course I don't recall Aris saying this, so obviously we can't attribute this view to him.
IP: Logged |
posted
With that in mind, Dan, you really could kill someone and get away with it very easily in FL. You could kill dozens of people a day, really.
1) Get a gun. 2) Approach random young man on the street. Call him whatever insult you think is likely to provoke a fight. If he's black, use the N-word. 3) The young man will almost certainly attack you. 4) Shoot him dead. 5) Walk down the street a bit and repeat on the next young man you find.
It sounds like the above is all perfectly legal.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anybody who thinks Zimmerman got out of his car without violent intent is crazy or a fool. Technically yes it's theoretically possible he didn't...but only a fool or a crazy person would seriously entertain the possibility without a mountain of new evidence. A mountain.
Dude. It is very possible he didn't get out of that car intending violence. Would you quit it with the frankly ridiculous hyperbole?
(Still waiting for an answer to my question, btw. Though perhaps having insisted repeatedly that I didn't respond to yours when I did, I should expect no response?)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: If Trey *was* bashing Zimmerman's head on the ground, would you consider Zimmerman's shooting a justifiable act of self-defense, and therefore Zimmerman would be innocent of any criminal wrongdoing?
It just depends on how you get from point "A" to point "B". Where point "A" a kid with skittles is walking home from the store, and point "B" is a physical confrontation. And considering Zimmerman's actions (paroling the streets with a gun) I'd say that 99% of the time, the answer to your question is "No.". Even if Trey was beating Zimmerman's head on the ground, Zimmerman put himself into the situation by pursuing, confronting and in all likelihood assaulting an unarmed teenager who was minding his own business.
It's like if you were to strap on a meat suit and go wondering in bear infested hills, and then when you saw a bear, you threw rocks at it with a readied hunting rifle. "I was only defending myself from that dangerous charging bear." Self defense should not include scenarios where you do something (stupid and illegal) to put yourself -into- harm's way.
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: when he was advised by police not to do so
You keep saying this, but 911 is not the police.
In most cases they are in fact associated with a particular law enforcement group. I applied to be a 911 operator and would have been a member of the CHP had I gotten the position, with all the same background, physiological and many other tests that actual officers go through. Lots of people trying to become officers go for 911 operator spots as current employees with all the background checks are given priority over new hires.
quote:Originally posted by I Used to Be a Drummer: Would he DESERVE protective custody?
What about child molesters in prison? They get protective custody in prison. Do they deserve it?
All prisoners deserve to not be raped, stabbed, beaten or otherwise assaulted. Rakeesh was very clear in his answer from the get go, and it is the right answer. Forget the aged bazillionares who you seem to think run the world, when society (for whatever reason) locks people away and denies them the right to defend themselves, it takes on the responsibility to keep them safe regardless of their crimes. That we fail in that is tragic and wrong and undeniable that it happens. But that does not mean that the moral onus has been paused for a single second.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by I Used to Be a Drummer: This whole incident is a perfect example of why I'm so against
1. handguns (for cops or anyone else)
2. concealed carry laws.
Both those things had to be legal for this to happen.
Anybody who thinks Zimmerman got out of his car without violent intent is crazy or a fool. Technically yes it's theoretically possible he didn't...but only a fool or a crazy person would seriously entertain the possibility without a mountain of new evidence. A mountain.
Using any sole incident as a reason to be for or against a broad policy seems like a bad idea. I assure you, the other side can play the anecdote game just as easily.
It's a lot more sensible to make these kinds of decisions based on aggregate data, statistics, and moral beliefs. I mean, in each of those cases there is still a debate to be had!
Lots of countries have very strict gun laws and gun violence is relatively low. Sometimes, gun violence isn't as low in one country as another despite virtually identical laws, because of a host of other factors. And at least one country has very lax gun laws and still has incredibly low rates of gun violence.
Some people think that killing people even in self defense is morally wrong, so they object to weapons that make that easier regardless of the aggregate effect on gun violence. Similarly, some people think that people should be free to own what they want so even if gun violence goes up they think gun ownership should be legal.
These are all contentious positions, but none of them is informed by a single random event extrapolated into public policy. Whenever we do that, I think we end up with crappy policy.
Sadly, it's really easy to drum up support for policies that way, because high profile tragedies are, well, tragic, so people are hungry for a way to prevent them.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: With that in mind, Dan, you really could kill someone and get away with it very easily in FL. You could kill dozens of people a day, really.
1) Get a gun. 2) Approach random young man on the street. Call him whatever insult you think is likely to provoke a fight. If he's black, use the N-word. 3) The young man will almost certainly attack you. 4) Shoot him dead. 5) Walk down the street a bit and repeat on the next young man you find.
It sounds like the above is all perfectly legal.
Well, sure. And I suppose if you go out with the express purpose of doing that, you're a terrible person and "there oughtta be a law" to stop you. (Presumably in this case it's the odious "Fightin' Words" 1st amendment exception.)
On the other hand, I'm curious, Xavier. Setting aside the idea that the guy with the gun is a psycho who's figured out a foolproof way to murder lots of people... those people that escalate and physically attack him because of his words. Are they actually justified? They could have chosen not to escalate like that, right? No matter how many epithets someone hurls at me, it's still my choice if I'm going to punch him or walk away (or hurl epithets back).
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Under the Florida statute, intentionally provoking the attack generally disqualifies you from claiming Stand Your Ground.
quote:776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
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.
quote:Anybody who thinks Zimmerman got out of his car without violent intent is crazy or a fool. Technically yes it's theoretically possible he didn't...but only a fool or a crazy person would seriously entertain the possibility without a mountain of new evidence. A mountain.
Dude. It is very possible he didn't get out of that car intending violence. Would you quit it with the frankly ridiculous hyperbole?
(Still waiting for an answer to my question, btw. Though perhaps having insisted repeatedly that I didn't respond to yours when I did, I should expect no response?)
You mean the question about prison violence? Stop trolling me. I'm not in prison, have never been there, and hope to never go there. I'm also not a corrections officer or warden, or anyone else involved, even tangentially, in prison work or policy re: prisons. Things are the way they are, when it comes to prisons in this country. It's a HIGHLY politicized issue, people have VERY strong opinions, and changing the minds of those who actually make policy is not easily done. You are vastly understating the difficulty of it.
I understand why you probably don't realize how difficult it is to change prison policy. I did a long research paper in high school about prison conditions, mainly based on the book "A Prison and a Prisoner", and the mountains of research on the subject are staggering in size. This issue is heavily studied, and policy makers have already made up their minds, mostly, either because of anti-youth/anti-minority bias, or because they were convinced by the first study/studies they heard about.It's not like it's a fresh area to be studied and work out policy for. Feel free to read that book and the mountains of research that go along with it (and the mountains of research that have been done SINCE it came out).
And if you think Zimmerman didn't get out of that car with violent intent, I've got a bridge to sell you. Also, you might be interested in some oceanfront property in Arizona I'm also in possession of.
"From my front porch you can see the sea..."
ROFL
I'm just being realistic here. Zimmerman was playing cop, got a little too caught up in it, started thinking he WAS a cop, and the rest, sadly, is history. He's not a cop. Even the bad cops out there rarely screw up THIS bad.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Under the Florida statute, intentionally provoking the attack generally disqualifies you from claiming Stand Your Ground.
quote:776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
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.
Twinky you may have missed it above because Xavier didn't quote it, but I prefaced that line of thought by commenting that I wasn't making a statement on the legality but what I saw as the morality. I'm aware that, in general, our legal right to freedom of speech withers when compared to other people's right not to be driven into a murderous rage when they hear certain words.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The answer to the question as to what "anti white racism" from the people whose views have been similar/exactly the same as Aris on this issue tend to say it's "affirmative action denying more qualified white people from going to college". Of course I don't recall Aris saying this, so obviously we can't attribute this view to him.
Blayne Bradley, what the **** are you doing? Are you intentionally trying to kill your own mind? You know *one* position from me, and you *intentionally* try to destroy as many of your braincells as you can by assuming whatever you want about the rest of my political positions?
Perhaps some Americans are stupid enough that they can only process politics by assigning everyone to the mental categories of either "us" or "the enemy", but that's no reason for you to intentionally flaunt such stupidity. And as for me I'm not an American. As such I'm under no obligation to obey the American haphazard political alliances. I'm anti-corporate-monopoly, pro-gay rights, pro-social welfare, anti-death penalty -- and I also happen to be in favor of immigration restrictions, in favor of referendums rather than court decisions, and in favor of shooting dead those thugs who assault other people, even if said thugs are 17-year young black kids.
quote:Where point "A" a kid with skittles is walking home from the store, and point "B" is a physical confrontation. And considering Zimmerman's actions (paroling the streets with a gun) I'd say that 99% of the time, the answer to your question is "No.". Even if Trey was beating Zimmerman's head on the ground, Zimmerman put himself into the situation by pursuing, confronting and in all likelihood assaulting an unarmed teenager who was minding his own business.
It's like if you were to strap on a meat suit and go wondering in bear infested hills, and then when you saw a bear, you threw rocks at it with a readied hunting rifle. "I was only defending myself from that dangerous charging bear." Self defense should not include scenarios where you do something (stupid and illegal) to put yourself -into- harm's way.
To use that argument you've had to hold two contradictory thoughts in your mind at the same time. The first thought is that Trayvon was a harmless, non-dangerous kid, and the second is that to even approach him was a highly dangerous act, akin to approaching a wild bear.
This is pretty much the definition of doublethink. Either approaching Trayvon was dangerous, because *Trayvon* was dangerous, either on drugs or in a criminal mood, or he was an innocent and harmless kid, and merely approaching him would not have been dangerous.
You can't have it both ways.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: And at least one country has very lax gun laws and still has incredibly low rates of gun violence.
What's the rate of gun ownership in that country? Which country would you be referring to?
I have no problem with people owning hunting rifles and shotguns. Handguns are the problem.
I live about 1/2 mile from Virginia Tech, where Cho Seung Hui, William Morva, and Ross Truett Ashley all killed people within the last 5 years. All of those crimes would have been much less likely if handguns were not available.
My girlfriend grew up with William Morva. He is just a good kid who developed a serious mental problem and ended up killing some cops. She says he was the kindest, gentlest person she knew in school, always giving people hugs, with not a harsh word for anyone, ever. Now, because he was able to get a handgun off a cop, several people are dead, and he's on death row.
I don't know what's more tragic, someone with mental health issues getting a gun and killing people, and being executed, or some kid from the projects with no help, no education, and no good role models doing the same.
posted
That's an interesting question Dan...and I think the answer for me is this: The target of the gun wielding psycho who escalates from words to physical violence -is wrong- and deserves a fine and/or up to three months in jail time for assault (on the assumption that knuckles on chin was the extent of the attempted physical assault). When GWP (gun wielding psycho) shoots and kills his target he -is wrong- and deserves years and years of incarceration, not only did he initiate contact, but escalated from (assumed) no permanent harm to kill you deader then dog crap.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
For that matter, I don't think anybody does. Most of the wealthy/elderly/powerful people in this country don't care enough about non-violent offenders to protect them. It's also those same wealthy/elderly/powerful people who could actually change our prison system.
