horseshit.

if you feel legitimately threatened (enough to the point that you would be justified in killing him) then the means of murder should be irrelevant. What, just because a gun can kill someone more efficiently than a baseball bat makes it okay in one scenario and not the other?

3/26/2012 4:55:40 PM

that's the law...

dont' shoot the messenger

3/26/2012 4:56:48 PM

what is so goddamn special about a gun that makes it a legitimate means of deadly force as opposed to any other weapon?

3/26/2012 4:57:02 PM

or a better way to frame that would be:

Why is beating an assailant with a baseball bat considered more illegal and barbaric than shooting that same person? The outcome is still the same. And if the person feels like his/her life was legitimately in danger, then what difference does it make? The only reasonable conclusion can be that Louisville Slugger doesn't have a big lobby in washington and local governments pushing forward favorable legislation.



[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 5:00 PM. Reason : ]

3/26/2012 4:59:34 PM

it has nothing to do with the gun. it was to do with the point at which the threat has been neutralized. if you shoot some one and they don't die you still can't just keep shooting them once they are neutralized. same as if it was a knife, a bat or your fists that you used. it just happens to be that a gun is more deadly.

3/26/2012 5:02:09 PM

yes, but if a gun can neutralize (murder) someone who is a threat -- whereas a baseball bat leaves the person with the duty to retreat after subduing a threat --- then don't you think there should be a higher standard that must be proved to legitimize the use of deadly force?



[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 5:10 PM. Reason : ]

3/26/2012 5:05:05 PM

yes, thus why you have to go through in class instruction, pass a range test, written test, apply for an application, submit fingerprints, background check and mental health check in order to carry a concealed weapon. but you can carry a knife or baseball bat with out any of that.

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 5:10 PM. Reason : a]

3/26/2012 5:10:08 PM

What I'm getting at is this: The level of force used to defend yourself should be consistent with the level of the threat......

As in, Trayvon had more of a right to beat the shit out of an older fat man who was stalking him.

And Zimmerman had no right to murder Trayvon just because he's a pussy who doesn't know how to fight.

3/26/2012 5:11:52 PM

wow. Str8Foolish with the typical douchebagginess.

sorry your life sucks so bad, dude. something i, we can do to help?

3/26/2012 5:14:01 PM

surely pursuing a civil case against the sheriffs department while simultaneously trying to trademark trayvons name IN NO WAY makes the family look like a bunch of disgusting money-grubbers.

3/26/2012 5:15:14 PM

^^^well that's not very realistic as its hard to determine what threats you might encounter. however, in order to draw your weapon and discharge it you must feel that there is an immanent threat of loss of life or serious bodily harm. did Trayvon feel like he was going to die when Zimmerman confronted him? probably not. did Ziimerman feel like he might die while Trayvon was on top of him, punching him in the face and bashing his head on the concrete? probably so.

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 5:16 PM. Reason : ^^^]

3/26/2012 5:16:22 PM

there's no way you can say that Zimmerman -- a man who knew he had a gun while following a teenager 100lbs smaller than him (knowing full well the police were on their way), felt more threatened than a kid being stalked by a lunatic for no goddamn reason

and it's even harder to believe that when you consider that the Sanford Police department is being investigated by the department of Justice and FBI for how badly they've handled the investigation.



[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 5:23 PM. Reason : ]

3/26/2012 5:20:32 PM

is barack obama white?

3/26/2012 5:22:30 PM

^just as much as he is black

3/26/2012 5:24:06 PM

i dont remember the media ever portraying him as white though.

3/26/2012 5:25:37 PM

of course not.

3/26/2012 5:27:18 PM

well hes as white as zimmerman, so anyone on this board who wants to call zimmerman white thats fine; just dont mistake obama for african american.

or maybe its because zimmermans father is white? after all, obamas father was black right?

so i suppose the general liberal attitude regarding this case COULD be wholly accurate as long as they admit to being sexist.

again, all you guys have to do is clarify these things to avoid looking like hypocritical pieces of shit. feel free to enlighten us.

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 5:37 PM. Reason : -]

3/26/2012 5:33:42 PM

what a random non sequitur. what is that even in response to?

3/26/2012 5:42:19 PM

Quote :

"there's no way you can say that Zimmerman -- a man who knew he had a gun while following a teenager 100lbs smaller than him (knowing full well the police were on their way), felt more threatened than a kid being stalked by a lunatic for no goddamn reason"

i agree with you up until the point that Zimmerman was on his back having his head slammed on the concrete. obviously Zimmerman should have made better choices prior to the whole confrontation, but nothing he did was illegal.

i should add...nothing he did that we know of or that the evidence points to

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 5:50 PM. Reason : ..]

3/26/2012 5:48:03 PM

oh nothing really. i just figured after 7 pages here and 30+ in chit chat i was getting tired of everyone saying the same damn thing and the root problem being hypocrisy.

if you dont agree then "nothing to see here, move along" as they say.

i also find this:

Quote :

"what a random non sequitur. what is that even in response to?"

...hilarious in general considering the definition of non sequitur. i guess you couldnt figure out a better way to use that term in a complete sentence. whatever.

liberals selective usage of political correctness is far more humorous than any thread derailment i could provide.

im getting tired of clicking between these two threads; this one is pretty stupid even for the soap box, and the one in chit chat is far too serious.


[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 5:52 PM. Reason : -]

3/26/2012 5:48:09 PM

i literally can't tell if you're taking a piss or not. it's like your mad about the perceived stereotype you've built up in your head. whatevs.

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 6:01 PM. Reason : ]

3/26/2012 5:58:17 PM

no.

im disgusted that there are 2 threads on this messageboard that are so active about this topic.

the only reason anybody here is talking about it is because zimmerman is white. he was declared white to create this fervor we currently have. im trying to determine how he was determined to be white so i can counter those folks who scream media bias at everything.

i want a better answer than that, therefore i posed the obama comparison. i would like for someone to tackle that hypothetical so im not forced to accept this is a completely media generated controversy.

that being said, i truly feel sorry for this kid. not just for what happened to him (being completely uncalled for), but for his "legacy" that we are in the midst of being created. the shameless banter from the black left coupled with his family clawing for money and attention. black panthers openly claiming bounties like this is goddamn star wars, and florida likely being literally on fire later this summer.

blacks arent being destroyed by white on black crime; thats so 60s! sure we harass and bully them to no end in everyday life, but as far as sheer violence goes... the issue is more black on black or black v hispanic.

the latter being exactly what this is (a non issue), but the media just decided they wanted a lynching and this redneck sheriffs department provided us with it. if you want heads thats fine! shift the focus to the white sheriffs department, but for the love of god quit calling zimmerman white.

or give us the criteria that determines it! is it based off of father? in that case zimmerman = white and obama = black.

and liberals = sexist.

just cough it up already! you know full well that cases like this disintegrate because of technicalities, and you only get thrown under the microscope when whites or latinos get annoyed over the misuse of a term (yes the latino community is quite upset over this as well). basically when you get beyond the media hype of this and into a serious trial, folks are already going to be annoyed that this was needlessly made a showtrial and YES florida will go up in smoke because these racists will acquit.

the media has to explain why the first 48 hours were so recklessly reported. they obviously had an agenda for calling him white.

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 6:34 PM. Reason : -]

3/26/2012 6:29:33 PM

you're the only one still pushing the "whiteness" of zimmerman.

pretty much everyone else has moved on to the "stand your ground" law and the reckless behavior of the police department, and the obvious stereotyping of a black kid in a hoodie as being "suspicious" for merely being a black kid in a hoodie.

3/26/2012 6:39:20 PM

...issues which will be largely overshadowed by the media sensation that was created when he was falsely reported to be white.

because of your love for reality TV he will get away with it (just like casey anthony).

*golfclap*

3/26/2012 7:02:23 PM

Quote :

"Did Treyvon feel the same immediate danger?"

When they were in the physical fight? Possible. While being followed? Unless Zimmerman made actual threats verbally or physically, legally he probably couldn't. You can't shoot people for creeping you out. On the other hand, had he stopped running, and told Zimmerman to stop moving closer to him, he likely could have been justified. Self defense is very messy, that's why both from a health standpoint and a legal standpoint, usually your best option is to remove yourself from the situation.

Quote :

"An unsworn statement from an anonymous "witness" who refuses to give his name or be shown on television? Sounds legit."

Given that there is a bounty on Zimmerman's head at the moment, if my witnessed versions of the event didn't match with the national narrative, I wouldn't want to be public either.

Quote :

"Would you mouth breathers be as willing to grant him "self defense" immunity from killing a man who was stalking him and confronting him? "

Probably. Baring no other testimony, I assume that Trayvon's would be some variation on "he attacked me, and threatened me", and his side of the story would probably be about as plausible as Zimmerman's, with the added bonus that Zimmerman was armed and Trayvon was not.

Quote :

""stand your ground" basically mean that you are able to pick a fight with anyone, and then blow their fucking head off if they start to win the fight?"

No it doesn't and Sparky is doing a horrible job conveying the concept. It means you don't have a duty to retreat from an attack.

Quote :

"Pretty sure if someone's trying to unlawfully detain you you're entirely in the right to try to escape, even if that means throwing a punch."

The key part of your phrase is "try to escape". You don't have the right to beat down or kill the guy holding you, unless such force is reasonably necessary to end the threat.

Quote :

"You see what happens when laws are written and endorsed by lobbyists who's sole gain is to increase profits for companies? You think these laws are written to protect you? "

One would logically expect the number of justifiable homicides to increase after the passage of a law which broadens the definition of justifiable homicide. In other news raising the speed limit to 70 MPH causes a 100% increase in the number of drivers driving over 60 MPH.

Quote :

""So if I start a fight with you, and you start to win, I'm allowed to shoot you dead?" YES!!!"

NO. Once again sparky is doing a really bad job conveying this. Self defense is concerned with the force used relative to the threat presented. If I cut you off, and at a light you get out of your car and start yelling at me, and I get out of mine, I may fear that you might punch or assault me, or even shoot me, but while you're yelling, I have no right to attack you. If you get out of your car and throw a punch at me, I can now defend myself with a reasonable level of force required to stop the attack. What's reasonable? That all depends, and is part of why self defense is so murky. If I'm 250 lbs of muscle and you're 100 lbs of twig, shooting you will likely not be viewed as reasonable. In the reverse however it might, but if you're 250 lbs of muscle with a crutch because your leg is broken, it's not. If we're evenly matched, then again, shooting you would not likely be considered justifiable at the time you threw the first punch. As one last twist to this, say when I got out of my car, I had a gun already drawn. If I warn you to get back in your car and leave me alone, and you continue to approach and threaten me, then I may just be justified in shooting you under the reasonable assumption that if you're willing to challenge me when I've already presented a gun, that you're intending me great bodily harm and believe yourself capable of inflicting it despite the gun. At the same time, technically what I did when getting out of the car was brandishing and may have been against the law. Again self defense is a horrible and confusing mess and all of this may vary from state to state or even county to county.

What sparky is having a horrible time conveying is how the aggressor in a conflict can change. If I'm 250lbs of muscle and you're 100lbs of twig and you get out and take a swing at me, you're the aggressor, but despite that, me shooting you is not reasonable self defense. I throw you off me a draw a pistol and warn you to keep back. At this point, things are actually murky. You've attacked me, and are the aggressor, but technically, drawing the gun has potentially escalated the fight. That said, if you were to pause it right there and bring in a jury, you'd be pretty hard pressed to convict me of doing anything wrong. Now, if you continue to attack me, not only are you still the aggressor, but now the threat has escalated because I've warned you and you are continuing to attack despite the threat of lethal force being employed. I'm pretty much legally clear for self defense. On the other hand, if instead of continuing to attack, you begin to get back in your car, then I have successfully defended myself. If I were to start walking towards you threatening you, that would no longer be self defense, and now I'm the aggressor, so even though you picked the fight, I'm in the wrong, and since I already have the gun drawn and have threatened deadly force, you are likely justified in using deadly force of your own. That is the idea that sparky is trying to convey. As a disclaimer, IANAL and you should discuss self defense law with a real attorney before donning your bat cape, but that is the basics of self defense as I have been brought to understand.

Quote :

"but you are right in that if Zimmerman did in fact escalate the confrontation then he never should have done that. "

It's more than that. If Zimmerman did escalate the confrontation (including throwing the first punch) then he loses the claim to self defense. You can't argue that you were deathly afraid of a 160lb 6'2" man that you ran up to him and assaulted him and were only defending yourself when he fought back. If Zimmerman threw the first punch, the only claim to self defense he can get is if at some point he de-escalated and Trayvon kept coming. Losing the upper hand is not de-escalation.

Quote :

"So, it's okay to use lethal force with a gun if you feel threatened. But, if you feel threatened, and you don't have a gun, is it not alright to just beat someone to death?"

No, as I said above, it's about the use of force relative to the threat. If you are justified in employing deadly force (in whatever form) then it doesn't matter what weapon you use. BUT if you have stopped the threat, then you must also stop the use of force. Allow me to try and explain. Going back to my example above, where I am continuing to menace you with my gun after you have tried to get back in your car. As I said, you would be justified in using deadly force. If you shoot me three times and I fall dead to the ground, that's legal. If you brain me with a baseball bat you had in the car, that's also legal. However, if you shoot me three times and I fall to the ground incapacitated but not dead, you have no right to kill me, as you have already stopped the threat and you are no longer in imminent danger of bodily harm. Equally, if you hit me with the bat, shattering my skull or knees and otherwise incapacitate me but don't kill me, you aren't justified in subsequently following up with some more swings to my head. Equally if I see you shoot the gun and miss or break my wrist with the bat and I tuck tail and start running, you're no longer justified in attacking me as you are then no longer in danger, even though you were justified in using deadly force when you attacked.

Quote :

"then don't you think there should be a higher standard that must be proved to legitimize the use of deadly force? "

There is. But if you're justified in using deadly force, it's only to the point of stopping the threat. Once the threat is stopped, the use of deadly force is no longer justified, regardless of whether the attacker is dead.

Quote :

"surely pursuing a civil case against the sheriffs department while simultaneously trying to trademark trayvons name IN NO WAY makes the family look like a bunch of disgusting money-grubbers."

The family's class or lack thereof has no bearing on the facts of the self defense claim. And such information is no more helpful to the determination of justice than is Obama's claim that his son would look just like Trayvon.

Quote :

"and it's even harder to believe that when you consider that the Sanford Police department is being investigated by the department of Justice and FBI for how badly they've handled the investigation. "

Given how big it's become, I would be more surprise if they didn't investigate. Even if it turns out that the SPD did everything 110% by the book and did nothing wrong, and is sitting on secret evidence that Trayvon jumped Zimmerman from behind and started bashing his head in with a rock, if it came from the SPD, no one would believe it anyway, their credibility here is shot. It would have to come from someone else, like the DOJ.

3/26/2012 8:04:45 PM

Quote :

"Over the last 48 hours, there has been a sustained effort to smear Trayvon Martin, the 17-year old African-American who was shot dead by George Zimmerman a month ago. Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, said, “They killed my son, now they’re trying to kill his reputation.” Thus far these attacks have fallen into two categories: false and irrelevant. Much of this leaked information seems intended to play into stereotypes about young African-American males. Here’s what everyone should know: 1. Prominent conservative websites published fake photos of Martin. Twitchy, a new website run by prominent conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, promoted a photo — purportedly from Martin’s Facebook page — that shows Martin in saggy pants and flipping the bird. The photo, which spread quickly on conservative websites and Twitter, is intended to paint Martin as a thug. As Twitchy later acknowledged, it is not a photo of Trayvon Martin. [Examiner] 2. The Sanford Police selectively leaked irrelevant, negative information about Martin. The authorities told the Orlando Sentinel this morning that Trayvon was suspended from school for ten days “after being found with an empty marijuana baggie.” There is no evidence that Martin was under the influence of drugs at the time of his death, nor would prior possession of marijuana be a reason for killing him. It’s unclear what the relevance of the leak was, other than to smear Martin. [Orlando Sentinel] 3. On Fox News, Geraldo said that Martin was dressed “like a wannabe gangster.” Bill O’Reilly agreed with him. The sole evidence is that Martin was wearing a hoodie. Geraldo added that “everyone that ever stuck up a convenience store” was wearing a hoodie. [ThinkProgress; The Blaze] 4. Without any evidence, prominent right-wing bloggers suggested that Martin was a drug dealer. Right-wing blogger Dan Riehl advances the theory, also advanced in a widely linked peice on a site called Wagist. There does not appear to be any evidence to support this claim whatsoever. [Riehl World View] 5. Without any evidence, a right-wing columnist alleged that Martin assaulted a bus driver. Unlike Zimmerman, Trayvon has no documented history of violence. This allegation continues to be advanced by a blogger on the Examiner even after the real reason was leaked to the police and confirmed by the family. [Miami Herald; Examiner] 6. Zimmerman’s friend says Martin was to blame because he was disrespectful to Zimmerman. Zimmerman’s friend Joe Oliver said that Martin would not have been shot to death if Trayvon had just said “I’m staying with my parents.” Of course, Zimmerman was not a police officer, and Trayvon had no duty to tell him who he was or where he was going. [NBC News] The final part of the effort to smear Trayvon Martin is to link him and his supporters to irresponsible fringe groups like the New Black Panthers and marignal provocateurs like Louis Farrakhan. Threats by these groups are serious and should be investigated, but they have nothing to do with Martin or his supporters. The leader of the effort to associate Martin with these groups is Matt Drudge. You can see how he is framing the story today here. Ultimately, whether Martin was a perfect person is irrelevant to whether Zimmerman’s conduct that night was justified. Clearly, there are two different versions of the events that transpired on February 26, the night Trayvon was killed. There are conflicting statements by witnesses and conflicting evidence as to who was the aggressor. Zimmerman has the right to tell his side of the story. But his opportunity to do this will come in a court of law after he is charged and arrested. In the meantime, Zimmerman’s supporters should stop trying to smear the reputation of a dead, 17-year-old boy. "

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/26/452310/what-everyone-needs-to-know-about-the-smear-campaign-against-trayvon-martin-1995-2012/

3/26/2012 8:14:09 PM

Do us all a favor and stop linking to left-wing hack sites.

3/26/2012 8:32:39 PM

So he still has gold teeth right?

Quote :

"Zimmerman’s friend Joe Oliver said that Martin would not have been shot to death if Trayvon had just said “I’m staying with my parents.”"

This part is pretty fucked up. What is this, 1877?

3/26/2012 8:33:06 PM

Quote :

"4. Without any evidence, prominent right-wing bloggers suggested that Martin was a drug dealer. Right-wing blogger Dan Riehl advances the theory, also advanced in a widely linked peice on a site called Wagist. There does not appear to be any evidence to support this claim whatsoever. [Riehl World View]"

I'm totally in the arrest Zimmerman camp but this is documented on social media... it's not "Without any evidence."

The smear campaign is stupid but so is blatantly disregarding the statement "damn were you at a nigga needa plant"

I mean I guess that could mean they are friends that smoke together and trayvon has the weed but still, that list is acting like right wing bloggers totally invented it out of nothing

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 8:50 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 8:50 PM. Reason : /]

3/26/2012 8:46:53 PM

Quote :

"There is. But if you're justified in using deadly force, it's only to the point of stopping the threat. Once the threat is stopped, the use of deadly force is no longer justified, regardless of whether the attacker is dead."

I get that. The only reason why I brought up the hypothetical is because of the absurdity of believing a 240 lb man who had a gun and followed and confronted a minor after being told not to by the police department (that he called) legitimately feared for his life. He more than likely got into a fight with a child, and brought out his problem solver when he realized he was just a fat pussy with no motor skills.

There would have to be a monumentally huge nugget of information that is being withheld for me to believe that Zimmerman was in the clear in using lethal force. And there would have to be an even bigger piece of information for me to overlook the fact that he, at every step of the way, escalated the situation. With the information we have now, it's hard for me to even have an ounce of sympathy for poor Zimmerman for getting his ass kicked by a teenager that he followed and confronted for no real reason.

The fact that he hasn't even been arrested with the information we have is just insane.

Quote :

"One would logically expect the number of justifiable homicides to increase after the passage of a law which broadens the definition of justifiable homicide. In other news raising the speed limit to 70 MPH causes a 100% increase in the number of drivers driving over 60 MPH."

No, a more accurate comparison would be raising the speed limit, only to see a 90% increase in traffic fatalities. In which case, many people would be discussing the effectiveness of the law.


[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 9:08 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 9:08 PM. Reason : ]

3/26/2012 8:53:55 PM

just to make sure we're on the same page, and i actually agree with you on most points, was zimmerman supposed to lay there and just take the beating because he knew in his mind he had followed this kid and deserved it?

3/26/2012 9:02:49 PM

Quote :

"I mean I guess that could mean they are friends that smoke together and trayvon has the weed but still, that list is acting like right wing bloggers totally invented it out of nothing"

In all likelihood, Trayvon is a teenager who likes to smoke pot with his friends. Big. Fucking. Deal. I highly doubt he's Avon Barksdale, ready to kill Zimmerman for some corner in a gated community in a turf war in Sanford fucking Florida.

3/26/2012 9:03:49 PM

Quote :

"just to make sure we're on the same page, and i actually agree with you on most points, was zimmerman supposed to lay there and just take the beating because he knew in his mind he had followed this kid and deserved it?"

yes. fucking take your beating and walk that shit off. you're a grown-ass man, and you picked a fight with a teenager. unless trayvon was about to land a deathblow with a brick or cynder block, there's really no defending zimmerman's actions. he killed a guy. you shouldn't be allowed to kill someone just because you're not as tough as you thought you were.

take your beating, get up, go home, and cry yourself to sleep. no need to murder anyone.



by the way, this is all hinging on the possibility of their being a scuffle which trayvon was winning...and given the state of the investigation, the lack of a toxicity test on zimmerman, and the 911 call and mixed eye-witness testimonies, that's all pretty unclear. it's entirely possible that zimmerman was the aggressor during the entire confrontation -- and he should have the burden to prove that he wasn't, you know, since he killed someone.


[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 9:19 PM. Reason : ]

3/26/2012 9:12:06 PM

so you cant kill someone with your bare hands?

hmm... i know i can, so im assuming a black guy bigger than me can.

just a thought.

on top of that zimmerman is already a hugely paranoid person; he was probably afraid for his life as soon as the first blow connected. youve heard the tapes; he sounds scared to death.

no joke hes a fucking weirdo though, but regardless he doesnt have to lay there and get the shit beat out of him. im afraid your dead wrong on that, and i would recommend that you not jump into any fights assuming some tubby fuck is gonna lay there and take it like a man.

but yeah, otherwise youre right. we dont know at the point if trayvon was even beating the shit out of him, and thats really the only way this dumbass is gonna wriggle out of it. grand jury will indict him for sure though, if for no other reason than they can go home and say they kicked off the summer 2012 showtrial for the masses.

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 9:22 PM. Reason : -]

3/26/2012 9:19:21 PM

paranoia is not a legal defense for killing somebody.


"But your honor, I'M SCARED OF BLACK PEOPLE"

3/26/2012 9:21:05 PM

Quote :

"In all likelihood, Trayvon is a teenager who likes to smoke pot with his friends. Big. Fucking. Deal. I highly doubt he's Avon Barksdale, ready to kill Zimmerman for some corner in a gated community in a turf war in Sanford fucking Florida."

Oh and I forgot about the part where his friend says "we got business to talk."

"Business" doesn't usually refer to lighting up and hitting the planetarium for a late night Dark Side of the Moon.

Again none of this excuses zimmerman at all but the blatant disregard of the facebook thread in that lefty piece is just frustrating. When the side I agree with writes stupid things it annoys me.

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 9:23 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2012 9:22:11 PM

unless we find deep tissue residue of skittles laced fingerprints around zimmerman's fat neck, then I doubt he was in danger. he was just losing a fight (if that...he very well could have been winning the fight)

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 9:23 PM. Reason : ]

3/26/2012 9:22:37 PM

well maybe his attorney will find some handy psychologist to say he has problems and get him in an institution instead of a prison.

because after all, if hes sick he deserves help, right?

3/26/2012 9:23:01 PM

I don't care. Just get him off the fucking street with a concealed carry permit.

3/26/2012 9:25:01 PM

agreed.

i personally think CCW is far too easy to obtain.

3/26/2012 9:26:56 PM

the 'zimmerman is bigger than trayvon so what the fuck he could handle himself' argument is also a bit silly.

it reminds me of the bit on Louie where the HS jock threatens to kick Louie's ass.

again, not on Zim's side but c'mon.

3/26/2012 9:30:41 PM

and louie also stalked that kid....but didn't kill him.

3/26/2012 9:33:32 PM

Quote :

"he absurdity of believing a 240 lb man who had a gun and followed and confronted a minor after being told not to by the police department (that he called) legitimately feared for his life."

It pretty much all comes down to that first punch. If I see a stranger poking around some of my neighbor's windows and I follow him behind a house and ask him what he's doing, even if he's smaller built than me, I could reasonably be in fear for my safety if the guy suddenly lunged at me, even if he was just the local meter guy checking meters and had every right to be there, and thought I was some creepy stalker dude.

Quote :

"And there would have to be an even bigger piece of information for me to overlook the fact that he, at every step of the way, escalated the situation. "

Honestly, and again IANAL, unless Zimmerman conveyed any verbal or physical threats, or actually escalated to violence, he didn't really escalate at all. Following someone you reasonably believe to have or be in the progress of committing a crime isn't escalating the situation. It may be a stupid idea, but it's not escalating.

Quote :

"The fact that he hasn't even been arrested with the information we have is just insane."

Again, until they have a case to charge him, all arresting him would do is lock him up for a day. And given the relevant evidence, he's got a serviceable, if weak self defense case. I imagine they won't arrest him until they can come up with some usable evidence that Zimmerman started the fight. Now, whether the police are actually looking for that evidence is another matter. Honestly, I think the guy is guilty of horribly shitty judgement, and may even be guilty of some lesser manslaughter charge (not sure about the available charges in FL) but I think there's a sufficient amount of reasonable doubt that prosecuting without something to point to and say "that there shows Zimmerman was the aggressor and has no claim to self defense" could end up in at the minimum a mistrial and possibly an acquital, which might just be worse than not arresting him at all. Honestly, blowing this up to the national level is probably the worst thing that could have happened for justice in this case. Now the prosecutors are going to be walking very carefully and move much much slower, and where they might have prosecuted previously on lesser evidence, in the hopes of pleading the guy out, now I think they won't go without a very good chance of a conviction, since anything less would cause an even larger uproar.

Quote :

"No, a more accurate comparison would be raising the speed limit, only to see a 90% increase in traffic fatalities."

Except that's not even remotely more accurate. The law in question is designed to broaden the definition of justifiable homicide. Even if murder rates stayed EXACTLY the same, you would be able to generate a graph showing an increase in justifiable homicides on the assumption that at least some previously unjustifiable homicides would now be justifiable.

Quote :

"you're a grown-ass man, and you picked a fight with a teenager."

So far there's been no evidence that Zimmerman picked a fight with the kid. Someone following you and creeping you out is not (legally) picking a fight with you. Just like someone coming up to you in a bar and opining about your mother's sexual practices isn't legally picking a fight with you. They might morally deserve the beat down you hand out, but legally you'd be arrested, and they might get off shooting you in self defense.

3/26/2012 9:35:01 PM

Quote :

"and louie also stalked that kid....but didn't kill him. "

the point is being older than and heavier than a teen is not necessarily an advantage in a fight.

3/26/2012 9:51:53 PM

no, but it is/should be an advantage in judgement

3/26/2012 9:52:37 PM

yes

3/26/2012 10:01:20 PM

Quote :

"Honestly, and again IANAL, unless Zimmerman conveyed any verbal or physical threats, or actually escalated to violence, he didn't really escalate at all. Following someone you reasonably believe to have or be in the progress of committing a crime isn't escalating the situation. It may be a stupid idea, but it's not escalating."

I think the problem with this statement is the "reasonable belief" of Martin committing a crime.

Walking on a street is not and shouldn't be enough for someone to reasonably believe he was going to commit a crime. If we leave it up to individuals, you're basically saying that someone of very low intelligence can follow someone for the dumbest of reasons, and be justified when they get upset. IANAL, but I would think the law would use fixed standard of when you are justified in using deadly force, not be based on any individuals personal musings.

I think a good analogy is the TSA. People get really irritated when someone assumes they're committing a crime based on practically no good suspicion. This is part of why people hate the TSA so much (this type of suspicion is part of the daily lives of minorities too, but that's another discussion...). Now imagine realizing that someone is following you as you walk down the street because they think you look like a criminal, when you aren't doing anything that anyone else doesn't do.

Assuming Martin really was just walking down the street (and not perhaps smoking a blunt or something), then I don't see how Zimmerman can justify following Martin, and he's responsible for his death even if it's only involuntary manslaughter.

3/26/2012 10:09:10 PM

and boom goes the dynamite.

3/26/2012 10:14:02 PM

JesusHChrist is hell bent on making this Zimmermans fault as a hate crime so that he can say as much racist shit as possible

Pathetic


It's truly the bottom of the barrel of our society in plain daylight

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 10:36 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2012 10:34:40 PM

Quote :

"I think the problem with this statement is the "reasonable belief" of Martin committing a crime."

Very much agreed. And this, is the weakest part of Zimmerman's defense. He would really need to come up with some very convincing articulation of why and what crime he believed Tayvon had or would commit. Without that, even with the self defense claim, you could probably prosecute something like involuntary manslaughter by demonstrating that the voluntary and reckless actions taken resulted in the situation where Zimmerman was forced to defend himself, and that such an outcome could have been foreseen and avoided. But even if the prosecution has a chance of making such a case, given the shit storm this has become, does anyone think that a misdemeanor conviction would be satisfactory?

That said, someone following you on the street isn't enough of a reason to assault them. Putting aside that sometimes people are just going the same way you are (I assume that Tayvon could tell the difference between that and someone specifically tailing him), sometimes people are just nosy or simply suspicious.

Quote :

"you're basically saying that someone of very low intelligence can follow someone for the dumbest of reasons,"

Pretty much. Certainly you have a right to confront such a person and ask them to stop following you, but honestly, if they're not threatening you, they're not harming you either, unless it becomes a pattern, in which case it becomes harassment and stalking.

Quote :

"IANAL, but I would think the law would use fixed standard of when you are justified in using deadly force"

The standard (at least in NC) is a "reasonable person" in the same situation with the same information would be in fear of immediate grave bodily harm or death for themselves, a loved one or another person who would also have justifiable use of deadly force. The reason it's a "reasonable person" standard rather than a fixed codified set of circumstances, is that as I outlined above, self defense is just messy in general. What one person's reasonable fear of gave bodily harm may be is not the same for another person.

Quote :

"Now imagine realizing that someone is following you as you walk down the street because they think you look like a criminal, when you aren't doing anything that anyone else doesn't do. "

It's still not an excuse for me to assault that person. Confront them, demand they stop following me, sure. Not assault. As I said, this whole thing pretty much hinges on who threw that first punch.

3/26/2012 10:38:59 PM