Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

I don't think he's "guilty" under the terrible laws of Florida, but I do think he's "guilty" in that he killed a young man completely unnecessarily.

[Loud Whispers]

I don't think he's "guilty" under the terrible laws of Florida, but I do think he's "guilty" in that he killed a young man completely unnecessarily.

Could I then instead hear the reasons why he should be guilty, Florida laws not withstanding, unless they have already been said?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

All I will say that self-defense should never extend to pursuing someone who has done nothing to you, or killing someone who you know is unarmed while you are armed. Flordia's ill-written legal code degrades the concept of self-defense and reasonable laws concerning it. Things like this increase the risk that self-defense laws will be thrown out entirely, which is not acceptable.

[Leafsnail]

Are you expecting me to explain why killing someone is a bad thing to do or what?

[Loud Whispers]

Are you expecting me to explain why killing someone is a bad thing to do or what?

If that's your view on this specific case, as long as you described your view and why I'd be happy.

[Ross Vernal]

You need reasons beyond "George Zimmerman willfully and deliberately took actions that lead to the wrongful death of Trayvon Martin" ?

[Loud Whispers]

You need reasons beyond "George Zimmerman willfully and deliberately took actions that lead to the wrongful death of Trayvon Martin" ?

I'd like more than opinions, specifically reasons for opinions. If it's a factual opinion, the facts validating that opinion would be helpful.

[Ross Vernal]

It is a fact that George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin. It is a fact that he complained about assholes getting away. It is a fact the police told him he did not need to follow Travyon. It is a fact that he did so regardless of this being expressed to him. It is a fact that Travyon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman.

None of these things are in debate.

The argument (minus the race thing, since angry white folk sure love to say that a known aggressive racist who racially profiled someone before killing him has nothing to do with race) is basically over "What are the circumstances in which the killing took place?" and as far as I can tell, the most articulate argument for "It was somehow lawful" is is "A large man armed with a gun felt threatened by an unarmed teenager who he deliberately followed, therefore it was his right to defend himself with lethal force, and not the right of the unarmed teenager to defend himself from a suspicious stranger who he felt threatened by."

Regardless of the specific circumstances of the killing, the circumstances would not have occurred had Zimmerman not instigated them.

[Ross Vernal]

I think I have been coherent and polite as I can on this topic, so I'll be taking my leave before I start letting my irritation show.

I'll just leave on the note of another black teenager shot dead by someone who felt threatened by loud music, and a question of "So how many more lives are going to be taken before we actually give a damn?"

[GlyphGryph]

Are you expecting me to explain why killing someone is a bad thing to do or what?

If that's your view on this specific case, as long as you described your view and why I'd be happy.

Killing someone is always a bad thing. It is an evil. Sometimes it is a necessary evil. Sometimes it is an acceptable evil.

Do you seriously not see the alternative choices he could have made that would not have led to anyone getting killed? Do you disagree that these would have, in fact, been better choices?

[Nadaka]

I don't see anything wrong with shooting someone in self defense.

But it isn't self defense when you stalk someone and and confront them after being instructed by the police to not do so.

[GlyphGryph]

I don't see anything wrong with shooting someone in self defense.

That person is now dead. Every good thing they could have done is destroyed. You harm not just them, but their family and the people that relied upon them and interacted with them.

This is never not a bad thing.

It might be better than the alternative, and in a self-defense situation that reflects well on the person doing the self-defending they will have had little or no input into exactly what choices will be made available, but this does not make the act itself righteous or even neutral - it is still a terrible thing.

[Leafsnail]

Particularly in this case.  At worst Martin initiated a minor scuffle with a man who had been chasing after him, and his death was neither deserved nor required.

[GreatJustice]

I don't see anything wrong with shooting someone in self defense.

But it isn't self defense when you stalk someone and and confront them after being instructed by the police to not do so.

(A) Stalking is a very specific action that doesn't have much to do with what Zimmerman did to Martin. At any rate, he was in the Neighbourhood Watch and was nominally doing what he was supposed to, since the area had recently seen a bunch of burglaries.

(B) The police dispatchers are legally obligated to tell people that they don't need to intervene directly so that they aren't held liable if things go bad. If Zimmerman saw a woman being raped he would have received the exact same instructions, and they would have been just as binding, which is to say not at all.

Now the problem here is that there isn't much in the way of evidence except for Zimmerman's word and witness testimony. But that being the case, there isn't enough to really find him guilty of anything, so "innocent" is the only just verdict regardless.

[Leafsnail]

I'm a bit unfamiliar with the purpose of a neighbourhood watch member in the US.  Is it to follow and confront any random black youth who happens to be in the area of a string of burglaries?