Print

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

Yes

No

This is another experiment isn't it

[GlyphGryph]

LoudWhispers, honestly I was a bit thrown off by the poll options but eventually said biased-right, because I had to pick biased something and the right wing seems to have latched on to the whole "Trayvon had it coming" narrative.

The bias is pretty irrefutable. The story you used as a comparison made that obvious. (especially since it seemed to expect me to assume something I didn't - I was actually afraid reading it that guy was going to end up in jail, despite a case that is many times more open-and-shut clear than the Zimmerman case). The fact that you couldn't find a case that was actually analogous to make your point, but you felt the need to post a case anyway and try to force the point through revealed that bias existed.

Without that, the post would have been a lot closer to neutral.

[Leafsnail]

If he stole it wouldn't the real owner, like, claim the jewellery or at least put out a "wanted: missing jewellery" advert??  I'm completely baffled about this talking point because it's so transparently stupid and ridiculous.  With nothing other than one extremely circumstantial piece of evidence at all you are just assuming a dead kid is a criminal.

Also, you conveniently ignored the part leading to this conversation, which has Martin freely admitting to getting into fights and smoking marijuana and obsession with guns (though it might be something uniquely 'Murrican (FUCK YEAH) that teens wanting to obtain weapons is slightly suspicious, but not unusual).

Getting into fights: he got into a few fights at school, I can't see any actual evidence to suggest he was a street brawling enthusiast.  A lot of young people do, and it doesn't imply that he'd try to murder a stranger with his bare hands.

Marijuana: This one is stupid.  It's extremely common among young people and doesn't cause people to become violent.  His blood THC content at the time of his death was very low incidentally at 1.5 nanograms per milliliter - way below the 40 nanograms per mililiter amount which is the minimum at which one might expect someone to be intoxicated.

Guns: His "obsession" extended purely to kindof wanting a gun and being excited when his mother got one - there's nothing to suggest he ever owned or used one.  If Martin was gun obsessed than Zimmerman was a raving gun toting psychopath (since he actually, like, owned one).

So these are all things that a lot of young people do.  But it's bad and thuggish when Martin does them.  I put it to you that the reason it's bad when Martin does these relatively normal things is because of the societal perceptions of young black men being involved in violent crime.  Because I've never seen a dead white kid with no criminal record being savaged this badly over minor indiscretions.

[mainiac]

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/crimeindicators2010/figures/figure_13_1.asp

Seeing as a highschooler who gets in fights must be a hardened criminal, it seems that society collapsed years ago.  After all, 1 in 3 teenagers is a stone cold killer.

Now tell me, does this mean that we have enough reasonable suspicion to shoot all teenagers on sight?  If there is 1 in 3 odds that he or she is an insane killer, I'd rather not take the chance, no?

[Knight of Fools]

Wow, that escalated quickly.

Martin wasn't shot because he was a kid that got into fights, or because he may or may not have had stolen goods. Zimmerman couldn't have known either of those things. Martin was shot because he was actively attacking a man, and he was shot by the man he was attacking.

Thinking about it, this whole trying to make Martin or Zimmerman a 'bad guy' discussion is extraneous, because there it doesn't matter when it comes to the heart of the situation: A man killed another man because he thought his life was in danger.

[Leafsnail]

If it's not relevant then the OP was biased for including it.  In any case the point I'm making is that Zimmerman's story isn't credible, and anyone trying to paint Martin as a thug is either racist or ignorant (or deliberately trying to push a "holier than thou" agenda).

[mainiac]

To prosecute someone is to bring them to court, whether or not they are found guilty or not.  So it seems 18 respondants to the poll didn't even want that.

[Leafsnail]

I interpreted it to mean "should he be prosecuted again" and voted no.  What should be done instead is to make sure that the law is changed so that people who do similar stuff in the future can be convicted.

[kingfisher1112]

If it's not relevant then the OP was biased for including it.  In any case the point I'm making is that Zimmerman's story isn't credible, and anyone trying to paint Martin as a thug is either racist or ignorant (or deliberately trying to push a "holier than thou" agenda).

Oh of course! They. Must be ignorant white supremacist racists! Fully understand you there.

[Leafsnail]

You're in the third category don't worry.

[Knight of Fools]

I honestly can't believe you're still trying to claim everyone who says anything bad about Martin has a racist agenda. There is no reason to cry racism here, so quit trying to strengthen your position by calling others racist. It's pathetic.

What should be done instead is to make sure that the law is changed so that people who do similar stuff in the future can be convicted.

Yeah, we don't want people who defend themselves against an attacker to get off scotch free, do we?

1) Zimmerman had no intention of killing Martin. If he wanted to kill him to start off with, he wouldn't have called the cops just so they could come over and arrest him for murder, and I think we can all agree that Zimmerman isn't some criminal mastermind who manipulated the entire situation so he could kill a man. He just isn't that competent, and even if he wanted to kill Martin he could in no way control Martin's actions. From what I can tell this is also the first time that Zimmerman has even drawn his concealed weapon in all of the confrontations that he's been in, so it's not like he was just itching for a chance to shoot someone.

2) Martin attacked Zimmerman long after Zimmerman stopped following him. If Zimmerman had approached Martin and Martin had attacked him then, Martin could have claimed Stand Your Ground since he may not have known Zimmerman's intentions. Instead he ran away, Zimmerman stopped following him, and Martin turned around and attacked Zimmerman. Martin is the aggressor in this case. Following a man is not a crime (Even if it is stupid).

3) The common claim that Florida's Stand Your Ground law needs to be repealed because of the Zimmerman case is just bonkers. Stand Your Ground wasn't used as part of his defense and had no place in the trial. The whole point of Stand Your Ground is to stand your ground against a potential attacker that's approaching you, since turning away from an assailant is one of the worst things you can do during a confrontation. Its only purpose is to prevent a potential attacker from getting a cheap shot in. Zimmerman was caught by surprise and wasn't even aware of Martin until he was right on top of him. Martin attacked Zimmerman first as far as we can tell, so any chance for this to be a Stand Your Ground case disappeared and it became Self Defense as far as the law is concerned.

4) Zimmerman only shot Martin after he was pinned to the ground and was having his head bashed into concrete. Zimmerman was at risk for a concussion at best, death or brain damage at worst. He took the only option he reasonably could to prevent himself from becoming a drooling paperweight and shot the man who was attacking him. Martin had no ground to stand on: Zimmerman acted in pure self defense.

Even if you went back in time and repealed the Stand Your Ground laws, it wouldn't have changed the verdict. The only thing it potentially would have changed is the police investigation, but probably not even that. The police looked into it and came to the same conclusion as the jury: Self defense. Anyone claiming that Stand Your Ground needs to be repealed because of Martin's death is just using Martin's death as a playing card for political purposes, and you can bet if your time traveling self had repealed Stand Your Ground those same politicians would be attacking something else, such as concealed weapons permits.


So, could you explain why you think that self-defense laws need to be changed in order to punish people who defend themselves against attackers? Do you want to get rid of self defense laws entirely? If not, how exactly do you want self defense laws to work without punishing people who just want to defend themselves?

[Duuvian]

I think a clause should be added that says if the firearm is used, it has to have been in a situation you yourself didn't exacerbate for example by following someone around. I think that law in particular was meant for the opposite of what it was used for in this case and all it would take is a few more lines of text to put it back the way it was meant.

[Lagslayer]

I think a clause should be added that says if the firearm is used, it has to have been in a situation you yourself didn't exacerbate for example by following someone around. I think that law in particular was meant for the opposite of what it was used for in this case and all it would take is a few more lines of text to put it back the way it was meant.

If I'm not mistaken, that's already covered in the manslaughter and murder laws. Putting it in the "stand your ground" or other self-defense laws wouldn't mean anything.

Unless you are specifically targeting guns. In which case, would you also ban the use of something else like a knife or fists to kill the attacker? If that's the case, then the self defense laws are completely pointless.

[Leafsnail]

I honestly can't believe you're still trying to claim everyone who says anything bad about Martin has a racist agenda. There is no reason to cry racism here, so quit trying to strengthen your position by calling others racist. It's pathetic.

I listed racism as one of three possible reasons.  Do you deny that there are people attacking Martin due to racism?

1) Zimmerman had no intention of killing Martin. If he wanted to kill him to start off with, he wouldn't have called the cops just so they could come over and arrest him for murder, and I think we can all agree that Zimmerman isn't some criminal mastermind who manipulated the entire situation so he could kill a man. He just isn't that competent, and even if he wanted to kill Martin he could in no way control Martin's actions. From what I can tell this is also the first time that Zimmerman has even drawn his concealed weapon in all of the confrontations that he's been in, so it's not like he was just itching for a chance to shoot someone.

Sure.  But lack of premeditation doesn't stop it from being manslaughter.

2) Martin attacked Zimmerman long after Zimmerman stopped following him. If Zimmerman had approached Martin and Martin had attacked him then, Martin could have claimed Stand Your Ground since he may not have known Zimmerman's intentions. Instead he ran away, Zimmerman stopped following him, and Martin turned around and attacked Zimmerman. Martin is the aggressor in this case. Following a man is not a crime (Even if it is stupid).

Is this established beyond a doubt, or based entirely on Zimmerman's implausible story (that includes a young man with a punctured lung giving a death speech)?

3) The common claim that Florida's Stand Your Ground law needs to be repealed because of the Zimmerman case is just bonkers. Stand Your Ground wasn't used as part of his defense and had no place in the trial. The whole point of Stand Your Ground is to stand your ground against a potential attacker that's approaching you, since turning away from an assailant is one of the worst things you can do during a confrontation. Its only purpose is to prevent a potential attacker from getting a cheap shot in. Zimmerman was caught by surprise and wasn't even aware of Martin until he was right on top of him. Martin attacked Zimmerman first as far as we can tell, so any chance for this to be a Stand Your Ground case disappeared and it became Self Defense as far as the law is concerned.

Palsch has said this at least half a dozen times, but I guess I'll say it once more: the jury instructions were totally different due to SYG.  SYG eliminated Zimmerman's need to use other measures before killing Martin and also his responsibility to ensure that the threat against him was actual.

The idea that Zimmerman wasn't aware of Martin until he was right on top of him is also laughable by the way and only works under the "Martin decided to murder a stranger for no reason, and so suddenly that he decided to hang up his phone in the middle of a conversation" theory.

4) Zimmerman only shot Martin after he was pinned to the ground and was having his head bashed into concrete. Zimmerman was at risk for a concussion at best, death or brain damage at worst. He took the only option he reasonably could to prevent himself from becoming a drooling paperweight and shot the man who was attacking him. Martin had no ground to stand on: Zimmerman acted in pure self defense.

"Head bashed into the concrete" is still bullshit and not consistent with Zimmerman's injuries at all.  Like what, the first few bashes did nothing at all, but the next one, oh boy, that was going to turn him into a vegetable?

Even if you went back in time and repealed the Stand Your Ground laws, it wouldn't have changed the verdict. The only thing it potentially would have changed is the police investigation, but probably not even that. The police looked into it and came to the same conclusion as the jury: Self defense. Anyone claiming that Stand Your Ground needs to be repealed because of Martin's death is just using Martin's death as a playing card for political purposes, and you can bet if your time traveling self had repealed Stand Your Ground those same politicians would be attacking something else, such as concealed weapons permits.

Again, jury instructions (something the totally unbiased OP omitted) would have been radically changed by SYG.

So, could you explain why you think that self-defense laws need to be changed in order to punish people who defend themselves against attackers? Do you want to get rid of self defense laws entirely? If not, how exactly do you want self defense laws to work without punishing people who just want to defend themselves?

I would want self-defense laws to be changed so that they

a) Do not encourage people to pursue random people they regard as suspicious
b) Are not so vague that it's extremely to achieve a conviction for murder if there are no witnesses, even if the person claiming self-defence has no credible story
c) Require some responsibility on the part of the person using lethal force in response to a non-lethal attack

All of these things would be achieved by repealing SYG.  I don't know why people seem to think that some kind of radical change would be needed when just undoing a bad law would be sufficient.

[Lectorog]

To prosecute someone is to bring them to court, whether or not they are found guilty or not.  So it seems 18 respondants to the poll didn't even want that.

I figured that would be a silly proposition so I interpreted it to mean legal punishment rather than general legal action.

[scrdest]

I think a clause should be added that says if the firearm is used, it has to have been in a situation you yourself didn't exacerbate for example by following someone around. I think that law in particular was meant for the opposite of what it was used for in this case and all it would take is a few more lines of text to put it back the way it was meant.

Why a firearm? Do you think Martin would be any more alive if he was stabbed in the heart, or shot in the heart with a crossbow? And if you would add such line to usage of all weapons, you'd essentially prohibit self-defense.

'Situation you didn't exacerbate' is extremely vague and sounds like self-defense law equivalent of victim-blaming in rape cases: 'It was her fault, she was dressed provocatively so I raped her' vs. 'It was his fault, he followed me around so I stomped his head into the curb'.

I listed racism as one of three possible reasons.  Do you deny that there are people attacking Martin due to racism?

And therefore everyone who attacks Martin is a racist.

Sure.  But lack of premeditation doesn't stop it from being manslaughter.

But it does stop it from being murder, and it does stop it from being a racially-motivated killing. If race played any role, it played a role in Zimmerman deciding to follow Martin, which is not illegal. The decision to shoot stemmed from someone bashing your head on the ground, and when you are hitting the concrete you don't give a shit what color the person you shoot is.

2) Martin attacked Zimmerman long after Zimmerman stopped following him. If Zimmerman had approached Martin and Martin had attacked him then, Martin could have claimed Stand Your Ground since he may not have known Zimmerman's intentions. Instead he ran away, Zimmerman stopped following him, and Martin turned around and attacked Zimmerman. Martin is the aggressor in this case. Following a man is not a crime (Even if it is stupid).

Is this established beyond a doubt, or based entirely on Zimmerman's implausible story (that includes a young man with a punctured lung giving a death speech)?

The idea that Zimmerman wasn't aware of Martin until he was right on top of him is also laughable by the way and only works under the "Martin decided to murder a stranger for no reason, and so suddenly that he decided to hang up his phone in the middle of a conversation" theory.

Indeed, the idea that you might not be aware of someone you have been following presupposed yet-unknown forms of sensory perception in humans. Which is why nobody claims that. Nor does anybody claim Martin decided to murder anyone. But humans are squishy things, and even if you have no murderous intent, you might fuck up and kill someone anyway.

"Head bashed into the concrete" is still bullshit and not consistent with Zimmerman's injuries at all.  Like what, the first few bashes did nothing at all, but the next one, oh boy, that was going to turn him into a vegetable?

You'd be surprised.

I would want self-defense laws to be changed so that they

a) Do not encourage people to pursue random people they regard as suspicious
b) Are not so vague that it's extremely to achieve a conviction for murder if there are no witnesses, even if the person claiming self-defence has no credible story
c) Require some responsibility on the part of the person using lethal force in response to a non-lethal attack

All of these things would be achieved by repealing SYG.  I don't know why people seem to think that some kind of radical change would be needed when just undoing a bad law would be sufficient.

a) is completely unrelated to SYG
b) agreed
c) you expect someone under attack to assess just how much does his opponent want to hurt him and how accurately can they hurt you so it will not become lethal? True story - my uncle got killed by a junkie. The junkie wanted to hit him (with a metal rod) just to intimidate him during a mugging, but he dislodged one of the vertebra which cut the spinal cord in process. Dead on arrival.