Zimmerman

Dumbass pinko-nazi-neoconservative-hippy-capitalists.
Post Reply
Kulaf
Soverign Grand Postmaster General
Posts: 7122
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:06 am

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Kulaf » Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:02 pm

I see. So if we reversed it and Martin had reached into his pocket then Zimmerman would have been justified in pulling his gun and shooting him?

Because we all know how much BS that is right? If that had happened Zimmerman would be in prison right now for murder. You don't just get to assume someone is reaching for a gun.

Embar Angylwrath
President: Rsak Fan Club
Posts: 11674
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
Location: Top of the food chain

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Embar Angylwrath » Wed Jul 17, 2013 1:09 pm

@Dd

Would you say the same thing about Martin being under a lethal threat BECAUSE HE'S DEAD, if in response to getting hit in the face, George pushed Martin away, Martin tripped, hit his head and died?

And FYI - The Stand Your Ground law never was argued. Zimmerman was acquitted on very basic self-defense principles, so I don't know why you keep trotting out the SYG law as having something to do with this.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.

Embar
Alarius

Ddrak
Save a Koala, deport an Australian
Posts: 17478
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:00 pm
Location: Straya mate!
Contact:

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Ddrak » Wed Jul 17, 2013 3:08 pm

@Kulaf: He may have been justified. Like I said - context. If Zimmerman knew Martin had a gun, sure. I could go with that. There's a lot of people dead because cops thought they were reaching for guns...

@Embar: Nope - are you arguing the gun went off by accident? What's your point anyway? Surely you're not arguing the FL law is good.

And please explain the "basic self-defense principles" that allow you to kill someone else that isn't SYG. The whole point of SYG is to make a self-defense killing not manslaughter. If there's some other magical part of law that allows killing for self-defense then, by definition, it's SYG as well.

Dd
Image

Embar Angylwrath
President: Rsak Fan Club
Posts: 11674
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
Location: Top of the food chain

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Embar Angylwrath » Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:09 pm

Personally, I think the SYG law is a great thing. There should be no duty to retreat on the part of someone who is being victimized. But that is beside the point.

The gun was a tool, just like a knife, a rock, a club, a fist. So are you saying its ok with you to use something else other than a firearm? Because the tool used in self defense is irrelevant to principles of self defense in general and SYG in particular. There is no distinction made between the manner and method of self defense.

I don't know if you're willfully ignorant on this or not, but even in states where one DOES have a duty to retreat, you are allowed to defend yourself if attacked, even if it results in the death of the attacker. Zimmerman clearly could not retreat, so he didn't even have to make a claim under SYG. He could claim justifiable self-defense.

You are conflating SYG, which has no duty to retreat, to basic rights of self defense, which is what this incident is all about.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.

Embar
Alarius

Kulaf
Soverign Grand Postmaster General
Posts: 7122
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:06 am

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Kulaf » Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:05 pm

Well there certainly is a difference between a gun and a fist. One of them is considered using deadly force and the other is not unless the person has specific training for his fighting skills to be considered such.

Embar Angylwrath
President: Rsak Fan Club
Posts: 11674
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
Location: Top of the food chain

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Embar Angylwrath » Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:28 pm

Is that relevant to the right to self defense? Is there a legal distinction between tickling your attacker with a feather to get him/her off you and shooting him/her in the head with .50 cal Desert Eagle? I don't see it in the law, even in states where you are required to retreat, such as in California, where I currently reside. I don't see anything that says "In the course of self defense, you have a duty to retreat from the person committing a felony on you, and when you can no longer retreat, you are required to use the minimal amount of force necessary to thwart the person assaulting you."

If cops get to gun down a guy wielding a garden hose, I think the average citizen is justified in using deadly force against any attacker.

But I'm open to education on the subject.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.

Embar
Alarius

Torakus
Ignore me, I am drunk again
Posts: 1295
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:04 am

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Torakus » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:52 pm

Ddrak wrote:
Kulaf wrote:He would not be asserting a claim of self defense if he didn't "think" he was under threat.
Thank you. My point exactly. State of mind is important.
Kulaf wrote:Believing that Martin was acting in self defense requires that a reasonable person believes that someone reaching into their coat pocket represents an imminent threat to cause serious bodily harm or death. If we use that as a standard there are going to be a lot of people dead in this country.

Bottom line is you cannot escalate to physical force preemptively unless faced with imminent physical force. Reaching into a coat pocket does not meet that criteria.
This is blatantly incorrect. Context is everything in reaching for your pocket (or any physical action for that matter), and if you *know* someone has a gun then making an action to reach for where you believe it is absolutely constitutes a lethal threat.

It's all irrelevant anyway. Martin was obviously under a lethal threat BECAUSE HE'S DEAD. The stupid FL law says quite clearly they could both kill each other at that point without legal repercussions.

Dd
Martin had know way of knowing that Zimmerman had a weapon (it was concealed). His holster was concealed inside his waistband (this is in the Sanford PD police report). The only item that Martin knew that Zimmerman had was a cell phone because he observed Zimmerman talking on it while sitting in his truck.

Martin was NOT under a lethal threat until he escalated the encounter to a point where Zimmerman was justified in responding with deadly force. It wasn't the stupid law that killed him, it was Martin's intent to kill Zimmerman that killed him. "You are going to die tonight mother fucker!" I don't have a hard time believing Zimmerman when he says these are the last words of man whose girlfriend testified that he referred to Zimmerman as a creepy ass cracker. So yep you are right DD, context is everything.

Kulaf
Soverign Grand Postmaster General
Posts: 7122
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:06 am

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Kulaf » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:31 pm

Embar Angylwrath wrote:Is that relevant to the right to self defense? Is there a legal distinction between tickling your attacker with a feather to get him/her off you and shooting him/her in the head with .50 cal Desert Eagle? I don't see it in the law, even in states where you are required to retreat, such as in California, where I currently reside. I don't see anything that says "In the course of self defense, you have a duty to retreat from the person committing a felony on you, and when you can no longer retreat, you are required to use the minimal amount of force necessary to thwart the person assaulting you."

If cops get to gun down a guy wielding a garden hose, I think the average citizen is justified in using deadly force against any attacker.

But I'm open to education on the subject.
Yeah there is a difference in CA:

http://www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html#1
According to California law, you act in lawful self-defense if you:

1.reasonably believe that you are in imminent danger of being killed, seriously injured, or unlawfully touched,


2.believe that immediate force is necessary to prevent that danger, and


3.use no more force than necessary to defend against that danger.
So if a guy squares off the fight you with his fists.......you can respond in kind. You don't get to whip out the desert eagle and blow his head off.

Embar Angylwrath
President: Rsak Fan Club
Posts: 11674
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
Location: Top of the food chain

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Embar Angylwrath » Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:07 pm

Ok, California requires minimal force to defend, thanks for that.

However, if your fists aren't doing the job of defending, and the next tool you have is a gun, you're justified in using the only tool left to you.

Just like Zimmerman did. The fight went on for nearly 30 seconds to a minute, according to expert testimony, IIRC. For any of you that have been in a fight, that's a long ass time. Especially if you are getting your ass kicked. Let's say that all went down in California, where one has the duty to retreat and the duty to use the least amount of force to defend. Zimmerman would still have walked here. He could not retreat, his use of fists was getting him nowhere, the only tool left to him was his firearm, which he used in self defense, not in an intent to kill.

Dd's position that SYG is synonymous with principles of self defense is incorrect. SYG expands on already established rights to defend person and property, and Zimmerman didn't even need to invoke it since he already met the lower standard of simple self defense.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.

Embar
Alarius

Partha
Reading is fundamental!!!1!!
Posts: 11322
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:42 am
Location: Rockford, IL

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Partha » Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:08 pm

Believing that Martin was acting in self defense requires that a reasonable person believes that someone reaching into their coat pocket represents an imminent threat to cause serious bodily harm or death.
Evidently now, being tailed to your home by a stranger who does not identify himself isn't threatening. I would love to see this done around one of you Second Amendment nuts, just to see how high the body count goes, simply because according to you, challenging the guy tailing you is a terrible violation of your rights to tail anyone.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant

"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.

Partha
Reading is fundamental!!!1!!
Posts: 11322
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:42 am
Location: Rockford, IL

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Partha » Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:10 pm

Ok, California requires minimal force to defend, thanks for that.

However, if your fists aren't doing the job of defending, and the next tool you have is a gun, you're justified in using the only tool left to you.
So, if you suck at fighting, instead of taking your ass beating, you are allowed to shoot someone. Tremendous.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant

"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.

Embar Angylwrath
President: Rsak Fan Club
Posts: 11674
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
Location: Top of the food chain

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Embar Angylwrath » Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:47 pm

I'm sure all the women out there are encouraged by that statement. Learn to fight off someone that clearly outclasses you or take the rape like a good little girl.

Tremendous.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.

Embar
Alarius

Partha
Reading is fundamental!!!1!!
Posts: 11322
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:42 am
Location: Rockford, IL

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Partha » Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:42 am

Weak. Try harder!
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant

"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.

Tarfang_Trubasher
Mastah Elect of 9
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:42 am
Contact:

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Tarfang_Trubasher » Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:50 pm

"The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a -- in a case such as this, reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury’s spoken, that’s how our system works." --- "And that all contributes, I think, to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different." -- President Barack Obama (7-19-2013)

Excerpts I found interesting from today's press conference -- Link to Transcript

So, justice was served, but the outcome was wrong. Right?

-TF
Tarfang Trubasher
Master Basher of the Trollie Kind

User avatar
Harlowe
Nubile nuptaphobics ftw
Posts: 10640
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:13 pm
Location: My underground lair

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Harlowe » Fri Jul 19, 2013 1:14 pm

I don't see anything wrong with his statement. Basically justice was served according to our system, but the system contributes to these outcomes, that can differ based on the color of a person's skin.

I guess that statement makes some white people uncomfortable, but statistically we know this is true. People of color are incarcerated at a much higher rate than people those that are not. Punishments have also been statistically harsher.

I thought Questlove's post was pretty poignant.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... -shit.html

Embar Angylwrath
President: Rsak Fan Club
Posts: 11674
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
Location: Top of the food chain

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Embar Angylwrath » Fri Jul 19, 2013 2:37 pm

There's a reason they are incarcerated more Harlowe, they commit more crimes.

I do have an issue with differing levels of punishment though.

And Obama just fanned the flames, he made a law and order issue a political one, elevated to his office. It was irresponsible.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.

Embar
Alarius

Embar Angylwrath
President: Rsak Fan Club
Posts: 11674
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
Location: Top of the food chain

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Embar Angylwrath » Fri Jul 19, 2013 2:45 pm

I will agree with Obama on one thing, that the younger generation, kids under 16 or so, don't seem to see things through racial eyes. Maybe that's just my observation for where I live and who my step-kids interact with others, but there doesn't seem to be any differentiation of people based on the color of one's skin.

I should also note that a lot of the kids in our area are mixed-genetic heritage. Some of the most beautiful and handsome kids I've seen. Maybe that's helping, I don't know.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.

Embar
Alarius

User avatar
Harlowe
Nubile nuptaphobics ftw
Posts: 10640
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:13 pm
Location: My underground lair

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Harlowe » Fri Jul 19, 2013 2:55 pm

He didn't fan any flames (unless you mean just gave the right something to clutch their pearls over). It's been a political toy since the beginning. That's why we know about it.

They are incarcerated at a higher rate - meaning comparing an equal number of crimes = incarceration and punishment is greater for blacks committing those crimes than whites.

This is also relevant.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... ound-laws/

Kulaf
Soverign Grand Postmaster General
Posts: 7122
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:06 am

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Kulaf » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:32 pm

I find it hard to fathom how the President can issue a statement like that while his Justice Department is currently deciding whether or not they will press federal charges. That was a perfect time for......I cannot comment on this issue while the Justice Department is conducting its investigation.

Embar Angylwrath
President: Rsak Fan Club
Posts: 11674
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
Location: Top of the food chain

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Embar Angylwrath » Sat Jul 20, 2013 4:45 pm

Harlowe wrote:He didn't fan any flames (unless you mean just gave the right something to clutch their pearls over). It's been a political toy since the beginning. That's why we know about it.

They are incarcerated at a higher rate - meaning comparing an equal number of crimes = incarceration and punishment is greater for blacks committing those crimes than whites.

This is also relevant.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... ound-laws/
Currently, of the incarcerated population, blacks make up about 38% and whites make up 34%. Crimes that get you incarcerated are usually violent felonies and stupid mandatory sentencing drug laws. Blacks make up about 12.5% of the population, yet commit the majority of violent crimes and drug offenses. That's why they are incarcerated more. They both commit more crimes, both in number and a helluva lot more when adjusted for percentage of population, and they commit more of the crimes most likely to get one incarcerated. It's all on the DOJ website, should you care to look at the stats.

Also, the largest cause of death for young black men is other young black men. I really don't get why the Sharpton's and the Jackson's of the world aren't trying to change that. It would do a lot more to reduce the numbers of senseless killings of blacks than chest thumping over the Zimmerman verdict.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.

Embar
Alarius

Post Reply