patrick.net

marcus says

Wtf ? He could pass for white, and his head is shaved. Is this really that hard to comprehend ?

Not at all. I guess I don't understand Dan's point. So TM thought a neo-nazi was following him, and that's why TM decided to start the fight? It seems like this line of thinking helps to suggest that TM was the aggressor.

GZ is obviously Hispanic, my girlfriend is from straight out of Sinaloa, Mexico and not one member of her family is as dark as GZ. Anyone who says GZ looks white walks around wearing their ass for a hat.

"Zimmerman: In A Just World, This Trial Is Over"

Uh, your country is COLLAPSING, you have legalized TORTURE, legalized WAR CRIMES, legalized FINANCIAL FRAUD, legalized MURDER, legalized KIDNAPPING, an out of control POLICE STATE, lack of rule of law, your judiciary is completely CORRUPT, your so-called 'leaders' are all wholly-owned subsidiaries of Goldman Sachs and yet here you are ...worrying about Zimmerman.

In a TRULY just world, people like you would be used as fertilizer for plants or as pet food.

I guess why I can't identify with this guy ZImmerman, is I've never felt the "wannabe cop" urge. The desire to cruise my neighborhood looking for suspects until I find them, then chase after them. Neighborhood watch does attract these sort. If I saw something happening, I'd phone it in and done, preferably from behind a locked door.

ch_tah2 says

I don't get why either person deserved to be harmed? In theory, couldn't they have just talked?

-Z: what are you doing here?

-TM: going home, why?

-Z: just checking, there have been a lot of burglaries around here.

-TM: well, not me, just bought some skittles and iced tea

-Z: ok

-TM: ok

Why do you advocate violence?

Why do you advocate violence?
That's a Straw Man argument.

Yes, in theory they could have both talked. In theory, Zimmerman could have simply not stalked Martin. In theory, the conversation could have gone:

-Z: What are you doing here?

-TM: None of your damn business. Tell me your name, social security number, and address. If you don't fell comfortable doing that then get lost.

-Z: You're right. I forgot this isn't Nazi Germany.

But the bottom line is that Martin had far more legitimate cause to fear for his life and to use force to defend himself. Martin was the one stalked. Martin was the one who fled. Martin was the one who called for help.

Hell, it would have been reasonable for Martin to suspect that Zimmerman might shoot him. Oh wait, that did happen. So Martin is clearly justified in acting in self defense.

How could Zimmerman act in self defense? By not pursuing Martin. Case closed.

mell says

If GZ was black and TM was white this story would have never made it into the news and nobody would be discussing it.

If Zimmerman were black and Martin white, Zimmerman's ass would have been arrested under Florida's 10-20-Life law on day one and the court system would be presuming his guilt and would have given him a worthless public defender that had no interest in his client.

The whole reason that this case made the media was that Zimmerman was left go with no consequences. Now that's likely because of Zimmerman's family relations to a judge, but hey, Martin didn't have such relations.

Dan8267 says

Why do you advocate violence?

That's a Straw Man argument.

No, it's not. You specifically said ZM deserved to get an "ass-whooping." Yes, the whole thing was avoidable at many stages. That still doesn't mean either person deserved any violence towards them.

ch_tah2 says

I'd like to see stats on if more blacks are killed by whites or hispanics.

Irrelevant. The horrific history of whites lynching blacks in the South is cause for reasonable concern on the part of blacks.

ch_tah2 says

And the skinhead reference seems to completely ignore ZM's hispanic half unless you are implying he is a neo-nazi that hates himself.

Not at all. What matters in the case regarding whether or not Martin had just cause to act in self-defense would be Martin's reasonable perception at the time of the crime, not what we learn about Zimmerman's background after the murder. Martin had more than reasonable reason to think that Zimmerman was a white guy trying to beat, kill, or lynch a black teen. As such, I can find no fault in Martin using force in self-defense, especially since the force he used was non-lethal.

MsBennet says

Why does it have to be black and white?

As I've stated above, race is relevant in this case as a probable motive, but a crime has been committed either way.

MsBennet says

If any man or women is on top of someone continually punching them, the person on the bottom may chose to use a gun. I would hope they wouldn't, but a person who is being pummeled has the option to use deadly force to stop it, and it will be deemed no 2nd degree murder.

Counter-example:

Dan8267 says

This harkens back to my original objection to the use of the Stand Your Ground law. Imagine if some asshole in a bar walks up to a couple, sucker punches the guy and gropes the woman. So the guy punched gets up and punches the asshole right back knocking him on his ass. Does the asshole then have the right to pull out a gun and shoot the man under the Stand Your Ground law? Basically, the Zimmerman case is no different.

MsBennet, in the above scenario, would you say the asshole has the right to use deadly force against the man and woman for fighting back?

Rew says

So Florida has a decision to make:

- not convict and allow private citizens to play chase while armed

- convict and send a message that if you are carrying you have strong legal obligations that go along with that choice

Yes, Florida's Stand Your Ground law is also on trial here. It's a stupid law, as self-defense has always been legal, but self-defense means using the minimum level of force necessary to secure oneself, not the maximum.

If the jury is dumb enough to accept the SYG law as justification for Martin's murder, then every asshole will have a license to kill and get-out-of-jail-free card. In fact, it would strongly encourage killing as the victim is more dangerous if he is left alive to testify. Why hit your opponent to subdue him when he might file assault charges and a lawsuit when you can legally kill him and prevent that by saying you were scared?

ch_tah2 says

I guess I don't understand Dan's point.

Of course not. You don't want to.

One has to want to understand something before being able to do so.

Of course, I'm not trying to get you to understand my argument. I'm trying to get everyone else reading our debate to understand that you are willfully biased.

Dan8267 says

Not at all. What matters in the case regarding whether or not Martin had just cause to act in self-defense would be Martin's reasonable perception at the time of the crime, not what we learn about Zimmerman's background after the murder. Martin had more than reasonable reason to think that Zimmerman was a white guy trying to beat, kill, or lynch a black teen. As such, I can find no fault in Martin using force in self-defense, especially since the force he used was non-lethal.

So, at what point did TM use self-defense? Are you saying TM hit Z without Z hitting him first? And are you saying TM hit Z purely based on the appearance of Z and historical information?

ch_tah2 says

You specifically said ZM deserved to get an "ass-whooping." Yes, the whole thing was avoidable at many stages.

Being in favor of using violence when necessary in self-defense is a hell of a lot different than advocating violence. A pacifist isn't someone who stands by while Ann Frank is raped and murder. A pacifist is someone who uses violence as a last resort, not a first resort.

You are intentionally trying to twist my words. You will always fail at this. My philosophies are as clear and precise as well-written source code in my head. As such, it's trivially easy for me to make them clear in writing.

Dan8267 says

mell says

If GZ was black and TM was white this story would have never made it into the news and nobody would be discussing it.

If Zimmerman were black and Martin white, Zimmerman's ass would have been arrested under Florida's 10-20-Life law on day one and the court system would be presuming his guilt and would have given him a worthless public defender that had no interest in his client.

The whole reason that this case made the media was that Zimmerman was left go with no consequences. Now that's likely because of Zimmerman's family relations to a judge, but hey, Martin didn't have such relations.

You obviously know Florida much better than I do, but you seem to purely speculate on why GZ was let go. Again, I think then it would be proper to engage in prevention of wrongful conviction of blacks and changing laws such as stand your ground. but not cheer on the prosecution in that murder trial. I think there was some thread where you said that 2 wrongs don't make a right ;) And based on as I see the facts and (stupid or not) laws, anything worse than convicting him of some sort of minor manslaughter is not in the cards.

Dan8267 says

Of course, I'm not trying to get you to understand my argument. I'm trying to get everyone else reading our debate to understand that you are willfully biased.

Ummm...I'm not the one advocating one side getting an "ass-whopping." Hopefully, you can see that you are biased.

I'll be honest, I don't care that much about the verdict. I don't think he will be found guilty of 2nd deg murder because the case is so weak. My main interest in all of this is that I wish the media and others would stop stoking the white vs. black fire.

ch_tah2 says

So, at what point did TM use self-defense? Are you saying TM hit Z without Z hitting him first? And are you saying TM hit Z purely based on the appearance of Z and historical information?

None of these questions are relevant to my argument that Martin is the one who had reasonable fear for his life in this situation and, as such, would be the party that can reasonably claim self-defense.

It would be self-contradiction to believe that both parties reasonably could use force in self-defense as two parties with no interest in harming the other would never come to blows. The question is which party had the better justification for self-defense. The answer is obviously the party that
- did not cause the situation
- attempted to flee from the situation
- was prevented from fleeing
- was stalked

I wonder how much this case would change if Martin had been a white girl instead of a black man. Imagine Zimmerman chasing down an unarmed white girl, who then uses what she learned in self-defense class to knock Zimmerman on his ass, and then Zimmerman shoots her. How many people would be defending Zimmerman in that scenario?

If you are not racist or sexist, you should reach the same damn conclusion for both scenarios.

ch_tah2 says

Ummm...I'm not the one advocating one side getting an "ass-whopping." Hopefully, you can see that you are biased.

Nor am I, but I am stating that self-defense is far more reasonable a justification for Martin's behavior than Zimmerman's. That does not make me biased. It means I have common sense.

But hey, how about you answering a question. Was Zimmerman's use of force justified? You painted yourself in that corner.

Dan8267 says

Imagine Zimmerman chasing down an unarmed white girl, who then uses what she learned in self-defense class to knock Zimmerman on his ass,

OK now, that never happens. For women highly skilled in self-defense and in strong shape their best bet is to land one or a few evil surprise punches/kicks where it hurts/disables most to free themselves and then outrun and outscream their aggressor. Unless they have been trained by AF ;)

mell says

You obviously know Florida much better than I do

I live in Florida. The 10-20-Life law is advertised in every black neighborhood.

mell says

but you seem to purely speculate on why GZ was let go.

I clearly said "likely" not "absolutely". Furthermore, it is not wild speculation. Zimmerman had gotten off of several criminal and civil infractions due to his family relationships. It is hardly unreasonable to suspect that this might be the case in this situation as well.

mell says

Again, I think then it would be proper to engage in prevention of wrongful conviction of blacks and changing laws such as stand your ground. but not cheer on the prosecution in that murder trial.

Unfortunately, the Zimmerman case is inherently interwoven with both the Stand Your Ground law and the 10-20-Life law. That cannot be separated at this point.

However, if you are asking my opinion on those laws, I consider both to be Unconstitutional. The 10-20-Life law violates due process, and the Stand Your Ground law violates the 14th Amendment (as well as being bad for other reasons).

In any case, I can honestly say that my opinions on this case would be the same if the races were reversed or if genders were changed.

Dan8267 says

Was Zimmerman's use of force justified?

If you are referring to Z shooting TM, then the answer is: it depends.

Ok, so you answer, did TM (based on Z's appearance and the historical background you described) have a right to hit Z first without any provocation other than being followed?

MsBennet says

If any man or women is on top of someone continually punching them...

Yes, we all know that this is Zim's story. We also know that Zim is a liar and manipulator and that the forensic evidence does not support the fantasy that Zim was being "continually" struck.

If he did not lie about so many things I might not suspect that Zim is trying to get away with murder. If his story was, "...I approached the suspect and asked what they were doing in the area. After a few heated words were exchanged the suspect hit me once knocking me to the ground, then jumped on me. Fearing for my life I drew and fired..."

Zim's story has so many little inconsistencies, and is such a convenient textbook tale of self-defense it makes me suspicious of anything he says.

ch_tah2 says

Ok, so you answer, did TM (based on Z's appearance and the historical background you described) have a right to hit Z first without any provocation other than being followed?

There's a huge difference between causally following someone and chasing them down so they cannot escape. If you had been chased down by a stranger the way that Zimmerman chased down Martin, I'd suspect that you'd be a bit worry, too.

Yeah, I don't get why people think the self-defense grounds is unquestionable for the white skinhead adult with a gun who chased the unarmed black minor through the streets and the lawn, but is ridiculous if applied to the black minor being stalked in the night. No one has yet to show me while that belief isn't ridiculous.

leo707 says

We also know that Zim is a liar and manipulator and that the forensic evidence does not support the fantasy that Zim was being "continually" struck.

I don't even mind that Zimmerman lied to the police. An innocent person scared of being wrongfully convicted will lie.

What I do not accept is that the aggressor can use a self-defense claim when he loses the upper hand in a fight he started or instigated. That has very dangerous and unjust implication.

I noticed that everyone arguing against me has been avoiding the two alternative scenarios I've given that undermine the Stand Your Ground Law: the asshole attacking a couple, and the girl being killed for using self-defense against a man following her. Do any of you care to address those situations?

Dan8267 says

and the girl being killed for using self-defense against a man following her

The man would have a hard time convincing the jury that he could not escape the woman's grip/strikes, unless she was an MMA fighter perhaps. The same evaluation was done for TM vs GZ. Apparently TM was deemed strong enough to pin down GZ and together with the wounds it made a likely story. Every case is different, impossible to judge without a concrete case. I agree though that the stand your ground law seems problematic and can possibly be undermined.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

mell says

Unless they have been trained by AF ;)

Right, once the victim has disarmed the perp, she can use it to blast a hole in the base of his spine, severing his spinal cord. Disabled, she can flip the perp over, stomp his arms to pieces to protect her from further violence and eat his face to assure he'll be of no further danger to society. No jury would be able to help but burst into applause.

I knew I could count on you!

mell says

marcus says

mell says

If GZ was black and TM was white this story would have never made it into the news and nobody would be discussing it.

True, because GZ would have been arrested immediately, charged and convicted for committing murder.

If you believe this to be true then you should engage in opposing wrongful conviction of blacks shooting whites, not engage in advocating wrongful conviction of GZ for 2nd degree murder.

I believe that the core headline for this story is "Neighborhood Watch Shoots Innocent 17 Year-old and Walks."

If they were both the same race this very well could have been national news. Make either one a "real" criminal -- or Zim a cop -- and no story.

Yes, because they are different races race has been a big part of the discussion. Which I think is distracting from one of the more important issues -- why, is someone with Zim's violent disposition (one who's violent outbursts got him fired from a legitimate security job) allowed to carry a gun and act in a psudo-cop roll?

Anyway, one of the reasons this turned out to be a national story is Trayvon's family hired a publicist. For almost two weeks it was only a local Florida story.

mell says

The man would have a hard time convincing the jury that he could not escape the woman's grip/strikes, unless she was an MMA fighter perhaps.

That wasn't the question. A man in a car follows a woman, the woman flees, the man gets out of the car and chases her. When the man reaches the woman, the woman quickly flips him with a martial arts move she learned in self-defense class and reaches in her purse for pepper-spray and a rape whistle. The man pulls out a gun and shoots her dead.

The man claims that he acted under Florida's Stand Your Ground law and that the vicious woman knew martial arts and was clearly a threat, and he thought she was going for a gun when she reached in her purse.

You would let that man go free? What if after he goes free, the same thing happens with another woman? How many times would you let him go free?

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Basically, all this means is that the hour that Zimfuck walks under SYG, everyone in Florida will have to kill the first person they see in order not to be victimized by another person conceiving of them as a mortal threat.

Exactly my point.

Dan8267 says

The Stand Your Ground law basically says, he who shoots first out of paranoia has the law on his side.

See also the example with the woman two posts up.

Dan8267 says

I don't even mind that Zimmerman lied to the police. An innocent person scared of being wrongfully convicted will lie.

True, it is not so much the lies, but the nature of the lies.

Zim's story is so perfect it is almost as if someone sat down, studied self-defense law, and concocted a preplanned story that touched on all the legal points required for a shooting to be done in self-defense. The whole story seems, well...premeditated...

Dan8267 says

There's a huge difference between causally following someone and chasing them down so they cannot escape. If you had been chased down by a stranger the way that Zimmerman chased down Martin, I'd suspect that you'd be a bit worry, too.

I'd have to see more details to know. I haven't seen much evidence that supports that scenario. The way you describe it is like some ogre chasing down a bunny rabbit, not some fit 17 year old being followed by fat-a.. Z. You may "know" that's what happened, but an objective person may not believe that story.

Dan8267 says

The man claims that he acted under Florida's Stand Your Ground law and that the vicious woman knew martial arts and was clearly a threat, and he thought she was going for a gun when she reached in her purse.

The answer is I don't know until there is a concrete case. These cases are vastly different from what actually seems to have happened here, but if you want to point out the problem(s) with stand your ground (if these cases indeed fit under stand-your-ground as written), then you have been successful.

leo707 says

The whole story seems, well...premeditated...

Maybe. Zimmerman got in trouble before this incident, so perhaps he studied up "just in case". But I think it's more likely he got his story straight using the help of lawyers after the incident but before his arrest. I suspect that Zimmerman was familiar with the Stand Your Ground law before Martin's murder, and that law might have given him courage to act more aggressively. Still, that's speculation.

What's not speculation is that if the SYG defense stands, it will encourage others to be more aggressive in using deadly force.

ch_tah2 says

I'd have to see more details to know. I haven't seen much evidence that supports that scenario.

Read prior threads on this site or new sites. The evidence is clear from the location of the body to the fact that Zimmerman had to exit his car to chase down Martin.

mell says

The answer is I don't know until there is a concrete case.

That's a cop-out. Accept the premise of the hypothetical case I submitted. It's a very realistic situation that inevitable will happen.

mell says

but if you want to point out the problem(s) with stand your ground (if these cases indeed fit under stand-your-ground as written), then you have been successful.

That is my main point.

The Zimmerman trial will have legal repercussions in the State of Florida, and possibly other states passing similar legislation, that go way beyond Zimmerman and Martin. How broad of a lease people have to use deadly force against the mere perception of threats against their life will be influenced greatly by this case.

The interpretation of the SYG is, in my opinion, far more important than the racial aspects of this case. Interpreting SYG as a legitimate defense for instigators will open the door for all kinds of assaults.

Dan8267 says

I suspect that Zimmerman was familiar with the Stand Your Ground law before Martin's murder, and that law might have given him courage to act more aggressively. Still, that's speculation.

Apparently he got an "A" in a criminal litigation course that covered (apparently in some depth) the Stand Your Ground law...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592150-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-zimmerman-learned-about-self-defense-in-criminal-litigation-class-military-attorney-testifies/

"...military attorney to the stand who gave accused murderer George Zimmerman an "A" in his criminal litigation course....

Prosecutors say Zimmerman did have knowledge of Florida's controversial stand your ground law, although he claimed in an interview last year with Fox News television host Sean Hannity that he didn't know about the law before his fatal Feb. 26, 2012 confrontation with Florida teen Trayvon Martin."

I know I am shocked as well that he would lie to Hannity.

Dan8267 says

That's a cop-out. Accept the premise of the hypothetical case I submitted. It's a very realistic situation that inevitable will happen.

I think it's fairly unrealistic, but if the man could convince the jury (I am not sure whether just reaching into her purse without doing any solid prior major damage to him will convince them) that he had reasonable grounds to fear for his life from the woman's action, then the law should be equally applied here as well (until the law is changed).

Dan8267 says

The evidence is clear from the location of the body to the fact that Zimmerman had to exit his car to chase down Martin.

So there's evidence that shows Z exited his car, or evidence that Z chased TM down so he could not escape?

Zimmerman should have been tried for Manslaughter 2

Prosecution fuck up

ch_tah2 says

So there's evidence that shows Z exited his car,

Um...yes...I think this is a pretty clear fact.

ch_tah2 says

or evidence that Z chased TM down so he could not escape?

Yes, Z did pursue TM. To the point where TM felt there was not escape? That is a maybe, and perhaps we will never know.

ch_tah2 says

So there's evidence that shows Z exited his car,

He says as much in his phone call.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/14/2748048/interactive-map-of-trayvon-martin.html