The Trayvon Martin & George Zimmerman Story

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The Trayvon Martin & George Zimmerman Story

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:09 pm

Well Fisti, here's someone who agrees with you that Zimmerman's guilt or innocence is not the issue:

"Zimmerman thinks it’s a mistake because he’s not guilty. But as Kafka might have told him, guilt or innocence has little to do with it. Zimmerman wasn’t indicted on charges of shooting a man, but of being a racist, of being the living embodiment of American inequality, NRA lawmaking and a dozen other sins. These are not charges that he can ever shake, because they are not legal crimes, they are political crimes."

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.ph ... M4.twitter

fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison
Contact:

Re: The Trayvon Martin & George Zimmerman Story

Postby fisticuffs » Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:14 pm

Weak even by your standards.

Zimmerman wasn’t indicted on charges of shooting a man, but of being a racist, of being the living embodiment of American inequality, NRA lawmaking and a dozen other sins. These are not charges that he can ever shake, because they are not legal crimes, they are political crimes.


Zimmerman was indicted on second degree murder. No Canadian blogger gets to change that because he blogged it. Now give us all the lecture again about misrepresenting peoples views. It's just fucking classic coming from you.

Any other weak ass arguments and question dodging today?

Now we understand why you carry a gun... you fight like a pussy.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The Trayvon Martin & George Zimmerman Story

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:25 pm

fisticuffs wrote:Thanks for proving my point. Clearly those who wanted an arrest and a trial were in no way a "lynch mob" as you've described them.

You failed to answer my direct question (shocking)
Did Travon not have a right to defend himself if he felt threatened?

I understand that you want to be able to make a decision to use force when you feel there is an eminent threat. Should you not be held accountable if that decision is wrong?


Bullshit. Demanding an arrest by an emotionally whipped up mob isn't part of the justice system. Ask Pontius Pilate.

Did Travon have a right to defend himself if he felt threatened? That depends. What is the threat?

Should you not be held accountable if the decision is wrong? Tell me what you mean by "wrong." You mean based on a error? Like when police shoot someone reaching into their pocket to get their phone and they believe they're reaching for a weapon?

Clarify those for me and I'll be happy to offer an opinion.

By the way... it's "imminent threat" not "eminent."

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The Trayvon Martin & George Zimmerman Story

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:41 pm

fisticuffs wrote:Weak even by your standards.

Zimmerman wasn’t indicted on charges of shooting a man, but of being a racist, of being the living embodiment of American inequality, NRA lawmaking and a dozen other sins. These are not charges that he can ever shake, because they are not legal crimes, they are political crimes.


Zimmerman was indicted on second degree murder. No Canadian blogger gets to change that because he blogged it. Now give us all the lecture again about misrepresenting peoples views. It's just fucking classic coming from you.

Any other weak ass arguments and question dodging today?

Now we understand why you carry a gun... you fight like a pussy.


I let the guy speak for himself. I didn't represent it in any manner except to point out that both you and he say that that Zimmerman's guilt or innocence isn't the issue. But maybe it struck a nerve that someone wrote that this is a political issue more than a criminal issue. Ouch! Maybe the agenda isn't so well hidden, ya eh?

Ha! You've always been an amusing hoot and a holler Fisti, but I'm not that difficult to find in the event that you sober up and ever care to test your theory.

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: The Trayvon Martin & George Zimmerman Story

Postby Stebben84 » Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:08 pm

Dangerousman wrote: But I do look at all sides of the story first, and I'm not inclined to jump in with the lynch-mob mentality.


I'm not jumping to conclusions either. As I said, I'm glad this is going to trial so we can get the truth. I don't think we had that before and if he is acquitted I will stand by that judgement.

Dangerousman wrote: With the incomplete picture we have at this point, if you don't have any doubts then I question your objectivity.


I do have doubts. Those doubts arose from the fact that he was let go so quickly and it only became an issue when enough people raised it as an issue. You may call this mob mentality, but I call it peoples justice to get the answers.

Dangerousman wrote: I certainly do not believe that having a legal gun gives you carte blanche to use it in any manner you wish. Far from it. And I'd appreciate you not attempting to wrongly characterize my position


My characterization of you was from your answer to the quiz. Apparently getting beat up justifies shooting someone which, in this case, lead to death. That's why I said your quiz was too simple. JUST getting beat up in my opinion doesn't justify shooting and killing someone. Fearing YOU will be killed may be. Yes, we don't know the situation they were in, but from the surveillance I saw, Zimmerman surely didn't look fucked up enough for me to believe he was about to die. But, alas, I was not there and don't know.

So someone is hanging out at a bar concealing and not drinking. Another person, unarmed makes a pass at their significant other. An altercation ensues. They go outside and the gun carrier shoves the other person. A fight ensues. It's even until the non carrier starts to win. Is the concealed carrier justified to shoot the other person? In my opinion, no, but it sounds like your opinion is yes. Am I wrong?

FJD
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3538
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm

Re: The Trayvon Martin & George Zimmerman Story

Postby FJD » Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:21 pm

Stebben84 wrote:My characterization of you was from your answer to the quiz. Apparently getting beat up justifies shooting someone which, in this case, lead to death. That's why I said your quiz was too simple. JUST getting beat up in my opinion doesn't justify shooting and killing someone. Fearing YOU will be killed may be. Yes, we don't know the situation they were in, but from the surveillance I saw, Zimmerman surely didn't look fucked up enough for me to believe he was about to die. But, alas, I was not there and don't know.

So someone is hanging out at a bar concealing and not drinking. Another person, unarmed makes a pass at their significant other. An altercation ensues. They go outside and the gun carrier shoves the other person. A fight ensues. It's even until the non carrier starts to win. Is the concealed carrier justified to shoot the other person? In my opinion, no, but it sounds like your opinion is yes. Am I wrong?


Actually you aren't covering the major issue in a fight involving anyone carrying a gun, concealed or otherwise. If the unarmed person makes an attempt to take the gun away from the person carrying a gun it actually changes the issue to one of self defense on the part of the armed person.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The Trayvon Martin & George Zimmerman Story

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Stebben84 wrote:So someone is hanging out at a bar concealing and not drinking. Another person, unarmed makes a pass at their significant other. An altercation ensues. They go outside and the gun carrier shoves the other person. A fight ensues. It's even until the non carrier starts to win. Is the concealed carrier justified to shoot the other person? In my opinion, no, but it sounds like your opinion is yes. Am I wrong?


My opinion is that maybe it is justified, maybe not. It depends on a number of factors and it has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. First, one has to use the minimal amount of force needed to stop the threat. If simply pulling a gun stops an attack, then one is not justified in shooting. Once a threat ceases to be a threat one cannot legally continue to counterattack. If you've shot a person and they are no longer a willing or able to continue an attack, you cannot add a couple of extra shots for good measure. If your shot misses, and they stop attacking, you cannot shoot. Once the threat has ended, for whatever reason, one is no longer justified in inflicting damage on that person. That's the law, and I agree with it. It is drummed into gun carriers, both law enforcement and non-LEO alike, that one shoots "to stop the threat" not to kill. Death might be a consequence, but it is not the intent. The intent is simply to make the threat cease being a threat. The same principle applies to non-life threatening situations too. You walk a fine line when you choose to carry a weapon. A weapon ("weapon" in the broad sense, I would include proficiency with unarmed martial arts to be "a weapon") multiplies the amount of force one is capable of using. To a certain degree the amount of force it adds may be exaggerated in our minds. But it does enhance the amount of potential force at one's command. Bruce Lee with a knife or gun is capable of more violent force than Bruce Lee without a knife or gun. Sandra Lee with a gun is probably capable of more force than Bruce Lee without a gun. Weapons are force multipliers, nothing more. They don't make one invincible, they provide no guarantees, nothing does. They are simply tools, they're neither inherently good nor bad. A hammer can pound nails in a roof, stop an attacker, or be used in an attack. One may unintentionally hit one's thumb with a hammer. Similar comparisons can be made with the use or misuse of any tool designed as a weapon: I could open an envelope with my knife, rob a cabbie, save my life, or cut my finger while slicing an apple. As an inanimate object, it doesn't care. It has no will of it's own. The knife is no more and no less happy doing any of those things. On the other hand, I'm satisfied when it opens my envelope, bad and perversely happy if I used it to rob a cabbie, very happy if it saves my life, and a mildly unhappy klutz if I cut my finger while slicing an apple.

Threatening or using deadly force, be it a gun or other potentially deadly means is only justified when one reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to one's self or to another person. What does "reasonably believes" mean? It means a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence would see it the same way as you! In other words, the prosecutor, judge or jury would say "If I was in that situation I'd do the same thing."

An important thing that is taken into account is something called "disparity of force." That varies according to who is attacking and who is being attacked. Some examples: A large individual against a much smaller one represents a possible lethal disparity of force. A 250 pound linebacker against an unarmed 80-year old frail lady is a clear disparity of force. But that same guy against another large man is not so clear cut. On the other hand, a frail 80-year old lady with a shotgun against an unarmed 250 pound linebacker reverses the disparity of force, because she now presents a more deadly threat. An able-bodied person against a disabled person is another example. Also disparity of force may occur when one is outnumbered by the attackers. A highly skilled martial arts practitioner may create a disparity of force with another person with ordinary fighting ability.

So no, I don't believe that one is necessarily justified in shooting in the example you gave. But taking the above factors into account, they may be justified under certain circumstances.

I'll also add that it is advisable, and probably the intent and practice of most concealed carriers, to strive avoid getting into altercations and to not allow petty things to blow up into violent encounters. If somebody gets in your face about something, just walk away from them if you can. Let them think their posturing and bluster won, who cares? Outside the military, if you aren't an unwilling participant in a violent situation then you need to adjust your attitude. Staying out of the hospital, jail or the morgue is the bigger win. I teach people the best ways to avoid unscheduled visits to those 3 places. Most of the time it doesn't require a weapon to do that. Unfortunately there are occasions when it does.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The Trayvon Martin & George Zimmerman Story

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:07 am

Francis Di Domizio wrote:Actually you aren't covering the major issue in a fight involving anyone carrying a gun, concealed or otherwise. If the unarmed person makes an attempt to take the gun away from the person carrying a gun it actually changes the issue to one of self defense on the part of the armed person.


Well that's an issue, but I'm not sure I'd call it a "major" issue because it's fairly uncommon occurrence outside of law enforcement. Cops DO have their guns taken away and used against them all-to-often. This is not surprising when one considers the sort of activities police routinely are performing, e.g., apprehending criminals, breaking up disturbances, making traffic stops. Those are hazardous duties that thankfully most of us are able to avoid ever having to attempt. Thus LEOs receive training on how to best handle those situations, plus weapons retention training. Even with the training, in 2010 of 56 law enforcement officers feloniously killed in the line of duty, 7 were killed by their own guns.

But you are correct, it is a fairly safe assumption that anyone attempting to forcefully and unlawfully take a gun away from someone intends to use it against them.

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9476
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: The Trayvon Martin & George Zimmerman Story

Postby rabble » Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:24 am

Dangerousman wrote:But you are correct, it is a fairly safe assumption that anyone attempting to forcefully and unlawfully take a gun away from someone intends to use it against them.

So both of you figure that if I'm being followed by somebody, and he confronts me and starts to pull a gun, if I try to grab it and take it the hell away from him, my next thought will be to shoot him with it?

Edit: Okay I guess that might fall into the "unlawfully" loophole.

FJD
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3538
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm

Re: The Trayvon Martin & George Zimmerman Story

Postby FJD » Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:17 am

Dangerousman wrote:Well that's an issue, but I'm not sure I'd call it a "major" issue because it's fairly uncommon occurrence outside of law enforcement.


How common is it for someone outside of law enforcement who is carrying to be in a situation where this is an issue though? LEOS regularly are in that situation but is the low risk for non-LEOS due to a low opportunity, or low chance of it happening?

I've been through the training for weapons retention, and I recall my thought at the time was something akin to "If he's got both his hands holding his gun in it's holster, I'm going to start beating him in the head while keeping one hand on his hands."

rabble wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:But you are correct, it is a fairly safe assumption that anyone attempting to forcefully and unlawfully take a gun away from someone intends to use it against them.

So both of you figure that if I'm being followed by somebody, and he confronts me and starts to pull a gun, if I try to grab it and take it the hell away from him, my next thought will be to shoot him with it?

Edit: Okay I guess that might fall into the "unlawfully" loophole.


If you go for the gun, he has no way of knowing if you intend to disarm him and walk away or shoot him. I would guess if he has pulled out the gun and you manage to gain control of the firearm, you would probably have a legitimate self defense claim as well. If he hasn't pulled out the gun and you attempt to take it, I don't think the same applies.

wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3244
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm
Contact:

Re: The Trayvon Martin & George Zimmerman Story

Postby wack wack » Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:34 am

Dangerousman wrote:Did Travon have a right to defend himself if he felt threatened? That depends. What is the threat?


Are you fucking KIDDING?!?!?! The threat was being followed by a man with a gun. if that doesn't warrant a right to self-defense, NOTHING does.

I see what's dangerous about you now, and it has nothing to do with guns.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The Trayvon Martin & George Zimmerman Story

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:56 am

wack wack wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:Did Travon have a right to defend himself if he felt threatened? That depends. What is the threat?


Are you fucking KIDDING?!?!?! The threat was being followed by a man with a gun. if that doesn't warrant a right to self-defense, NOTHING does.

I see what's dangerous about you now, and it has nothing to do with guns.


That's an interesting theory that you have. I never considered one that would require:

1) Psychic abilities by Trayvon Martin to determine that the man he saw was carrying a concealed weapon.

and

2) Such a lack of ordinary prudence that he would go out of his way to launch an unarmed preemptive defensive strike against a person he believed to be carrying a semiautomatic pistol.

Very plausible.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 13884
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The Trayvon Martin & George Zimmerman Story

Postby snoqueen » Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:50 pm

The New York Times is reporting that subsequent to pointed liberal criticism and a loss of major corporate supporters, ALEC has decided to back off from law enforcement, social policy and elections, and return to its original focus on economic issues. This would seem to include their efforts to influence gun law legislation.

I am not making this up, but I'm trying not to post many NYT links due to the possibility of NYT's paywall tripping up those who are trying to count and limit their monthly free NYT clicks. Those who want to read the whole article should search on the headline, "Martin Death Spurs Group to Readjust Policy Focus."

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The Trayvon Martin & George Zimmerman Story

Postby Dangerousman » Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:52 am

snoqueen wrote:The New York Times is reporting that subsequent to pointed liberal criticism and a loss of major corporate supporters, ALEC has decided to back off from law enforcement, social policy and elections, and return to its original focus on economic issues. This would seem to include their efforts to influence gun law legislation.

I am not making this up, but I'm trying not to post many NYT links due to the possibility of NYT's paywall tripping up those who are trying to count and limit their monthly free NYT clicks. Those who want to read the whole article should search on the headline, "Martin Death Spurs Group to Readjust Policy Focus."


ha... and Fisti acted all indignant when I quoted the guy (who I don't think is Canadian BTW, fist) who said this is political.

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9476
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: The Trayvon Martin & George Zimmerman Story

Postby rabble » Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:38 am

Dangerousman wrote:ha... and Fisti acted all indignant when I quoted the guy (who I don't think is Canadian BTW, fist) who said this is political.

I missed the quote but I would have corrected Fist. Of course it's political. Alec wouldn't have been involved in the legislation if it wasn't. Stand Your Ground is just another way of putting more fear into your political base. "We need these laws or 'those people' are going to rape our daughters" sort of thing.

Or was your quote trying to say that it wasn't political until Trayvon got shot?


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests