Protesters rally over Florida teen's death, demand arrest
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:42:59 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Protesters rally over Florida teen's death, demand arrest
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8
Author Topic: Protesters rally over Florida teen's death, demand arrest  (Read 17990 times)
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: March 26, 2012, 11:35:10 PM »

If someone is beating you sufficiently hard to break your nose, that would constitute a basis for a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, which is a criteria for self-defense.

Have you ever had your nose broken? It doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of force unless you have ridiculously tough cartilage.

Or are you saying I would have been justified in shooting dead (as opposed to shooting to incapacitate) that one bully who threw me a haymaker in the seventh grade?

Generally, we don't issue concealed carry permits to seventh graders, or, allow them to carry weapons, so your question makes no sense.

Oh for God's sake you bloodless dishonest pedant, mentally age me up five years if it's that damn important to you.

It is the height of intellectual dishonest to ask a question that presupposes that children have guns. We don't allow children to carry guns in part because we don't trust their judgment, especially in situations like you describe.

Mentally aging you to eighteen, which presumably would be five or six years after the incident you decribed, I would note that the person's reputation as a "bully" would carry great weight in determining whether, or not, you had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: March 26, 2012, 11:41:58 PM »

If someone is beating you sufficiently hard to break your nose, that would constitute a basis for a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, which is a criteria for self-defense.

Have you ever had your nose broken? It doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of force unless you have ridiculously tough cartilage.

Or are you saying I would have been justified in shooting dead (as opposed to shooting to incapacitate) that one bully who threw me a haymaker in the seventh grade?

Generally, we don't issue concealed carry permits to seventh graders, or, allow them to carry weapons, so your question makes no sense.

Oh for God's sake you bloodless dishonest pedant, mentally age me up five years if it's that damn important to you.

It is the height of intellectual dishonest to ask a question that presupposes that children have guns. We don't allow children to carry guns in part because we don't trust their judgment, especially in situations like you describe.

Whereas we, of course, trust the judgment of wannabe cops with restraining orders against them from previous violent incidents who habitually make phone calls to the police about trivial sh**t.

Clearly you don't understand anything even remotely counterfactual nor do you feel the need to argue from any kind of general principles rather than absurdly myopic understandings of tidy precise little situations tailored to fit your preexisting dogma, so I'm honestly a little surprised that there are any points in this that you chose not to finesse into oblivion, but since that is the case I'm not independently surprised that this was one of those.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because Martin's 'reputation' was at the top of Zimmerman's list of concerns, obviously. Martin's 'reputation' as far as Zimmerman knew was that of somebody who was being stalked through his apartment complex by a strange man.
Logged
Ogre Mage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,500
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -5.22

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: March 27, 2012, 03:07:35 AM »
« Edited: March 27, 2012, 03:49:59 AM by Ogre Mage »

How could Zimmerman be "standing his ground" in "self-defense" when he went off in pursuit of an unarmed teenager -- a decision which went against both what the 911 dispatcher told him and general neighborhood watch protocol?  In fact, neighborhood watch is not supposed to carry firearms.  This isn't even a case where Zimmerman saw Martin on his property.  He just decided he looked "suspicious" and now the result is a dead unarmed teenager.
He was not on a neighborhood watch, he was in his car when he saw Martin and called the police.  He had a CHL, and if you are going to carry, it makes sense to always carry.

He did not pursue Martin.  After Martin started running, he apparently was driving along a street, and the dispatcher asked if he were following Martin.  He said yes, the dispatcher said that "we don't need you to do that", to which Zimmerman responded "OK".

The phone call lasted another 1-1/2 minutes.  So either Zimmerman had stopped; the dispatcher thought he had stopped; or the dispatcher thought it wasn't that important.

He later got out of his car.


First off, whether Zimmerman was on official watch duty at the moment or not is not an excuse to break accepted neighborhood watch protocol.  He pursued a suspect with his gun, neither of which he should have done.  As a member of the neighborhood watch he should have been well aware of the proper procedure.  He is not a law enforcement officer.  

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/fl-neighborhood-watch-groups-warned-20120322,0,6874439.story

Your statement that he did not pursue Martin is false.  Per the 911 tapes, he admitted he was in pursuit of Martin (the dispatcher asked if he was following Martin and he said "yeah").  When the 911 dispatcher told him to stop he said "okay" but I am skeptical that he actually stopped -- the continued sound of his heavy breathing suggests that wasn't the case.  And if he was not pursuing Martin, why did he get out of his car?  Furthermore, Zimmerman's account of events is contradicted by Martin's girlfriend, who was on the phone with him at the time the shooting occurred:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-death-friend-phone-teen-death-recounts/story?id=15959017#.T3FxWdWyGQ0

As for your apparent assertion that the Sanford Police conducted a fair investigation, I will respond to that later when I have time.  Needless to say I could not disagree more.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: March 27, 2012, 07:19:59 AM »

There's... really, really, really no point in arguing with BS Bob.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: March 27, 2012, 09:33:58 AM »

If someone is beating you sufficiently hard to break your nose, that would constitute a basis for a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, which is a criteria for self-defense.

Have you ever had your nose broken? It doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of force unless you have ridiculously tough cartilage.

Or are you saying I would have been justified in shooting dead (as opposed to shooting to incapacitate) that one bully who threw me a haymaker in the seventh grade?

Generally, we don't issue concealed carry permits to seventh graders, or, allow them to carry weapons, so your question makes no sense.

Oh for God's sake you bloodless dishonest pedant, mentally age me up five years if it's that damn important to you.

It is the height of intellectual dishonest to ask a question that presupposes that children have guns. We don't allow children to carry guns in part because we don't trust their judgment, especially in situations like you describe.

Whereas we, of course, trust the judgment of wannabe cops with restraining orders against them from previous violent incidents who habitually make phone calls to the police about trivial sh**t.

Whether, or not, George Zimmerman should have been denied a concealed carry permit is one question. Whether, or not, he used his gun in self-defense is another question. If you can't argue why he didn't use self-defense, then you have no case.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Appealing to subjective standards of "self-defense"  that revolve around whether, or not, a person had a "reasonable" belief that he faced "great bodily harm" is hardly amenable to assertions of "general principles." The specific facts and circumstances matter a great deal in such cases.

 


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because Martin's 'reputation' was at the top of Zimmerman's list of concerns, obviously. Martin's 'reputation' as far as Zimmerman knew was that of somebody who was being stalked through his apartment complex by a strange man.
[/quote]

You asked an intellectually dishonest hypothetical. I pointed out that it was intellectually dishonest. You amended your hypothetical to one that was more intellectually honest, and, I answered your hypothetical. In response to my answer, you mapped my response to the Zimmerman case even though it clearly did not apply.

I would, also, note the stunning level of hypocrisy you have shown regarding the reasonable use of force. Somehow, using a gun to stop a beating is in your opinion excessive and unreasonable, yet, you don't fault Martin for swinging first, or, after having decked Zimmerman, continuing to beat the man as he lay on the ground.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: March 27, 2012, 11:31:12 AM »

How is someone holding a smoking gun over a dead kid not proof of guilt?

Not it the guy with the gun was on the ground being beaten at the time.

We do not know the circumstances, and I think we need to reserve judgment until we do.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: March 27, 2012, 11:34:22 AM »

I love how everyone is treating this as an abstract case.

And I love who nobody is looking at all the evidence.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: March 27, 2012, 12:05:27 PM »

I love how everyone is treating this as an abstract case.

And I love who nobody is looking at all the evidence.

How come you have access to all the evidence in Philly?
Logged
fezzyfestoon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,204
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: March 27, 2012, 12:07:46 PM »

I love how everyone is treating this as an abstract case.
And I love who nobody is looking at all the evidence.
How come you have access to all the evidence in Philly?

Yes, it is quite fascinating how much expertise people have been able to accumulate on this case when it hasn't even become one yet. The age of infinite knowledge...
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: March 27, 2012, 12:26:06 PM »

I love how everyone is treating this as an abstract case.

And I love who nobody is looking at all the evidence.

How come you have access to all the evidence in Philly?

I never said I had.  The point is that we don't have all the evidence and we are not even looking at the evidence we do have.

We do know a few things.

A.  Zimmerman thought Martin looked suspicious.  He followed him in his car, called 911, and was told to stop following Martin.

So, the first question is, did Zimmerman stop following Martin?

B.  Zimmerman left his car. 

Did he leave his car in order to follow Martin?  Did he leave his car to check something else out?

C.  Zimmerman had some injuries to the back of his head and his face.

How did Zimmerman get these injuries?  Were they self inflicted?  Was he attacked?  Did he continue following Martin and Martin inflict these injuries?

D.  Zimmerman shot Martin. 

Did he shoot Martin without provocation?  Was Martin shot while Martin was inflicting these injuries?

The answers to these questions will make a difference on if Zimmerman is guilty of murder, manslaughter, or acted in self defense.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: March 27, 2012, 12:31:15 PM »

any belief Zimmerman might have had that the use of deadly force was required to defend himself was utterly unreasonable.



His broken nose suggests otherwise.

Shooting someone fatally in the chest is a reasonable response to a broken nose? What the Hell planet are these people living on?

If someone is beating you sufficiently hard to break your nose, that would constitute a basis for a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, which is a criteria for self-defense.
[/quote]

Of course it is. Shooting to incapacitate is one of the funniest lines told by people who don't have a clue.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: March 27, 2012, 01:08:54 PM »
« Edited: March 27, 2012, 01:11:30 PM by Nathan »

Of course it is. Shooting to incapacitate is one of the funniest lines told by people who don't have a clue.

This is, in turn, one of the most sickening lines told by bloodthirsty wannabe-badasses, so at least I'm amusing.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: March 27, 2012, 01:10:40 PM »

Shoot a lot of people, do you krazen?
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: March 27, 2012, 01:16:56 PM »


I can't answer for krazen, but I've known enough people that were shot, and done enough target shooting myself to know that he is correct.

How about you, Sib?
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: March 27, 2012, 01:22:03 PM »


Do you think the world is full of Jack Bauers who can hit a bullseye with their off hand while sprinting in the opposite direction?

Where do you think instructors teach people and police to shoot? The torso is the biggest target.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: March 27, 2012, 01:23:02 PM »

Of course it is. Shooting to incapacitate is one of the funniest lines told by people who don't have a clue.

This is, in turn, one of the most sickening lines told by bloodthirsty wannabe-badasses, so at least I'm amusing.

It has nothing to do with badassery and everything to do with self-defense.

Most people are not accurate shots.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: March 27, 2012, 01:25:17 PM »

Oh, I know absolutely nothing about firearms and have no particular intention of learning more. It's just that the use of language (I think that word will do) here... is... aha... interesting.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: March 27, 2012, 01:25:34 PM »

Martin was 6' 3"...and 140 lbs.  That's incredibly scrawny for that height (I weigh 135 and I'm a full 8 inches shorter than Martin, and I'm pretty scrawny).  Zimmerman, despite being shorter, weighs close to 100 lbs more than Martin.  And you expect me to believe that Martin could beat Zimmerman up and knock him to the ground easily?  With that kind of weight disparity and what it implies about Martin's physique?
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: March 27, 2012, 01:27:23 PM »

Martin was 6' 3"...and 140 lbs.  That's incredibly scrawny for that height (I weigh 135 and I'm a full 8 inches shorter than Martin, and I'm pretty scrawny).  Zimmerman, despite being shorter, weighs close to 100 lbs more than Martin.  And you expect me to believe that Martin could beat Zimmerman up and knock him to the ground easily?  With that kind of weight disparity and what it implies about Martin's physique?

You know, blackness. That whole area there. Blackness.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: March 27, 2012, 01:29:28 PM »
« Edited: March 27, 2012, 01:32:31 PM by Nathan »

Of course it is. Shooting to incapacitate is one of the funniest lines told by people who don't have a clue.

This is, in turn, one of the most sickening lines told by bloodthirsty wannabe-badasses, so at least I'm amusing.

It has nothing to do with badassery and everything to do with self-defense.

Most people are not accurate shots.

That would actually be a good point if this weren't point-blank, which in my experience (albeit with foxes and turkeys) tells me tends to go somewhat differently.

Has Zimmerman denied shooting explicitly to kill or are we in the business denying it for him? If this is something that's been talked about in circles more familiar with the case I'm willing to grant you this element of the point.

I still won't grant you the element that it's at all reasonable to shoot somebody because they broke your nose.

Also, relating to what Mikado said: I am the same height as Martin, and weigh anywhere from thirty-five to fifty pounds more than he did depending upon the season. I am thin, such that elderly Japanese women have in the past tried to force-feed me miso.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: March 27, 2012, 01:36:34 PM »

That would actually be a good point if this weren't point-blank, which in my experience (albeit with foxes and turkeys) tells me tends to go somewhat differently.

Has Zimmerman denied shooting explicitly to kill or are we in the business denying it for him? If this is something that's been talked about in circles more familiar with the case I'm willing to grant you this element of the point.

Uh huh. You've been able to shoot moving foxes and turkeys in the legs while avoiding their body, consistently, while said fox or turkey was mashing on your face?

Said scenario makes it far more likely that the perp would get shot in the torso. It would be far more difficult and dangerous for someone to attempt to shoot the perp anywhere else as you endanger yourself to richochets.

Why do you think policemen are taught to shoot the torso?

Shoot to wound is of course a sad illogical statement. The assumption of course is when one shoots that death is a possible, if not likely, outcome!
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: March 27, 2012, 01:39:22 PM »

I personally haven't, no. I grew up in a rural backwater with a harsh climate but I was still a child. I did in fact know other people, including, remarkably, some adults.

What you are describing is, of course, why one does not generally shoot unarmed people.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: March 27, 2012, 01:49:06 PM »

I personally haven't, no. I grew up in a rural backwater with a harsh climate but I was still a child. I did in fact know other people, including, remarkably, some adults.

What you are describing is, of course, why one does not generally shoot unarmed people.

Perhaps people should use their xray vision to ensure that someone is unarmed. Or, wait until they point a firearm at your torso first....

The perpetrator has the element of surprise. SYG laws are designed to level the playing field.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: March 27, 2012, 01:50:22 PM »

Duty-to-retreat tradition is designed to do the same thing.

It's also hard to describe somebody who was being stalked as a 'perpetrator'.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: March 27, 2012, 01:58:54 PM »

Duty-to-retreat tradition is designed to do the same thing.

It's also hard to describe somebody who was being stalked as a 'perpetrator'.

Well, whether the law is correctly applied to this situation will surely be determined by investigation.

But the concept of SYG dates back hundreds of years...hence of course the term castle doctrine.

Duty to retreat of course puts the attacker at an advantage as he/she has the option of escalating force.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 12 queries.