|
On January 12 2012 11:34 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 11:25 Golbat wrote:On January 12 2012 11:20 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 10:11 Golbat wrote:On January 12 2012 09:57 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 09:40 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
Why should he stand trial for killing someone if the killing was legal and justified?
Stand Your Ground is the only sane way of having it. We try people all the time for things that they're eventually acquitted of. It's part of the due process of law, which I think is far preferable to a vague statute like "Stand Your Ground" precluding a trial entirely. But there is no need for a trial. No need for it. He was violently attacked, defended himself, and in the process of doing so his attacker died. If both of these kids were ten years older this discussion would have ended by now. As far as I can tell (according to the OP article, the motion to grant Saavedra immunity filed by his defense, and the article I quoted earlier from The Miami Law Review), the only reason why this incident did not go to trial is because of the "Stand Your Ground" law, which is a questionable statute in many ways and also one that does not exist in a majority of the states. So evidently this incident would have been tried in most of the states of the United States of America, regardless of the ages of the students. I happen to think that such a trial would bring an appropriate amount of attention and contemplation to an event in which a young man was stabbed to death, even though I don't happen to believe that Saavedra would be found guilty. But he didn't stab someone in a different state, so your point is entirely moot. Putting a kid on trial to bring attention to bullying is also a stupid idea. Hey, this kid is already emotionally scarred, scared and confused. Lets put him through additional MONTHS of anguish so we can make a point, even though in the end there isn't a chance in hell he's going to be convicted. That's some cold shit bro. Moot? As in the issue has already been decided. Of course. I don't exactly expect that anyone's discussion on TL will effect the outcome of an already-decided case. But that's not really the purpose of these discussions, and the position that I am taking in this discussion is that a questionable law co-opted the normal course of judicial proceedings, which are features of our legal system that are there for a reason and should not be brushed aside because the NRA lobby scored a political victory in Florida. Cold? You can call me whatever you like. Now I have been called overly sensitive and too callous in the same thread. Cool.
What about the law is questionable? The fact that the NRA had something to do with it? It's a perfectly reasonable law, if you're somewhere where you're allowed to be, minding your own business, and someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself using any means necessary. I for one am glad I live in a state that has a law such as this.
Besides, even if the law didn't exist, he wouldn't have been charged with anything. He was defending himself, and did nothing illegal, besides perhaps having the knife on school property.
|
On January 12 2012 11:28 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 11:25 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 11:12 cz wrote:On January 12 2012 11:11 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 11:00 cz wrote:
I seriously wonder about the mental states of people like Hulkmania. Why empathize so heavily with the bully, trying to come up with as many possible excuses for his actions while demonizing the victim and trying to set a number of alternatives that he should have taken before defending himself? Why are you unable to empathisize with the bullying victim here? Why can't you see that when someone attacks someone else and the latter hurts the former, something "right" has happened? That bad things happen in response to bad actions is the logical basis of our justice system. Crime and punishment, in this case served out within seconds of each other. But yet you continue to attack the victim. Do we talk about rape victims in the same way? Shoudl a woman being violently raped be careful in how she defends herself? Why is it different for the victim of a premeditated assault? Why are you constantly putting restrictions on the victim? cz, if you're going to mention me by name, you could at least read my posts. I'll give you a couple highlights: A lot of posters in this thread are dealing exclusively in absolutes, and it’s not helpful. I think that it’s perfectly reasonable to feel regret that Dylan Nuno was killed without feeling like Jorge Saavedra is a heartless murderer. To express dismay over the one student’s death is not to pass judgment on the second student’s self defense. It’s my opinion, based on the different sources and accounts that I have read concerning this case, that Saavedra did his absolute best to avoid fighting Nuno, which is commendable. It is also my opinion that his choice to employ a deadly weapon was not a good choice but that it was nevertheless an understandable choice given his circumstances. I do not applaud how Saavedra ended the confrontation, but I would not consider him a premeditating murderer by any stretch. He did not want his encounter to Nuno to begin, much less to end how it did. Saavedra himself is not at all why I find this thread so infuriating. Your m.o. in this thread is to misread other posters and then talk about rapists. Not impressive or helpful. If you want to discuss how I am demonizing Saavedra, you could at least produce some evidence that I have done so. Nobody can read all your posts in this thread. They constitute a Tale of Two Cities length narrative of absurdity and excuse-making at this point. But, limited to your quoted excerpts, why do you think that the victims choice to use a knife was not a good one? What alternative would have suggested? Also my m.o. is to hold you accountable to your ideological position, if that requires analogies to show the absurdity of it then so be it. You have never explained why you think my analogies unnacceptable. It seems that if I take the time to explain myself, you're going to say "too long didn't read" and continue to insist that I am "making excuses" for Dylan Nuno (another thing that I at no time whatsoever did). Do you want an opinion that can be expressed in a nice little digestible soundbyte? Honestly, if you're not willing to make the effort to read what I have already said, I'm not willing to make the effort to explain myself again to you. Ignore all I said as you always do, but at least answer the specific question I wrote within the post you are responding to. You said you thought using a deadly weapon was not a good decision. What, then, do you think the victim should have done? Second question: You've stated that Stand Your Ground laws are ridiculous. If you were the law maker and could handle this case in any manner, how would you handle the punishment? Would you give the bullying victim jail time? Would you give him no penalty? If you had the power to do so, what would you choose?
I haven't ignored you. On the contrary, I have read every word that you have posted in this thread, which is a courtesy that you have admittedly not extended to me. It's just that I certainly do not want to discuss a situation this complex with someone who's idea of debate is to skim, roughly extrapolate his opponent's position, and then ask a series of leading questions. I've been there and done that and already own the associated t-shirt.
|
On January 12 2012 11:42 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 11:28 cz wrote:On January 12 2012 11:25 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 11:12 cz wrote:On January 12 2012 11:11 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 11:00 cz wrote:
I seriously wonder about the mental states of people like Hulkmania. Why empathize so heavily with the bully, trying to come up with as many possible excuses for his actions while demonizing the victim and trying to set a number of alternatives that he should have taken before defending himself? Why are you unable to empathisize with the bullying victim here? Why can't you see that when someone attacks someone else and the latter hurts the former, something "right" has happened? That bad things happen in response to bad actions is the logical basis of our justice system. Crime and punishment, in this case served out within seconds of each other. But yet you continue to attack the victim. Do we talk about rape victims in the same way? Shoudl a woman being violently raped be careful in how she defends herself? Why is it different for the victim of a premeditated assault? Why are you constantly putting restrictions on the victim? cz, if you're going to mention me by name, you could at least read my posts. I'll give you a couple highlights: A lot of posters in this thread are dealing exclusively in absolutes, and it’s not helpful. I think that it’s perfectly reasonable to feel regret that Dylan Nuno was killed without feeling like Jorge Saavedra is a heartless murderer. To express dismay over the one student’s death is not to pass judgment on the second student’s self defense. It’s my opinion, based on the different sources and accounts that I have read concerning this case, that Saavedra did his absolute best to avoid fighting Nuno, which is commendable. It is also my opinion that his choice to employ a deadly weapon was not a good choice but that it was nevertheless an understandable choice given his circumstances. I do not applaud how Saavedra ended the confrontation, but I would not consider him a premeditating murderer by any stretch. He did not want his encounter to Nuno to begin, much less to end how it did. Saavedra himself is not at all why I find this thread so infuriating. Your m.o. in this thread is to misread other posters and then talk about rapists. Not impressive or helpful. If you want to discuss how I am demonizing Saavedra, you could at least produce some evidence that I have done so. Nobody can read all your posts in this thread. They constitute a Tale of Two Cities length narrative of absurdity and excuse-making at this point. But, limited to your quoted excerpts, why do you think that the victims choice to use a knife was not a good one? What alternative would have suggested? Also my m.o. is to hold you accountable to your ideological position, if that requires analogies to show the absurdity of it then so be it. You have never explained why you think my analogies unnacceptable. It seems that if I take the time to explain myself, you're going to say "too long didn't read" and continue to insist that I am "making excuses" for Dylan Nuno (another thing that I at no time whatsoever did). Do you want an opinion that can be expressed in a nice little digestible soundbyte? Honestly, if you're not willing to make the effort to read what I have already said, I'm not willing to make the effort to explain myself again to you. Ignore all I said as you always do, but at least answer the specific question I wrote within the post you are responding to. You said you thought using a deadly weapon was not a good decision. What, then, do you think the victim should have done? Second question: You've stated that Stand Your Ground laws are ridiculous. If you were the law maker and could handle this case in any manner, how would you handle the punishment? Would you give the bullying victim jail time? Would you give him no penalty? If you had the power to do so, what would you choose? I haven't ignored you. On the contrary, I have read every word that you have posted in this thread, which is a courtesy that you have admittedly not extended to me. It's just that I certainly do not want to discuss a situation this complex with someone who's idea of debate is to skim, roughly extrapolate his opponent's position, and then ask a series of leading questions. I've been there and done that and already own the associated t-shirt.
Right, so I ask you two extremely specific direct questions and you walk away with vague excuses. The bottom line is that you just don't want to talk about your position, probably because of the untenability of it.
Yet oddly you still post here, telling people they don't read what you wrote. Your tactic is essentially to repeat questionable views and avoid criticism by attacking your questioner with ad hominems.
|
On January 12 2012 11:37 Golbat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 11:34 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 11:25 Golbat wrote:On January 12 2012 11:20 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 10:11 Golbat wrote:On January 12 2012 09:57 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 09:40 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
Why should he stand trial for killing someone if the killing was legal and justified?
Stand Your Ground is the only sane way of having it. We try people all the time for things that they're eventually acquitted of. It's part of the due process of law, which I think is far preferable to a vague statute like "Stand Your Ground" precluding a trial entirely. But there is no need for a trial. No need for it. He was violently attacked, defended himself, and in the process of doing so his attacker died. If both of these kids were ten years older this discussion would have ended by now. As far as I can tell (according to the OP article, the motion to grant Saavedra immunity filed by his defense, and the article I quoted earlier from The Miami Law Review), the only reason why this incident did not go to trial is because of the "Stand Your Ground" law, which is a questionable statute in many ways and also one that does not exist in a majority of the states. So evidently this incident would have been tried in most of the states of the United States of America, regardless of the ages of the students. I happen to think that such a trial would bring an appropriate amount of attention and contemplation to an event in which a young man was stabbed to death, even though I don't happen to believe that Saavedra would be found guilty. But he didn't stab someone in a different state, so your point is entirely moot. Putting a kid on trial to bring attention to bullying is also a stupid idea. Hey, this kid is already emotionally scarred, scared and confused. Lets put him through additional MONTHS of anguish so we can make a point, even though in the end there isn't a chance in hell he's going to be convicted. That's some cold shit bro. Moot? As in the issue has already been decided. Of course. I don't exactly expect that anyone's discussion on TL will effect the outcome of an already-decided case. But that's not really the purpose of these discussions, and the position that I am taking in this discussion is that a questionable law co-opted the normal course of judicial proceedings, which are features of our legal system that are there for a reason and should not be brushed aside because the NRA lobby scored a political victory in Florida. Cold? You can call me whatever you like. Now I have been called overly sensitive and too callous in the same thread. Cool. What about the law is questionable? The fact that the NRA had something to do with it? It's a perfectly reasonable law, if you're somewhere where you're allowed to be, minding your own business, and someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself using any means necessary. I for one am glad I live in a state that has a law such as this. Besides, even if the law didn't exist, he wouldn't have been charged with anything. He was defending himself, and did nothing illegal, besides perhaps having the knife on school property.
Basically this. He couldve just not brought a knife and randomly found a shard of glass, a nail, screw or anything and used it to stab him as well. He brought the knife to defend himself should the need arise since he tried to avoid the fight more than he would have if his intent was to kill nuno anyways.
|
On January 12 2012 11:37 Golbat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 11:34 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 11:25 Golbat wrote:On January 12 2012 11:20 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 10:11 Golbat wrote:On January 12 2012 09:57 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 09:40 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
Why should he stand trial for killing someone if the killing was legal and justified?
Stand Your Ground is the only sane way of having it. We try people all the time for things that they're eventually acquitted of. It's part of the due process of law, which I think is far preferable to a vague statute like "Stand Your Ground" precluding a trial entirely. But there is no need for a trial. No need for it. He was violently attacked, defended himself, and in the process of doing so his attacker died. If both of these kids were ten years older this discussion would have ended by now. As far as I can tell (according to the OP article, the motion to grant Saavedra immunity filed by his defense, and the article I quoted earlier from The Miami Law Review), the only reason why this incident did not go to trial is because of the "Stand Your Ground" law, which is a questionable statute in many ways and also one that does not exist in a majority of the states. So evidently this incident would have been tried in most of the states of the United States of America, regardless of the ages of the students. I happen to think that such a trial would bring an appropriate amount of attention and contemplation to an event in which a young man was stabbed to death, even though I don't happen to believe that Saavedra would be found guilty. But he didn't stab someone in a different state, so your point is entirely moot. Putting a kid on trial to bring attention to bullying is also a stupid idea. Hey, this kid is already emotionally scarred, scared and confused. Lets put him through additional MONTHS of anguish so we can make a point, even though in the end there isn't a chance in hell he's going to be convicted. That's some cold shit bro. Moot? As in the issue has already been decided. Of course. I don't exactly expect that anyone's discussion on TL will effect the outcome of an already-decided case. But that's not really the purpose of these discussions, and the position that I am taking in this discussion is that a questionable law co-opted the normal course of judicial proceedings, which are features of our legal system that are there for a reason and should not be brushed aside because the NRA lobby scored a political victory in Florida. Cold? You can call me whatever you like. Now I have been called overly sensitive and too callous in the same thread. Cool. What about the law is questionable? The fact that the NRA had something to do with it? It's a perfectly reasonable law, if you're somewhere where you're allowed to be, minding your own business, and someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself using any means necessary. I for one am glad I live in a state that has a law such as this. Besides, even if the law didn't exist, he wouldn't have been charged with anything. He was defending himself, and did nothing illegal, besides perhaps having the knife on school property.
I don't trust ConAgra Foodservice when they help lawmakers legislate about school lunches. I don't trust the NRA when they help lawmakers legislate about self-defense. For a more informed and lengthy criticism of SYO, though, refer to this article from The University of Miami Law Review. I found it when I was reading up on this case, and I think that it was an even-handed and insightful read.
And like I said, the article states that the judge rejected the trial specifically on the grounds of SYO. I don't see any reason to believe that it wouldn't have gone to trial otherwise.
|
On January 12 2012 11:45 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 11:42 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 11:28 cz wrote:On January 12 2012 11:25 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 11:12 cz wrote:On January 12 2012 11:11 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 11:00 cz wrote:
I seriously wonder about the mental states of people like Hulkmania. Why empathize so heavily with the bully, trying to come up with as many possible excuses for his actions while demonizing the victim and trying to set a number of alternatives that he should have taken before defending himself? Why are you unable to empathisize with the bullying victim here? Why can't you see that when someone attacks someone else and the latter hurts the former, something "right" has happened? That bad things happen in response to bad actions is the logical basis of our justice system. Crime and punishment, in this case served out within seconds of each other. But yet you continue to attack the victim. Do we talk about rape victims in the same way? Shoudl a woman being violently raped be careful in how she defends herself? Why is it different for the victim of a premeditated assault? Why are you constantly putting restrictions on the victim? cz, if you're going to mention me by name, you could at least read my posts. I'll give you a couple highlights: A lot of posters in this thread are dealing exclusively in absolutes, and it’s not helpful. I think that it’s perfectly reasonable to feel regret that Dylan Nuno was killed without feeling like Jorge Saavedra is a heartless murderer. To express dismay over the one student’s death is not to pass judgment on the second student’s self defense. It’s my opinion, based on the different sources and accounts that I have read concerning this case, that Saavedra did his absolute best to avoid fighting Nuno, which is commendable. It is also my opinion that his choice to employ a deadly weapon was not a good choice but that it was nevertheless an understandable choice given his circumstances. I do not applaud how Saavedra ended the confrontation, but I would not consider him a premeditating murderer by any stretch. He did not want his encounter to Nuno to begin, much less to end how it did. Saavedra himself is not at all why I find this thread so infuriating. Your m.o. in this thread is to misread other posters and then talk about rapists. Not impressive or helpful. If you want to discuss how I am demonizing Saavedra, you could at least produce some evidence that I have done so. Nobody can read all your posts in this thread. They constitute a Tale of Two Cities length narrative of absurdity and excuse-making at this point. But, limited to your quoted excerpts, why do you think that the victims choice to use a knife was not a good one? What alternative would have suggested? Also my m.o. is to hold you accountable to your ideological position, if that requires analogies to show the absurdity of it then so be it. You have never explained why you think my analogies unnacceptable. It seems that if I take the time to explain myself, you're going to say "too long didn't read" and continue to insist that I am "making excuses" for Dylan Nuno (another thing that I at no time whatsoever did). Do you want an opinion that can be expressed in a nice little digestible soundbyte? Honestly, if you're not willing to make the effort to read what I have already said, I'm not willing to make the effort to explain myself again to you. Ignore all I said as you always do, but at least answer the specific question I wrote within the post you are responding to. You said you thought using a deadly weapon was not a good decision. What, then, do you think the victim should have done? Second question: You've stated that Stand Your Ground laws are ridiculous. If you were the law maker and could handle this case in any manner, how would you handle the punishment? Would you give the bullying victim jail time? Would you give him no penalty? If you had the power to do so, what would you choose? I haven't ignored you. On the contrary, I have read every word that you have posted in this thread, which is a courtesy that you have admittedly not extended to me. It's just that I certainly do not want to discuss a situation this complex with someone who's idea of debate is to skim, roughly extrapolate his opponent's position, and then ask a series of leading questions. I've been there and done that and already own the associated t-shirt. Right, so I ask you two extremely specific direct questions and you walk away with vague excuses. The bottom line is that you just don't want to talk about your position, probably because of the untenability of it. Yet oddly you still post here, telling people they don't read what you wrote. Your tactic is essentially to repeat questionable views and avoid criticism by attacking your questioner with ad hominems.
You told me that you don't read what I wrote. I am quite willing to have lengthy discussions with people who I think are acting in good faith, as I think this thread and others attest.
|
What makes this case difficult is about the precedent that is being set. Do they just let this kid go scott-free after he killed someone? Do they abide by the law that they set regardless of the potential implications? These implications could everyone saying it was self defense, and if their are not witnesses who are we to say they are wrong. Anyone can rough themselves up a bit to make it look like a fight ensued. This could potentially destroy part of the social contract, which could be a disastrous decision. I think that their must be some kind of repercussion for this act. Carrying a knife around and than killing someone with it is not ok, and the potential precedent that could be set is far to dangerous to allow.
|
Well, I guess the bully poked the bear one too many times. It's a human tragedy on two fronts - the bully and the bullied. I don't feel sorry for either of them, though I'm slightly in favour of Saavedra for standing up to the bully and taking the 'initiative'.
|
Osaka27118 Posts
this thread is now a couple people kicking each other in the balls, and people coming in to make comments that have already been made 100 times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
