EPTFor me, the bottom line (assuming all of the info we have thus far is correct) is that it's really unfortunate that Martin got shot and killed, and yeah, Zimmerman should've left him alone... But if Martin really did bowl Zimmerman over and start whaling on him, Zimmerman was completely in the right to defend himself with lethal force. You might say that shooting an unarmed person is never acceptable, but fists can kill a person too. It's entirely possible that Martin would've killed Zimmerman if not for Zimmerman defending himself. In my mind, the fact that the risk was there authorizes deadly force by Zimmerman.
Trayvon Martin 17yo Kid Shot to Death - Page 33
| Forum Index > Closed |
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. | ||
|
iamahydralisk
United States813 Posts
For me, the bottom line (assuming all of the info we have thus far is correct) is that it's really unfortunate that Martin got shot and killed, and yeah, Zimmerman should've left him alone... But if Martin really did bowl Zimmerman over and start whaling on him, Zimmerman was completely in the right to defend himself with lethal force. You might say that shooting an unarmed person is never acceptable, but fists can kill a person too. It's entirely possible that Martin would've killed Zimmerman if not for Zimmerman defending himself. In my mind, the fact that the risk was there authorizes deadly force by Zimmerman. | ||
|
Anytus
United States258 Posts
On March 23 2012 06:33 iamahydralisk wrote: It's plainly obvious that Zimmerman should've left the kid alone, but I don't understand how Zimmerman deciding to follow somehow revokes his ability to defend himself. Was he just supposed to lay there and let himself get beaten to a pulp (or worse)? Assuming that it's true that he was being straddled and beaten by Martin. For me, the bottom line (assuming all of the info we have thus far is correct) is that it's really unfortunate that Martin got shot and killed, and yeah, Zimmerman should've left him alone... But if Martin really did bowl Zimmerman over and start whaling on him, Zimmerman was completely in the right to defend himself with lethal force. You might say that shooting an unarmed person is never acceptable, but fists can kill a person too. It's entirely possible that Martin would've killed Zimmerman if not for Zimmerman defending himself. In my mind, the fact that the risk was there authorizes deadly force by Zimmerman. This paints a plausible scenario in which Zimmerman does get off on self-defense. The simple fact is that we don't know what story it true. There are contradictory statements by witness and those in periphery. Keep in mind though that there really are 2 possible scenarios, and in one Zimmerman is a murderer and in the other he is innocent. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On March 23 2012 06:32 Anytus wrote: For anyone asserting that Zimmerman automatically gives up his right to self-defense when he pursues Martin, please read the law and the jury instruction for yourself. The statement is just false. It seems reasonable and we might agree that the law needs to be changed, but the way it is written now, Zimmerman does not automatically give up his self-defense claim because he pursued. Amusingly, the author of the law disagrees. | ||
BlackJack
United States10501 Posts
probably written by the NRA with his name slapped on it and now he is trying to cover his own ass | ||
|
Lockitupv2
United States496 Posts
On March 23 2012 06:32 TidusX.Yuna wrote: Adding "and he's a black male". Along with the other suspicious activity wasn't describing him. It was adding that to the list of suspicious activity. There's a huge difference between "Now he's coming towards me. He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male" and something like "He's 6'4, and a black male". Listen to the tapes again. First time he is asked whether the person is white, black, or hispanic. He answers, "He looks black." Later on in the tapes, he later confirmed that it was a black male. | ||
|
whatwhatanut
United States195 Posts
On March 23 2012 06:29 Zaqwe wrote: I understand how weight classes work and why the exist. They are for separating people who are athletic, trained, and their weight is usually muscle mass, not lard. I was pointing out that having a bunch of lard on your body doesn't make you some superhuman who could easily overpower a 6'3" football player who had you on your back and was beating you in the face. The fact that Zimmerman, not Trayvon, ended up on his back with Trayvon on top of him seems to suggest that Zimmermann was not some unstoppable juggernaut who could handle the situation with physical prowess alone. And no one ever suggested that at all. This is probably the worst thread for fallacies and just completely bullshit opinions. Edit: Not just you either I mean in general, don't mean to focus on you specifically. | ||
|
NotSorry
United States6722 Posts
On March 23 2012 06:32 TidusX.Yuna wrote: Adding "and he's a black male". Along with the other suspicious activity wasn't describing him. It was adding that to the list of suspicious activity. There's a huge difference between "Now he's coming towards me. He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male" and something like "He's 6'4, and a black male". The dispatcher asked him about his ethnicity, a moment earlier in the call and he said he wasn't sure, when the kid walked towards him he saw that he was a black male, he was answering the question and describing him for identification. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
this is one of the reasons why courts do not consider the opinions of legislative drafters when they interpret laws. it doesnt matter what the drafter intended the law to do, it matters what the law actually says. legislators vote on laws based on what the law says, not what the drafter intended. i have been searching, but cannot find whether the people now going against the law are up for election this year. i would heavily discount everything they say if they are up for election. | ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
On March 23 2012 06:33 iamahydralisk wrote: It's plainly obvious that Zimmerman should've left the kid alone, but I don't understand how Zimmerman deciding to follow somehow revokes his ability to defend himself. Was he just supposed to lay there and let himself get beaten to a pulp (or worse)? Assuming that it's true that he was being straddled and beaten by Martin. For me, the bottom line (assuming all of the info we have thus far is correct) is that it's really unfortunate that Martin got shot and killed, and yeah, Zimmerman should've left him alone... But if Martin really did bowl Zimmerman over and start whaling on him, Zimmerman was completely in the right to defend himself with lethal force. You might say that shooting an unarmed person is never acceptable, but fists can kill a person too. It's entirely possible that Martin would've killed Zimmerman if not for Zimmerman defending himself. In my mind, the fact that the risk was there authorizes deadly force by Zimmerman. Imagine this scenario then, the kid sees a guy running after him with a gun and being afraid he will get mugged or worse and the other guy being faster he turns around and attacks in self defense. Shouldn't Zimmerman be held responsible for acting like an idiot? What right do he have to chase down someone else while being armed? Do we want armed vigilantes running around "catching bad guys?" If Zimmerman had actually intended to rob him (just in theory) would he still get off on self defense if it had played out in the same way? Regardless the whole case stinks. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13931 Posts
On March 23 2012 06:32 TidusX.Yuna wrote: Adding "and he's a black male". Along with the other suspicious activity wasn't describing him. It was adding that to the list of suspicious activity. There's a huge difference between "Now he's coming towards me. He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male" and something like "He's 6'4, and a black male". Yes It had to be a hate crime. He has black family members and black friends and mentors a few local black children. That all qualifys for a hate crime. Zimmerman claimed self defence under the "stand your ground" law and the cops couldn't find anything to prove otherwise. Its an open and close case that happened almost a month ago. The NCAA and the liberal media want to feel relevant again and make people think that raceism is something that happens to black people no matter who they meet every day. One week people complain about the police not enforcing the law the next they complain about the police enforcing the law. | ||
|
Playguuu
United States926 Posts
| ||
|
lwwkicker
United States140 Posts
On March 23 2012 06:48 Playguuu wrote: He say's "fucking coons" during the first call. Not only is this guy racist he claims self defense when he has a gun and the other guy doesn't. He should be locked up no question. Wait, what? Where is this tape? | ||
|
Lockitupv2
United States496 Posts
On March 23 2012 06:48 Playguuu wrote: He say's "fucking coons" during the first call. Not only is this guy racist he claims self defense when he has a gun and the other guy doesn't. He should be locked up no question. You can still claim to have acted in self defense even if you have a gun, I dont know why you and some other people seem to think that you cant. Saying racist things isnt a crime. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On March 23 2012 06:43 dAPhREAk wrote: this is one of the reasons why courts do not consider the opinions of legislative drafters when they interpret laws. it doesnt matter what the drafter intended the law to do, it matters what the law actually says. legislators vote on laws based on what the law says, not what the drafter intended. Some do consider intent though. Original intent isn't completely dead after all. But the author's comments aren't restricted to the intent behind they law. They go to meaning as well. i have been searching, but cannot find whether the people now going against the law are up for election this year. i would heavily discount everything they say if they are up for election. Durell Peaden is not up for reelection and is not against the law. He, and at least a couple of his co-sponsors, are against the misapplication of the law. | ||
|
Anytus
United States258 Posts
On March 23 2012 06:48 Playguuu wrote: He say's "fucking coons" during the first call. Not only is this guy racist he claims self defense when he has a gun and the other guy doesn't. He should be locked up no question. Read some other posts/discussion. There is dispute as to whether that is actually what he says and also whether this part of the audio is in the original recording or has been added. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
first page. its the 911 call. it doesnt actually say it. it sounds like "fucking ......" there is debate whether he said "fucking coons" or "fucking phones" | ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
The falling and headcracking actually happens quite often but if Zimmerman was already on the ground it's out of the equation. If you're very strong and repeatedly punch them in the back of the head it's doable but extremely unlikely. You literally need to either keep beating on them for very, very long periods of time after they are already unconscious or hold a well executed choke for several minutes. A simple fist fight is absolutely not a "lethal threat". That's why the idiotic statement "guns don't kill people etc..." is so idiotic. Kids get into relatively brutal fistfights all the time, and martial artists beat the living fuck out of each other and hardly anyone is ever seriously injured. If you are unarmed, you are absolutely not a lethal threat and one should never, ever be able to fire at an unarmed person and get away with it. | ||
|
Zaqwe
591 Posts
He is correct, but not in the way you think. The Stand Your Ground law doesn't apply because Zimmermann was pinned on his back on the ground. Even self-defense laws in other states would cover that situation. There was no way to retreat. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 23 2012 06:51 Mindcrime wrote: Some do consider intent though. Original intent isn't completely dead after all. But the author's comments aren't restricted to the intent behind they law. They go to meaning as well. Durell Peaden is not up for reelection and is not against the law. He, and at least a couple of his co-sponsors, are against the misapplication of the law. sometimes they will look at legislative history to determine meaning. however, if the statute is unambiguous they do not go beyond the words of the statute. this guy is saying he doesnt think it applies to zimmerman's situation, but i see nothing in the statute that supports that interpretation. who knows though? maybe a court will look to his words and find differently. | ||
|
Lockitupv2
United States496 Posts
On March 23 2012 06:53 Kickboxer wrote: It's next to impossible to kill a person with your bare hands if you're not absolutely intent on doing so - short of them falling and hitting their head against concrete or some other solid object. The falling and headcracking actually happens quite often but if Zimmerman was already on the ground it's out of the equation. If you're very strong and repeatedly punch them in the back of the head it's doable but extremely unlikely. You literally need to either keep beating on them for very, very long periods of time after they are already unconscious or hold a well executed choke for several minutes. A simple fist fight is absolutely not a "lethal threat". That's why the idiotic statement "guns don't kill people etc..." is so idiotic. Kids get into relatively brutal fistfights all the time, and martial artists beat the living fuck out of each other and hardly anyone is ever seriously injured. If you are unarmed, you are absolutely not a lethal threat and one should never, ever be able to fire at an unarmed person and get away with it. Its very possible to kill someone by punching them. Some have died by one punch. | ||
| ||
