|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On June 30 2013 14:43 xDaunt wrote:
Being able to put oneself into the shoes of Zimmerman or Trayvon has nothing to do with the widely differing opinions regarding how this case should pan out. No, that is largely a function of woefully uninformed people drawing unsubstantiated conclusions about what happened. There is also a disturbingly large element of people who exhibit a manifest disregard for the law in their opinions about this case.
On June 30 2013 15:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Well there are studies that show otherwise... "As in previous studies, both victim and criminal perceived identities influenced the recommended level of punishment." Source: + Show Spoiler +http://newwcr.sonoma.edu/v4n1/Manuscripts/tsoudisarticle.pdf
Just out of curiousity, did you dig that up just to pull out for this discussion, or do you really study criminology?
Anyhow, the study you linked doesn't apply to xDaunt's argument. He is commenting on the large number of people who have strong opinions of the case while at the same time demonstrating a lack of detailed knowledge of the relevant circumstances of the case and of the way in which the law is applied.
The study you linked involves a jury who is completely versed in the circumstances of their case, a case in which the defendant is clearly guilty, and the only question is to what degree he should be punished. As you noted, the study attempts to measure the degree in which perceived identities influence the recommended level of punishment.
xDaunt is implying that if people were more informed of the relevant details and the law surrounding Trayvon's case, they'd have totally different conclusions. The study implies that if the defendant frowns a little more, the jury might like him somewhat more. Not quite the same.
|
On June 30 2013 15:07 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 15:02 B_Type13X2 wrote:On June 30 2013 14:43 xDaunt wrote:
Being able to put oneself into the shoes of Zimmerman or Trayvon has nothing to do with the widely differing opinions regarding how this case should pan out. No, that is largely a function of woefully uninformed people drawing unsubstantiated conclusions about what happened. There is also a disturbingly large element of people who exhibit a manifest disregard for the law in their opinions about this case. I agree entirely with the legal outcome of this case if Zimmerman walks.... However I am having abit of a morale dilemma about it. It doesn't seem right for Zimmerman to walk away free of all legal culpability for his role leading up to the shooting. Zimmerman himself admits to getting out of his car and to following/ watching Treyvon. What Treyvon did in response is understandable but wrong. Zimmerman walks free and clear because that's the law. Fine he walks free and clear but after this case; change the law and hold people who choose to be both armed and in a neighborhood watch program to greater scrutiny for their actions. Pepperspray/ Mase would have had the same outcome in protecting Zimmermans life. Call it Treyvon's law; it wont bring the kid back but it might atleast help prevent such a preventable/ stupid/ tragic situation from occurring in the future. I don't know about the states but in Canada every time a police officer even touches his holster he needs to do paperwork to explain why they felt it necessary to move their hand towards their lethal force weapon. They have no formal training and are just trying to help their community. They are not paid/trained professionals. There is literally no justification for holding them to a higher level of culpability. The self defense laws are as good as you can reasonably expect them to be. This is just one of those cases that are such a gray area, however the law aims to defend that gray area in favor of the defendant, because our society is ideally against wrongfully incarcerating innocent people.
The justification for holding them to a higher standard comes from their choice to be armed with a lethal force weapon. If their carrying pepperspray no higher standard. True people die to pepperspray too, but it is very rare. Its about the choices they make. To be clear I wouldn't change neighborhood watches per-say but the policy surrounding someone who is both licensed for concealed carry and a member of the watch program. If you choose to be armed and take part in this, your not a law enforcement official true but you are acting in proxy somewhat for law enforcement so you should know the very basics of pursuit psychology, so you know and understand the possible outcomes of your actions Ie. following someone for suspicion.
|
On June 30 2013 15:36 FatChicksUnited wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 14:43 xDaunt wrote:
Being able to put oneself into the shoes of Zimmerman or Trayvon has nothing to do with the widely differing opinions regarding how this case should pan out. No, that is largely a function of woefully uninformed people drawing unsubstantiated conclusions about what happened. There is also a disturbingly large element of people who exhibit a manifest disregard for the law in their opinions about this case. Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 15:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Well there are studies that show otherwise... "As in previous studies, both victim and criminal perceived identities influenced the recommended level of punishment." Source: + Show Spoiler +http://newwcr.sonoma.edu/v4n1/Manuscripts/tsoudisarticle.pdf Just out of curiousity, did you dig that up just to pull out for this discussion, or do you really study criminology? Anyhow, the study you linked doesn't apply to xDaunt's argument. He is commenting on the large number of people who have strong opinions of the case while at the same time demonstrating a lack of detailed knowledge of the relevant circumstances of the case and of the way in which the law is applied. The study you linked involves a jury who is completely versed in the circumstances of their case, a case in which the defendant is clearly guilty, and the only question is to what degree he should be punished. As you noted, the study attempts to measure the degree in which perceived identities influence the recommended level of punishment. xDaunt is implying that if people were more informed of the relevant details and the law surrounding Trayvon's case, they'd have totally different conclusions. The study implies that if the defendant frowns a little more, the jury might like him somewhat more. Not quite the same.
I'm guessing you missed this line
"The relations between actor
and object operate similarly for all social
interactions. Any event with emotional reactions
can be framed under affect control theory"
Not to mention Xdaunt point about the legal awareness of participants didn't address my assertion in the first place. Which is that the degree to which one empathizes with either party is related to (not determinate of) peoples perceptions regarding that night and what followed.
|
On June 30 2013 15:20 B_Type13X2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 14:59 SKC wrote:On June 30 2013 14:48 B_Type13X2 wrote:
I'm gonna crap on this thread by interjecting some opinion....
Firstly when this all came about I thought it looked really bad for Zimmerman I was leaning towards Treyvon's side based on the facts I knew at the time. Now I think Zimmerman walks. Legally he should walk, and if he does I'm okay with that.
However I think after this case has run its course the law might need to be rewritten in terms of self defense. While Treyvon did something wrong by attacking Zimmerman, it was Zimmerman's initial wrongs Ie... Getting out of his car, and continually trailing someone who was trying to get away from him that lead to the confrontation that caused someone to die. The man made 2 choices before Treyvon made one. While I wholly disagree with second degree murder in this case, I wouldn't be opposed to involuntary manslaughter. (What they charge drunk drivers with if they kill someone.)
Further I think that the requirements for concealed carry specifically for those people who decide to do this and be on their neighborhood watch need to be modified. Their ought to be a requirement to take a seminar on basic pursuit psychology. Maybe members of these watch programs should be inclined to identify themselves and not simply just follow someone.
Finally, this is a case where Treyvon was wrong in doing what he did but it is an understandable response to the circumstances he was involved in. It is a tragic waste of life and utterly disgusting. Justice for Treyvon will have to depend on Zimmerman and whether or not he has a conscience. He has to live with the fact that he killed Treyvon, for the rest of his life he has to carry that weight. And if he is a human being he is going to think back every night to those events and lament that he didn't choose to do things differently. If I insult you and you react with the intent to kill me, I am now unable to defend myself because I started the confrontation? Why is it diferent if I for some reason was following you? Self defense laws are fine. Following someone isn't a big deal, if the other person reacts by putting your life in danger, you should be allowed to defend yourself even if it means you end up killing him. There is a reason why escalating the force can be as important as starting the confrontation. It's also important to note it is not proven that Zimmermann followed Martin with the intent to confront him anyway. I would love to hear how you would rewrite the laws as to prevent situations such as this without introducing loopholes that would allow even more absurd scenarios. Laws aren't perfect, but it's not that simple to change them. Insulting someone is far different then following them for an extended period of time. I work in the oil patch I watched one person stab another person for spilling a cup of tea on them. There is reasonable escalation to any situation. And you have the right to defend yourself sure, in hockey fights happen all the time, but there's also instigator penalties. You instigate a situation you shouldn't get away free and clear because your poor choices contributed to the outcome. And self defense laws are fine, what's not fine is self defense in this context. He defended his life good but he also was about 70% responsible for being in a situation where he had to defend his own life. Stupidity does not protect you from consequence. Zimmerman did something stupid so did Treyvon someones dead. And it is a big fucking deal to follow someone especially if your armed. Again pursuit psychology, fight or flight, despite our advanced brains people are still animals on an instinctual level. If you don't know why following someone for no reason other the suspicion is a bad idea here's a fun experiment for you. Pick a random person follow them in an obvious manner for 10 city blocks, see how uncomfortable/ hostile they get towards you. And I never even alluded to the fact that Zimmerman intended to confront him. Saying that he did would be giving Zimmerman too much credit and would imply that he had a spine/ intestinal fortitude. If he had any of those things he would have called out to Treyvon and initiated a dialogue with him stating who he was, and what he was doing then asking Treyvon the same questions in return. Finally I wouldn't need to rewrite the laws that much to make their be some sort of accountability for instigating a confrontation. Its not complicated if you instigate/ put yourself in the situation and the result is someone ends up dead -> Involuntary manslaughter, 2 years of prison likely 8 months with good behavior and the option to apply for a pardon after 5 years to clear your federal record. Arguing it is pointless though, people want to paint this as a black/white case when its a shade of grey. I would find Zimmerman not guilty according to the laws as they are written, but I can't bring myself to agree with those laws when the living party made the initial decisions that lead to the confrontation. He has to have some sort of accountability or self defense / stand your ground is too easy to abuse.
You need to learn about escalation of force. Even if Zimmerman was in the wrong for following him (somehow), he STILL has the right to defend himself. Martin escalated to lethal force first, i.e. smashing Zimmerman's head into the ground, and so Zimmerman has every right to do so himself. Even if Zimmerman insulted Martin, calling him anything you can think of; even if he pushed Martin or threw a punch or two, as long as Zimmerman isn't the one escalating to lethal force first, its not murder.
On June 30 2013 15:37 B_Type13X2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 15:07 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On June 30 2013 15:02 B_Type13X2 wrote:On June 30 2013 14:43 xDaunt wrote:
Being able to put oneself into the shoes of Zimmerman or Trayvon has nothing to do with the widely differing opinions regarding how this case should pan out. No, that is largely a function of woefully uninformed people drawing unsubstantiated conclusions about what happened. There is also a disturbingly large element of people who exhibit a manifest disregard for the law in their opinions about this case. I agree entirely with the legal outcome of this case if Zimmerman walks.... However I am having abit of a morale dilemma about it. It doesn't seem right for Zimmerman to walk away free of all legal culpability for his role leading up to the shooting. Zimmerman himself admits to getting out of his car and to following/ watching Treyvon. What Treyvon did in response is understandable but wrong. Zimmerman walks free and clear because that's the law. Fine he walks free and clear but after this case; change the law and hold people who choose to be both armed and in a neighborhood watch program to greater scrutiny for their actions. Pepperspray/ Mase would have had the same outcome in protecting Zimmermans life. Call it Treyvon's law; it wont bring the kid back but it might atleast help prevent such a preventable/ stupid/ tragic situation from occurring in the future. I don't know about the states but in Canada every time a police officer even touches his holster he needs to do paperwork to explain why they felt it necessary to move their hand towards their lethal force weapon. They have no formal training and are just trying to help their community. They are not paid/trained professionals. There is literally no justification for holding them to a higher level of culpability. The self defense laws are as good as you can reasonably expect them to be. This is just one of those cases that are such a gray area, however the law aims to defend that gray area in favor of the defendant, because our society is ideally against wrongfully incarcerating innocent people. The justification for holding them to a higher standard comes from their choice to be armed with a lethal force weapon. If their carrying pepperspray no higher standard. True people die to pepperspray too, but it is very rare. Its about the choices they make. To be clear I wouldn't change neighborhood watches per-say but the policy surrounding someone who is both licensed for concealed carry and a member of the watch program. If you choose to be armed and take part in this, your not a law enforcement official true but you are acting in proxy somewhat for law enforcement so you should know the very basics of pursuit psychology, so you know and understand the possible outcomes of your actions Ie. following someone for suspicion.
Do you really believe cops have all that much training in "pursuit psychology"? Most cops are pretty poorly trained, simply because of funding issues. Sure, they may have to get training to get the job, but there aren't really any refresher courses or anything. Hell, the only constant training that's mandatory for my local cops is 50 rounds of pistol practice a month.
|
On June 30 2013 15:37 B_Type13X2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 15:07 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On June 30 2013 15:02 B_Type13X2 wrote:On June 30 2013 14:43 xDaunt wrote:
Being able to put oneself into the shoes of Zimmerman or Trayvon has nothing to do with the widely differing opinions regarding how this case should pan out. No, that is largely a function of woefully uninformed people drawing unsubstantiated conclusions about what happened. There is also a disturbingly large element of people who exhibit a manifest disregard for the law in their opinions about this case. I agree entirely with the legal outcome of this case if Zimmerman walks.... However I am having abit of a morale dilemma about it. It doesn't seem right for Zimmerman to walk away free of all legal culpability for his role leading up to the shooting. Zimmerman himself admits to getting out of his car and to following/ watching Treyvon. What Treyvon did in response is understandable but wrong. Zimmerman walks free and clear because that's the law. Fine he walks free and clear but after this case; change the law and hold people who choose to be both armed and in a neighborhood watch program to greater scrutiny for their actions. Pepperspray/ Mase would have had the same outcome in protecting Zimmermans life. Call it Treyvon's law; it wont bring the kid back but it might atleast help prevent such a preventable/ stupid/ tragic situation from occurring in the future. I don't know about the states but in Canada every time a police officer even touches his holster he needs to do paperwork to explain why they felt it necessary to move their hand towards their lethal force weapon. They have no formal training and are just trying to help their community. They are not paid/trained professionals. There is literally no justification for holding them to a higher level of culpability. The self defense laws are as good as you can reasonably expect them to be. This is just one of those cases that are such a gray area, however the law aims to defend that gray area in favor of the defendant, because our society is ideally against wrongfully incarcerating innocent people. The justification for holding them to a higher standard comes from their choice to be armed with a lethal force weapon. If their carrying pepperspray no higher standard. True people die to pepperspray too, but it is very rare. Its about the choices they make. To be clear I wouldn't change neighborhood watches per-say but the policy surrounding someone who is both licensed for concealed carry and a member of the watch program. If you choose to be armed and take part in this, your not a law enforcement official true but you are acting in proxy somewhat for law enforcement so you should know the very basics of pursuit psychology, so you know and understand the possible outcomes of your actions Ie. following someone for suspicion.
You are legally allowed to carry weapons for defense purpose. The location does not matter. What's to stop you from holding someone to higher standard if they are on their own property if the only factor is a gun? The standard we have now where if you are shown to have acted irrationally with your weapon and needlessly or unreasonably thought you needed to use your weapon, that is illegal. Creating some exception just further neuters your citizenry for no reason. I also don't like the idea of increasing the chance of a gray area going against the defendant. That's not how our system is supposed to work and I would feel uncomfortable with any system that increases the likelihood of injustice being served.
Essentially what I think you are saying would become "I can't be sure what happened" = defendant walks to "I can't be sure what happened" = defendant does not walk. You are innocent until proven guilty to ensure we don't unduly deprive anyone of liberty which in our society is (conceptually) held in the highest regard.
|
On June 30 2013 15:30 B_Type13X2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 15:07 SKC wrote:On June 30 2013 15:02 B_Type13X2 wrote:On June 30 2013 14:43 xDaunt wrote:
Being able to put oneself into the shoes of Zimmerman or Trayvon has nothing to do with the widely differing opinions regarding how this case should pan out. No, that is largely a function of woefully uninformed people drawing unsubstantiated conclusions about what happened. There is also a disturbingly large element of people who exhibit a manifest disregard for the law in their opinions about this case. I agree entirely with the legal outcome of this case if Zimmerman walks.... However I am having abit of a morale dilemma about it. It doesn't seem right for Zimmerman to walk away free of all legal culpability for his role leading up to the shooting. Zimmerman himself admits to getting out of his car and to following/ watching Treyvon. What Treyvon did in response is understandable but wrong. Zimmerman walks free and clear because that's the law. Fine he walks free and clear but after this case; change the law and hold people who choose to be both armed and in a neighborhood watch program to greater scrutiny for their actions. Pepperspray/ Mase would have had the same outcome in protecting Zimmermans life. Call it Treyvon's law; it wont bring the kid back but it might atleast help prevent such a preventable/ stupid/ tragic situation from occurring in the future. I don't know about the states but in Canada every time a police officer even touches his holster he needs to do paperwork to explain why they felt it necessary to move their hand towards their lethal force weapon. It`s understandable to punch someone in the face, get on top of him and keep throwing puches/slamming his head against the concrete just because he followed you and asked you what you were doing? That's similar to the scenario that the prosecution is having a hard time proving didn't happen. If you accept it could have happened like that, I don't see how you can say Zimmermann is still guilty of manslaughter. It's not enough that you don't think it happened that way. You have to be sure it couldn't have happened that way. It is if you believe that the person following you wished to do you harm we don't know Treyvon or Zimmerman's true mindset. Treyvon could have believed that this person who had been following him wished to do him harm and that he was attacking him pre-emptively. And I didn't say manslaughter I said INVOLUNTARY manslaughter. The key word being involuntary, a drunk driver doesn't get into their car and say, "hey you know what would be a great hood ornament? That guy walking on the sidewalk over there." A carpenter / welder doesn't go into work and say, " You know what I hate people so I am going to do such a crappy job putting this building together that I hope it collapses and kills everyone inside." Yet if a drunk driver hits someone and they die no one bats an eye lash about them going to jail because they made the choice to drive. Well Zimmerman made the choice to follow Treyvon and made the choice to leave his car, he also made the choice to carry a gun and not pepper spray or any other non lethal self defense item. I'm a welder, tomorrow I go into work, I have to weld lifting lugs onto something that weighs 100tons. If my lugs fail and its cause I left porosity or slag in them, and someone dies I will go to jail. Stupidity/ incompetence does not protect me from that reality.
It is not understandable to attack someone just because you think he may want to do you harm. If he did that and killed Zimmermann, I doubt you would say it was understandable. And the fact we don't know exactly what happened is the whole reason why it's so hard to convict him of anything.
Your example is a completelly diferent subject. You are suposed to make sure every product has adequate safety standards. If you fail to do something you are required by law to do, you are guilty. Zimmermann didn't fail to do anything the law required him to do, and if you believe the law should have required something it didn't, we need a more concrete example. Stupidity doesn't protect you from crimes, but we need you to quote which crime Zimmermann's "stupidity" is a excuse to. Aproaching Martin is no crime.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 30 2013 15:43 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 15:30 B_Type13X2 wrote:On June 30 2013 15:07 SKC wrote:On June 30 2013 15:02 B_Type13X2 wrote:On June 30 2013 14:43 xDaunt wrote:
Being able to put oneself into the shoes of Zimmerman or Trayvon has nothing to do with the widely differing opinions regarding how this case should pan out. No, that is largely a function of woefully uninformed people drawing unsubstantiated conclusions about what happened. There is also a disturbingly large element of people who exhibit a manifest disregard for the law in their opinions about this case. I agree entirely with the legal outcome of this case if Zimmerman walks.... However I am having abit of a morale dilemma about it. It doesn't seem right for Zimmerman to walk away free of all legal culpability for his role leading up to the shooting. Zimmerman himself admits to getting out of his car and to following/ watching Treyvon. What Treyvon did in response is understandable but wrong. Zimmerman walks free and clear because that's the law. Fine he walks free and clear but after this case; change the law and hold people who choose to be both armed and in a neighborhood watch program to greater scrutiny for their actions. Pepperspray/ Mase would have had the same outcome in protecting Zimmermans life. Call it Treyvon's law; it wont bring the kid back but it might atleast help prevent such a preventable/ stupid/ tragic situation from occurring in the future. I don't know about the states but in Canada every time a police officer even touches his holster he needs to do paperwork to explain why they felt it necessary to move their hand towards their lethal force weapon. It`s understandable to punch someone in the face, get on top of him and keep throwing puches/slamming his head against the concrete just because he followed you and asked you what you were doing? That's similar to the scenario that the prosecution is having a hard time proving didn't happen. If you accept it could have happened like that, I don't see how you can say Zimmermann is still guilty of manslaughter. It's not enough that you don't think it happened that way. You have to be sure it couldn't have happened that way. It is if you believe that the person following you wished to do you harm we don't know Treyvon or Zimmerman's true mindset. Treyvon could have believed that this person who had been following him wished to do him harm and that he was attacking him pre-emptively. And I didn't say manslaughter I said INVOLUNTARY manslaughter. The key word being involuntary, a drunk driver doesn't get into their car and say, "hey you know what would be a great hood ornament? That guy walking on the sidewalk over there." A carpenter / welder doesn't go into work and say, " You know what I hate people so I am going to do such a crappy job putting this building together that I hope it collapses and kills everyone inside." Yet if a drunk driver hits someone and they die no one bats an eye lash about them going to jail because they made the choice to drive. Well Zimmerman made the choice to follow Treyvon and made the choice to leave his car, he also made the choice to carry a gun and not pepper spray or any other non lethal self defense item. I'm a welder, tomorrow I go into work, I have to weld lifting lugs onto something that weighs 100tons. If my lugs fail and its cause I left porosity or slag in them, and someone dies I will go to jail. Stupidity/ incompetence does not protect me from that reality.
It is not understandable to attack someone just because you think he may want to do you harm. If he did that and killed Zimmermann, I doubt you would say it was understandable. And the fact we don't know exactly what happened is the whole reason why it's so hard to convict him of anything.
Your example is a completelly diferent subject. You are suposed to make sure every product has adequate safety standards. If you fail to do something you are required by law to do, you are guilty. Zimmermann didn't fail to do anything the law required him to do, and if you believe the law should have required something it didn't, we need a more concrete example. Stupidity doesn't protect you from crimes, but we need you to quote which crime Zimmermann's "stupidity" is a excuse to. Aproaching Martin is no crime.
Basically Zimmerman's "stupidity" doesn't excuse him from at least the appearance of the culpable negligence he engaged in by being armed with deadly force and pursuing Trayvon. If that helps?
|
On June 30 2013 15:53 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 30 2013 15:43 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 15:30 B_Type13X2 wrote:On June 30 2013 15:07 SKC wrote:On June 30 2013 15:02 B_Type13X2 wrote:On June 30 2013 14:43 xDaunt wrote:
Being able to put oneself into the shoes of Zimmerman or Trayvon has nothing to do with the widely differing opinions regarding how this case should pan out. No, that is largely a function of woefully uninformed people drawing unsubstantiated conclusions about what happened. There is also a disturbingly large element of people who exhibit a manifest disregard for the law in their opinions about this case. I agree entirely with the legal outcome of this case if Zimmerman walks.... However I am having abit of a morale dilemma about it. It doesn't seem right for Zimmerman to walk away free of all legal culpability for his role leading up to the shooting. Zimmerman himself admits to getting out of his car and to following/ watching Treyvon. What Treyvon did in response is understandable but wrong. Zimmerman walks free and clear because that's the law. Fine he walks free and clear but after this case; change the law and hold people who choose to be both armed and in a neighborhood watch program to greater scrutiny for their actions. Pepperspray/ Mase would have had the same outcome in protecting Zimmermans life. Call it Treyvon's law; it wont bring the kid back but it might atleast help prevent such a preventable/ stupid/ tragic situation from occurring in the future. I don't know about the states but in Canada every time a police officer even touches his holster he needs to do paperwork to explain why they felt it necessary to move their hand towards their lethal force weapon. It`s understandable to punch someone in the face, get on top of him and keep throwing puches/slamming his head against the concrete just because he followed you and asked you what you were doing? That's similar to the scenario that the prosecution is having a hard time proving didn't happen. If you accept it could have happened like that, I don't see how you can say Zimmermann is still guilty of manslaughter. It's not enough that you don't think it happened that way. You have to be sure it couldn't have happened that way. It is if you believe that the person following you wished to do you harm we don't know Treyvon or Zimmerman's true mindset. Treyvon could have believed that this person who had been following him wished to do him harm and that he was attacking him pre-emptively. And I didn't say manslaughter I said INVOLUNTARY manslaughter. The key word being involuntary, a drunk driver doesn't get into their car and say, "hey you know what would be a great hood ornament? That guy walking on the sidewalk over there." A carpenter / welder doesn't go into work and say, " You know what I hate people so I am going to do such a crappy job putting this building together that I hope it collapses and kills everyone inside." Yet if a drunk driver hits someone and they die no one bats an eye lash about them going to jail because they made the choice to drive. Well Zimmerman made the choice to follow Treyvon and made the choice to leave his car, he also made the choice to carry a gun and not pepper spray or any other non lethal self defense item. I'm a welder, tomorrow I go into work, I have to weld lifting lugs onto something that weighs 100tons. If my lugs fail and its cause I left porosity or slag in them, and someone dies I will go to jail. Stupidity/ incompetence does not protect me from that reality. Show nested quote +It is not understandable to attack someone just because you think he may want to do you harm. If he did that and killed Zimmermann, I doubt you would say it was understandable. And the fact we don't know exactly what happened is the whole reason why it's so hard to convict him of anything.
Your example is a completelly diferent subject. You are suposed to make sure every product has adequate safety standards. If you fail to do something you are required by law to do, you are guilty. Zimmermann didn't fail to do anything the law required him to do, and if you believe the law should have required something it didn't, we need a more concrete example. Stupidity doesn't protect you from crimes, but we need you to quote which crime Zimmermann's "stupidity" is a excuse to. Aproaching Martin is no crime.
Basically Zimmerman's "stupidity" doesn't excuse him from the culpable negligence he engaged in by being armed with deadly force and pursuing Trayvon. If that helps?
There is no culpable negligence from aproaching someone and asking him "what are you doing?", whether you carry a gun or not. Do you believe that should be a crime?
|
+ Show Spoiler +[QUOTE] On June 30 2013 15:55 SKC wrote:[QUOTE] On June 30 2013 15:53 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 30 2013 15:43 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 15:30 B_Type13X2 wrote:On June 30 2013 15:07 SKC wrote:On June 30 2013 15:02 B_Type13X2 wrote:On June 30 2013 14:43 xDaunt wrote:
Being able to put oneself into the shoes of Zimmerman or Trayvon has nothing to do with the widely differing opinions regarding how this case should pan out. No, that is largely a function of woefully uninformed people drawing unsubstantiated conclusions about what happened. There is also a disturbingly large element of people who exhibit a manifest disregard for the law in their opinions about this case. I agree entirely with the legal outcome of this case if Zimmerman walks.... However I am having abit of a morale dilemma about it. It doesn't seem right for Zimmerman to walk away free of all legal culpability for his role leading up to the shooting. Zimmerman himself admits to getting out of his car and to following/ watching Treyvon. What Treyvon did in response is understandable but wrong. Zimmerman walks free and clear because that's the law. Fine he walks free and clear but after this case; change the law and hold people who choose to be both armed and in a neighborhood watch program to greater scrutiny for their actions. Pepperspray/ Mase would have had the same outcome in protecting Zimmermans life. Call it Treyvon's law; it wont bring the kid back but it might atleast help prevent such a preventable/ stupid/ tragic situation from occurring in the future. I don't know about the states but in Canada every time a police officer even touches his holster he needs to do paperwork to explain why they felt it necessary to move their hand towards their lethal force weapon. It`s understandable to punch someone in the face, get on top of him and keep throwing puches/slamming his head against the concrete just because he followed you and asked you what you were doing? That's similar to the scenario that the prosecution is having a hard time proving didn't happen. If you accept it could have happened like that, I don't see how you can say Zimmermann is still guilty of manslaughter. It's not enough that you don't think it happened that way. You have to be sure it couldn't have happened that way. It is if you believe that the person following you wished to do you harm we don't know Treyvon or Zimmerman's true mindset. Treyvon could have believed that this person who had been following him wished to do him harm and that he was attacking him pre-emptively. And I didn't say manslaughter I said INVOLUNTARY manslaughter. The key word being involuntary, a drunk driver doesn't get into their car and say, "hey you know what would be a great hood ornament? That guy walking on the sidewalk over there." A carpenter / welder doesn't go into work and say, " You know what I hate people so I am going to do such a crappy job putting this building together that I hope it collapses and kills everyone inside." Yet if a drunk driver hits someone and they die no one bats an eye lash about them going to jail because they made the choice to drive. Well Zimmerman made the choice to follow Treyvon and made the choice to leave his car, he also made the choice to carry a gun and not pepper spray or any other non lethal self defense item. I'm a welder, tomorrow I go into work, I have to weld lifting lugs onto something that weighs 100tons. If my lugs fail and its cause I left porosity or slag in them, and someone dies I will go to jail. Stupidity/ incompetence does not protect me from that reality. [quote]It is not understandable to attack someone just because you think he may want to do you harm. If he did that and killed Zimmermann, I doubt you would say it was understandable. And the fact we don't know exactly what happened is the whole reason why it's so hard to convict him of anything. Your example is a completelly diferent subject. You are suposed to make sure every product has adequate safety standards. If you fail to do something you are required by law to do, you are guilty. Zimmermann didn't fail to do anything the law required him to do, and if you believe the law should have required something it didn't, we need a more concrete example. Stupidity doesn't protect you from crimes, but we need you to quote which crime Zimmermann's "stupidity" is a excuse to. Aproaching Martin is no crime. Basically Zimmerman's "stupidity" doesn't excuse him from the culpable negligence he engaged in by being armed with deadly force and pursuing Trayvon. If that helps?
.
"There is no culpable negligence from aproaching someone and asking him "what are you doing?", whether you carry a gun or not. Do you believe that should be a crime?" ---SKC
Being armed with deadly force while pursuing someone after contacting the authorities and them instructing you not to follow, is not the same as asking someone "what are you doing?".
Also whether you carry a gun does make a difference. If trayvon was the criminal Zimmerman thought he was, what was he going to do if Trayvon drew on him or just decided to fight and started to win... It should have been clear to Zimmerman that a shooting of himself or Trayvon would be a reasonably likely result of ignoring the instruction he was given not to pursue.
If he or anyone is too ignorant to understand that taking a gun to confront someone you suspect to be a potential criminal after already calling 911 and being told not to pursue is reasonably likely to end in a shooting and/or death, than that's on them.
That is what I believe is trying to be gotten at about "stupidity" not being an excuse to avoid the consequences of ones actions.
|
On June 30 2013 15:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm guessing you missed this line
"The relations between actor
and object operate similarly for all social
interactions. Any event with emotional reactions
can be framed under affect control theory"
You're taking a very generalized conclusion or assertion made in a paper that makes its argument from a unrelated set of assumptions, and waving it around like a creationist waves around the bible. The paper only shows that a more empathetic plaintiff or defendant can have some small effect on the sentencing of a clearly guilty plaintiff. It does not show that Trayvon being black and Zimmerman being whitespanic would cause otherwise fully informed individuals, through some empathetic link, to be more or less likely to find Zimmerman being guilty rather than innocent despite all evidence to the contrary.
Not to mention Xdaunt point about the legal awareness of participants didn't address my assertion in the first place. Which is that the degree to which one empathizes with either party is related to (not determinate of) peoples perceptions regarding that night and what followed.
He did address your assertion. Obviously, empathy with either party would affect peoples perceptions regarding that night. He never disputes that. He makes the point that many of the people speaking out on the issue demonstrate a severe level of ignorance on the details of the case and of the relevant law. He is implying (I believe) that many of these people, if forced to sit down and view all of the available evidence, and learn all of the applicable law, would have completely different opinions.
Empathy can only affect so much.
|
.
"There is no culpable negligence from aproaching someone and asking him "what are you doing?", whether you carry a gun or not. Do you believe that should be a crime?" ---SKC
Being armed with deadly force while pursuing someone after contacting the authorities and them instructing you not to follow, is not the same as asking someone "what are you doing?".
Also whether you carry a gun does make a difference. If trayvon was the criminal Zimmerman thought he was, what was he going to do if Trayvon drew on him or just decided to fight and started to win... It should have been clear to Zimmerman that a shooting of himself or Trayvon would be a reasonably likely result of ignoring the instruction he was given not to pursue.
If he or anyone is too ignorant to understand that taking a gun to confront someone you suspect to be a potential criminal after already calling 911 and being told not realize a shooting as a potentially likely outcome, than that's on them.
That is what I believe is trying to be gotten at about "stupidity" not being an excuse to avoid the consequences of ones actions.
Do you actually know what the legal definition of what culpable negligence is? None of your assertions even come close to what would be considered culpable negligence.
|
Someone posted about how Zimmerman was spineless and likely didn't confront Trayvon directly, leading Trayvon to respond more aggressively than he did, and I thought it was a really good point. (B_Type13X2?)
I can't help but think that if Zimmerman had a reflective jacket and a flashlight instead, and didn't skulk around like a thug himself, Trayvon would have been less hostile, or at least have stayed home once he got there (if it were indeed the case that he went back out to hunt Zimmerman).
|
On June 30 2013 16:09 FatChicksUnited wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 15:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm guessing you missed this line
"The relations between actor
and object operate similarly for all social
interactions. Any event with emotional reactions
can be framed under affect control theory" You're taking a very generalized conclusion or assertion made in a paper that makes its argument from a unrelated set of assumptions, and waving it around like a creationist waves around the bible. The paper only shows that a more empathetic plaintiff or defendant can have some small effect on the sentencing of a clearly guilty plaintiff. It does not show that Trayvon being black and Zimmerman being whitespanic would cause otherwise fully informed individuals, through some empathetic link, to be more or less likely to find Zimmerman being guilty rather than innocent despite all evidence to the contrary. Show nested quote +Not to mention Xdaunt point about the legal awareness of participants didn't address my assertion in the first place. Which is that the degree to which one empathizes with either party is related to (not determinate of) peoples perceptions regarding that night and what followed. He did address your assertion. Obviously, empathy with either party would affect peoples perceptions regarding that night. He never disputes that. He makes the point that many of the people speaking out on the issue demonstrate a severe level of ignorance on the details of the case and of the relevant law. He is implying (I believe) that many of these people, if forced to sit down and view all of the available evidence, and learn all of the applicable law, would have completely different opinions. Empathy can only affect so much.
Empathy can impact nearly every aspect of someone's decision making from interpretation to acceptability of statements and beyond.
Source:+ Show Spoiler + The Effects of Proximity and Empathy on Ethical Decision-Making: An Exploratory Investigation
Jennifer Mencl, Douglas R. May
I do however agree that many people have heartfelt yet uninformed opinions regarding most specifically the legal ramifications of that night.
|
On June 30 2013 16:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
Also whether you carry a gun does make a difference. If trayvon was the criminal Zimmerman thought he was, what was he going to do if Trayvon drew on him or just decided to fight and started to win... It should have been clear to Zimmerman that a shooting of himself or Trayvon would be a reasonably likely result of ignoring the instruction he was given not to pursue.
If he or anyone is too ignorant to understand that taking a gun to confront someone you suspect to be a potential criminal after already calling 911 and being told not to pursue is reasonably likely to end in a shooting and/or death, than that's on them.
Let me get this straight. Are you saying that people have a legal and moral duty to actively avoid interacting with potential criminals?
Or even sillier, are you saying that people are supposed to avoid potential criminals unless you are not armed, to avoid any situation where you might end up hurting the potential criminal?
|
On June 30 2013 16:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Empathy can impact nearly every aspect of someone's decision making from interpretation to acceptability of statements and beyond. Source: + Show Spoiler + The Effects of Proximity and Empathy on Ethical Decision-Making: An Exploratory Investigation
Jennifer Mencl, Douglas R. May I do however agree that many people have heartfelt yet uninformed opinions regarding most specifically the legal ramifications of that night.
I don't think empathy is irrelevant here. I'm saying that even if you are empathetic to Trayvon, given the details and the law involved in this case you would likely find Zimmerman not guilty of what he is being charged. I'm saying that empathy shouldn't be enough to change an informed person's mind about the case.
I say only "not guilty of what he is being charged". Empathy will still affect what you think of Zimmerman as a person, and his moral culpability in the matter.
|
On June 30 2013 16:15 FatChicksUnited wrote:
Someone posted about how Zimmerman was spineless and likely didn't confront Trayvon directly, leading Trayvon to respond more aggressively than he did, and I thought it was a really good point. (B_Type13X2?)
I can't help but think that if Zimmerman had a reflective jacket and a flashlight instead, and didn't skulk around like a thug himself, Trayvon would have been less hostile, or at least have stayed home once he got there (if it were indeed the case that he went back out to hunt Zimmerman).
Well, no one's claiming Zimmerman is blameless.
|
On June 30 2013 16:14 ConGee wrote: Show nested quote + .
"There is no culpable negligence from aproaching someone and asking him "what are you doing?", whether you carry a gun or not. Do you believe that should be a crime?" ---SKC
Being armed with deadly force while pursuing someone after contacting the authorities and them instructing you not to follow, is not the same as asking someone "what are you doing?".
Also whether you carry a gun does make a difference. If trayvon was the criminal Zimmerman thought he was, what was he going to do if Trayvon drew on him or just decided to fight and started to win... It should have been clear to Zimmerman that a shooting of himself or Trayvon would be a reasonably likely result of ignoring the instruction he was given not to pursue.
If he or anyone is too ignorant to understand that taking a gun to confront someone you suspect to be a potential criminal after already calling 911 and being told not realize a shooting as a potentially likely outcome, than that's on them.
That is what I believe is trying to be gotten at about "stupidity" not being an excuse to avoid the consequences of ones actions.
Do you actually know what the legal definition of what culpable negligence is? None of your assertions even come close to what would be considered culpable negligence.
Culpable Negligence - Culpable negligence is consciously
doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must
have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause
death or great bodily injury.
Being armed with a gun to unnecessarily (against instruction actually) pursue a suspected criminal is precisely that. Or at least that's what the prosecution should have probably started with.
|
On June 30 2013 16:24 FatChicksUnited wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 16:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Empathy can impact nearly every aspect of someone's decision making from interpretation to acceptability of statements and beyond. Source: + Show Spoiler + The Effects of Proximity and Empathy on Ethical Decision-Making: An Exploratory Investigation
Jennifer Mencl, Douglas R. May I do however agree that many people have heartfelt yet uninformed opinions regarding most specifically the legal ramifications of that night. I don't think empathy is irrelevant here. I'm saying that even if you are empathetic to Trayvon, given the details and the law involved in this case you would likely find Zimmerman not guilty of what he is being charged. I'm saying that empathy shouldn't be enough to change an informed person's mind about the case. I say only "not guilty of what he is being charged". Empathy will still affect what you think of Zimmerman as a person, and his moral culpability in the matter.
I mostly agree, unfortunately shouldn't, and won't are two different things. History and studies show they will have a significant impact, consciously or not.
Also with the Murder charge comes the Involuntary manslaughter charge so while he might be found not guilty of Murder that does not automatically mean he can't or shouldn't get convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.
|
On June 30 2013 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Also with the Murder charge comes the Involuntary manslaughter charge so while he might be found not guilty of Murder that does not automatically mean he can't or shouldn't get convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.
Zimmerman is claiming self-defence. It is a defence against murder charges and manslaughter charges. Unless the prosecution can disprove his claim of self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt, he will be found not guilty.
|
On June 30 2013 16:33 FatChicksUnited wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Also with the Murder charge comes the Involuntary manslaughter charge so while he might be found not guilty of Murder that does not automatically mean he can't or shouldn't get convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Zimmerman is claiming self-defence. It is a defence against murder charges and manslaughter charges. Unless the prosecution can disprove his claim of self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt, he will be found not guilty.
Yes, and the reasonable doubt would be that by ignoring the instructions he was given by the 911 operator and carrying his gun to the confrontation he breached the burden to show culpable negligence (provided the prosecution convinces the jury of that)
So that while Self Defense might be enough to avoid a murder conviction the problem is that his Self defense doesn't start until AFTER the culpable negligence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
