|
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 July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not).
Just curious, what do you have against neighborhood watches?
|
On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not).
how can you not approve of neighborhood watches? that seems absurd to me.
|
On July 02 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. His neighborhood watch training specifically said not to follow suspects. The police told him he didn't have to follow. It's not about illegality, its about stupidity. It's not illegal to walk home after stopping by the store; but apparently that's enough to get shot.
Even if it's about stupidity it doesn't merit him getting assaulted to the point where he felt that his life was in danger and had to preserve it using deadly force.
Stupidity isn't a crime, assaulting someone is.
|
On July 02 2013 08:19 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:03 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On July 02 2013 07:36 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:27 SKC wrote:On July 02 2013 07:25 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:15 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Tragic for the Martins but I'm kinda starting to feel bad for Zimmerman. He has a history of being sympathetic towards blacks but is having his life ruined because of perceived racism on his part. I don't feel bad for Zimmerman at all. He at least is getting his day in court, and is being tried by a court of law and his peers for his indiscretions Martin was sentenced to death by Zimmerman. It's like people are forgetting that he did technically kill a 17 year old who's only plans that night were to visit his dad. It might have been in self-defence but still. Worst. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. Assuming Zimmerman's words are true, Martin sentenced himself to death. Well, that's when it becomes a question of morals. If someone you were following turns around and beats you up, does that mean he deserves to get shot in the chest? Punishment doesn't fit the crime, IMO. George Zimmerman may be innocent, and is probably only guilty of defending himself in the heat of the moment. But personally, I don't think Trayvon deserved to die for for how he reacted. It's a pitch black night with heavy rains. You're having your head dashed against the pavement after having your nose broken. You've been yelling for help for a good 40 secs but no one comes. At what point should you stop to consider whether or not to use deadly force? Hmm, well before the fight happened GZ made a decision to bring a gun with him, when confronting a stranger with accusatory suspicions. The gun has a safety switch on it. Either the safety was off the entire time GZ was in possession of it, or he had the time and ability to switch the safety off while in the midst of (allegedly) fighting for his life. GZ had the time and luxury of ending the fight in this fatal manner. Trayvon, quite obviously, didn't. Again, we don't know what happened to start the fight, or how the fight went. The only facts we know are that GZ shot Trayvon, and that GZ had somehow sustained some injuries. We have no real witnesses as to how GZ sustained those injuries. I understand that to claim murder under such cloudy circumstances is wrong. We can't prove GZ is a murderer. But he is certainly someone who should never be allowed to carry a gun. He certainly proved himself grossly incompetent, and that's the best that can be said about him. I really don't care about this actual trial. It's actually meaningless in a lot of ways. Trayvon is dead, and GZ -- while I do think he may be guilty of simple manslaughter, he isn't a malicious killer. I don't worry about him to the point that I think he needs to be locked up, I just don't want this idiot ever following anyone with a gun ever again. I hope everyone can agree with that, at least.
@ the bold:
Wat? Have you never held a gun before, or are you trying to make the safety seem like some sort of complex mechanism for the purpose of your own agenda? The safety can literally be flicked with the thumb in a millisecond. Anyone trained with firearms is trained to immediately flick the safety off AS they are drawing their weapon.
Under the circumstances and given the evidence, I'd say GZ is exactly the type of person I'd want to be able to carry a gun. He screamed for help for a good 40 seconds and only fired his weapon after receiving substantial damage to his head/face while being pinned down and (allegedly) hearing a threat on his own life. Afterwards he kept his cool, waited for the police, and reported the incident to the police. You are talking as if the gun was sitting on his dash and he purposely grabbed for it before heading out while saying "I'm gonna get me a punk tonight" He was fucking wearing it as a means of protection.
|
On July 02 2013 08:28 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. His neighborhood watch training specifically said not to follow suspects. The police told him he didn't have to follow. It's not about illegality, its about stupidity. It's not illegal to walk home after stopping by the store; but apparently that's enough to get shot. The issue is when people consider what he did worse than what Trayvon did.
We have no idea why Trayvon did what he did - or even what he actually did. We know the start and the outcome but the as for the actual confrontation? Not so much. And before you go there - I think Zimmerman can't and shouldn't be punished under law.
|
On July 02 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. His neighborhood watch training specifically said not to follow suspects. The police told him he didn't have to follow. It's not about illegality, its about stupidity. It's not illegal to walk home after stopping by the store; but apparently that's enough to get shot. User was warned for this post
Whether or not it was stupid doesn't matter, nor does it give Trayvon a right to attack him.
|
On July 02 2013 08:28 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. His neighborhood watch training specifically said not to follow suspects. The police told him he didn't have to follow. It's not about illegality, its about stupidity. It's not illegal to walk home after stopping by the store; but apparently that's enough to get shot. The issue is when people consider what he did worse than what Trayvon did.
Although I still believe what he did is worse--I can't deny Good's testimony. Trayvon got the upper hand enough for a third party to ask him to stop. Trayvon continuing makes it self defense no matter how much Zimmerman may or may not have wanted to kill him.
|
On July 02 2013 08:29 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). how can you not approve of neighborhood watches? that seems absurd to me.
I should have worded that more clearly. I am opposed to armed neighborhood watches as that suggest they will do enforcing of laws. I am not opposed to keeping an eye open and then call the police if need be.
|
On July 02 2013 08:35 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). how can you not approve of neighborhood watches? that seems absurd to me. I should have worded that more clearly. I am opposed to armed neighborhood watches as that suggest they will do enforcing of laws. I am not opposed to keeping an eye open and then call the police if need be.
seems reasonable.
|
On July 02 2013 08:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:28 SKC wrote:On July 02 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. His neighborhood watch training specifically said not to follow suspects. The police told him he didn't have to follow. It's not about illegality, its about stupidity. It's not illegal to walk home after stopping by the store; but apparently that's enough to get shot. The issue is when people consider what he did worse than what Trayvon did. Although I still believe what he did is worse--I can't deny Good's testimony. Trayvon got the upper hand enough for a third party to ask him to stop. Trayvon continuing makes it self defense no matter how much Zimmerman may or may not have wanted to kill him.
At what point before George Zimmerman shot him did Trayvon not have the upper-hand based on the evidence we have?
(from the first point it got physical that is)
|
On July 02 2013 08:35 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). how can you not approve of neighborhood watches? that seems absurd to me. I should have worded that more clearly. I am opposed to armed neighborhood watches as that suggest they will do enforcing of laws. I am not opposed to keeping an eye open and then call the police if need be.
I can agree with you but at the same time you location is Denmark. I'm assuming you live there? America is a whole different type of animal when it comes to firearms. People there feel it's necessary to carry one to properly defend yourself because there is a higher chance that a potential perpetrator will be carrying one as well. It's sort like a false security blanket I guess you could say.
Although you may sometimes get a neighbourhood watch member who oversteps their authority I don't think Zimmerman really qualifies as that though. He may have been a bit over-zealous and should have complied to the dispatchers suggestion but I don't feel he took the law into his own hands that night.
|
On July 02 2013 08:31 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:19 Leporello wrote:On July 02 2013 08:03 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On July 02 2013 07:36 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:27 SKC wrote:On July 02 2013 07:25 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:15 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Tragic for the Martins but I'm kinda starting to feel bad for Zimmerman. He has a history of being sympathetic towards blacks but is having his life ruined because of perceived racism on his part. I don't feel bad for Zimmerman at all. He at least is getting his day in court, and is being tried by a court of law and his peers for his indiscretions Martin was sentenced to death by Zimmerman. It's like people are forgetting that he did technically kill a 17 year old who's only plans that night were to visit his dad. It might have been in self-defence but still. Worst. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. Assuming Zimmerman's words are true, Martin sentenced himself to death. Well, that's when it becomes a question of morals. If someone you were following turns around and beats you up, does that mean he deserves to get shot in the chest? Punishment doesn't fit the crime, IMO. George Zimmerman may be innocent, and is probably only guilty of defending himself in the heat of the moment. But personally, I don't think Trayvon deserved to die for for how he reacted. It's a pitch black night with heavy rains. You're having your head dashed against the pavement after having your nose broken. You've been yelling for help for a good 40 secs but no one comes. At what point should you stop to consider whether or not to use deadly force? Hmm, well before the fight happened GZ made a decision to bring a gun with him, when confronting a stranger with accusatory suspicions. The gun has a safety switch on it. Either the safety was off the entire time GZ was in possession of it, or he had the time and ability to switch the safety off while in the midst of (allegedly) fighting for his life. GZ had the time and luxury of ending the fight in this fatal manner. Trayvon, quite obviously, didn't. Again, we don't know what happened to start the fight, or how the fight went. The only facts we know are that GZ shot Trayvon, and that GZ had somehow sustained some injuries. We have no real witnesses as to how GZ sustained those injuries. I understand that to claim murder under such cloudy circumstances is wrong. We can't prove GZ is a murderer. But he is certainly someone who should never be allowed to carry a gun. He certainly proved himself grossly incompetent, and that's the best that can be said about him. I really don't care about this actual trial. It's actually meaningless in a lot of ways. Trayvon is dead, and GZ -- while I do think he may be guilty of simple manslaughter, he isn't a malicious killer. I don't worry about him to the point that I think he needs to be locked up, I just don't want this idiot ever following anyone with a gun ever again. I hope everyone can agree with that, at least. @ the bold: Wat? Have you never held a gun before, or are you trying to make the safety seem like some sort of complex mechanism for the purpose of your own agenda? The safety can literally be flicked with the thumb in a millisecond. Anyone trained with firearms is trained to immediately flick the safety off AS they are drawing their weapon. Under the circumstances and given the evidence, I'd say GZ is exactly the type of person I'd want to be able to carry a gun. He screamed for help for a good 40 seconds and only fired his weapon after receiving substantial damage to his head/face while being pinned down and (allegedly) hearing a threat on his own life. Afterwards he kept his cool, waited for the police, and reported the incident to the police. You are talking as if the gun was sitting on his dash and he purposely grabbed for it before heading out while saying "I'm gonna get me a punk tonight" He was fucking wearing it as a means of protection.
Yeah. Watching more of the trial, it seems like beyond the initial following of a suspicious character he behaved as ideally as could be hoped for if we're going to let people walk around armed.
|
On July 02 2013 08:41 Krohm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:35 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). how can you not approve of neighborhood watches? that seems absurd to me. I should have worded that more clearly. I am opposed to armed neighborhood watches as that suggest they will do enforcing of laws. I am not opposed to keeping an eye open and then call the police if need be. I can agree with you but at the same time you location is Denmark. I'm assuming you live there? America is a whole different type of animal when it comes to firearms. People there feel it's necessary to carry one to properly defend yourself because there is a higher chance that a potential perpetrator will be carrying one as well. It's sort like a false security blanket I guess you could say. Although you may sometimes get a neighbourhood watch member who oversteps their authority I don't think Zimmerman really qualifies as that though. He may have been a bit over-zealous and should have complied to the dispatchers suggestion but I don't feel he took the law into his own hands that night.
America is weird when it comes to guns. We have a love affair with the hand gun for unknown reasons. People feel the need to defend themselves with guns that could punch through an entire house, rather than a shotgun, which is safer and more reliable. And we somehow feel that carrying a weapon on us with make us safer, never really thinking if we would have the judgment to use it without hurting some innocent party.
And every once and a while, we try to legalize a grenade launcher.
|
On July 02 2013 08:38 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:28 SKC wrote:On July 02 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. His neighborhood watch training specifically said not to follow suspects. The police told him he didn't have to follow. It's not about illegality, its about stupidity. It's not illegal to walk home after stopping by the store; but apparently that's enough to get shot. The issue is when people consider what he did worse than what Trayvon did. Although I still believe what he did is worse--I can't deny Good's testimony. Trayvon got the upper hand enough for a third party to ask him to stop. Trayvon continuing makes it self defense no matter how much Zimmerman may or may not have wanted to kill him. At what point before George Zimmerman shot him did Trayvon not have the upper-hand based on the evidence we have? (from the first point it got physical that is)
The narrative of events only makes sense to me that Martin acted out in self defense, most likely from seeing a gun or seeing someone in the pose of having a gun. To me, Martin didn't have the upper hand since the opponent was heavier and armed. Martin getting on top of Zimmerman and firing blows is when he got the upper hand, enough that John Good asked him to stop (showing that the fight at least seemed over).
It was when Trayvon continued from this point that no argument can be made that Trayvon was not on the offensive.
To put it bluntly. Even if Zimmerman jumped trayvon, with gun in hand, saying "die nigga!" as he did, the fact that we have a witness see Trayvon take down the victim, hitting the victim, and the witness asking trayvon to stop meant that the fight was over at least visibly. There's a third person now meaning the violence didn't have to continue. Trayvon continuing means that momentum had shifted from self defense to vengeance.
|
On July 02 2013 06:26 AdamBanks wrote:
pfft u obviously havent seen 12 angry men Actually, I have, and I was originally going to make a comparison and ask whether we've regressed to 1950s sexism, only with the genders flipped?
|
On July 02 2013 08:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:38 kmillz wrote:On July 02 2013 08:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:28 SKC wrote:On July 02 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. His neighborhood watch training specifically said not to follow suspects. The police told him he didn't have to follow. It's not about illegality, its about stupidity. It's not illegal to walk home after stopping by the store; but apparently that's enough to get shot. The issue is when people consider what he did worse than what Trayvon did. Although I still believe what he did is worse--I can't deny Good's testimony. Trayvon got the upper hand enough for a third party to ask him to stop. Trayvon continuing makes it self defense no matter how much Zimmerman may or may not have wanted to kill him. At what point before George Zimmerman shot him did Trayvon not have the upper-hand based on the evidence we have? (from the first point it got physical that is) The narrative of events only makes sense to me that Martin acted out in self defense, most likely from seeing a gun or seeing someone in the pose of having a gun. To me, Martin didn't have the upper hand since the opponent was heavier and armed. Martin getting on top of Zimmerman and firing blows is when he got the upper hand, enough that John Good asked him to stop (showing that the fight at least seemed over). It was when Trayvon continued from this point that no argument can be made that Trayvon was not on the offensive. To put it bluntly. Even if Zimmerman jumped trayvon, with gun in hand, saying "die nigga!" as he did, the fact that we have a witness see Trayvon take down the victim, hitting the victim, and the witness asking trayvon to stop meant that the fight was over at least visibly. There's a third person now meaning the violence didn't have to continue. Trayvon continuing means that momentum had shifted from self defense to vengeance.
Oh look you're making up more facts to fit your personal view of things.
It doesn't matter if Zimmerman was "heavier" and "armed". That doesn't give anyone the upper hand where do you keep coming up with this stuff. Also you keep thinking that people only attack other people for a very good reason. This isn't the case in the real world.
What are you going to start saying if Zimmerman is acquitted?
|
On July 02 2013 08:41 Krohm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:35 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). how can you not approve of neighborhood watches? that seems absurd to me. I should have worded that more clearly. I am opposed to armed neighborhood watches as that suggest they will do enforcing of laws. I am not opposed to keeping an eye open and then call the police if need be. I can agree with you but at the same time you location is Denmark. I'm assuming you live there? America is a whole different type of animal when it comes to firearms. People there feel it's necessary to carry one to properly defend yourself because there is a higher chance that a potential perpetrator will be carrying one as well. It's sort like a false security blanket I guess you could say. Although you may sometimes get a neighbourhood watch member who oversteps their authority I don't think Zimmerman really qualifies as that though. He may have been a bit over-zealous and should have complied to the dispatchers suggestion but I don't feel he took the law into his own hands that night.
I actually live in San Francisco and have done so for more than a year (just haven't updated as I will move back to Denmark soon, and my cultural background, which is really what you are alluding to, is Danish).
I realize that there is a higher risk of the culprit wearing firearms in the states than in the land of fairytales, rainbows, and unicorns aka Denmark. I just do not think that from a moral standpoint it really provides you with an excuse and I would argue that the moral intent of a neighborhood watch changes as soon as it is armed, because why would you really need a weapon if you are simply watching?
|
On July 02 2013 08:53 Krohm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:38 kmillz wrote:On July 02 2013 08:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:28 SKC wrote:On July 02 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. His neighborhood watch training specifically said not to follow suspects. The police told him he didn't have to follow. It's not about illegality, its about stupidity. It's not illegal to walk home after stopping by the store; but apparently that's enough to get shot. The issue is when people consider what he did worse than what Trayvon did. Although I still believe what he did is worse--I can't deny Good's testimony. Trayvon got the upper hand enough for a third party to ask him to stop. Trayvon continuing makes it self defense no matter how much Zimmerman may or may not have wanted to kill him. At what point before George Zimmerman shot him did Trayvon not have the upper-hand based on the evidence we have? (from the first point it got physical that is) The narrative of events only makes sense to me that Martin acted out in self defense, most likely from seeing a gun or seeing someone in the pose of having a gun. To me, Martin didn't have the upper hand since the opponent was heavier and armed. Martin getting on top of Zimmerman and firing blows is when he got the upper hand, enough that John Good asked him to stop (showing that the fight at least seemed over). It was when Trayvon continued from this point that no argument can be made that Trayvon was not on the offensive. To put it bluntly. Even if Zimmerman jumped trayvon, with gun in hand, saying "die nigga!" as he did, the fact that we have a witness see Trayvon take down the victim, hitting the victim, and the witness asking trayvon to stop meant that the fight was over at least visibly. There's a third person now meaning the violence didn't have to continue. Trayvon continuing means that momentum had shifted from self defense to vengeance. Oh look you're making up more facts to fit your personal view of things. It doesn't matter if Zimmerman was "heavier" and "armed". That doesn't give anyone the upper hand where do you keep coming up with this stuff. Also you keep thinking that people only attack other people for a very good reason. This isn't the case in the real world. What are you going to start saying if Zimmerman is acquitted?
You did read the rest of the post where I said John Good's testimony makes it impossible for the case not to be self defense?
|
On July 02 2013 08:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:53 Krohm wrote:On July 02 2013 08:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:38 kmillz wrote:On July 02 2013 08:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:28 SKC wrote:On July 02 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. His neighborhood watch training specifically said not to follow suspects. The police told him he didn't have to follow. It's not about illegality, its about stupidity. It's not illegal to walk home after stopping by the store; but apparently that's enough to get shot. The issue is when people consider what he did worse than what Trayvon did. Although I still believe what he did is worse--I can't deny Good's testimony. Trayvon got the upper hand enough for a third party to ask him to stop. Trayvon continuing makes it self defense no matter how much Zimmerman may or may not have wanted to kill him. At what point before George Zimmerman shot him did Trayvon not have the upper-hand based on the evidence we have? (from the first point it got physical that is) The narrative of events only makes sense to me that Martin acted out in self defense, most likely from seeing a gun or seeing someone in the pose of having a gun. To me, Martin didn't have the upper hand since the opponent was heavier and armed. Martin getting on top of Zimmerman and firing blows is when he got the upper hand, enough that John Good asked him to stop (showing that the fight at least seemed over). It was when Trayvon continued from this point that no argument can be made that Trayvon was not on the offensive. To put it bluntly. Even if Zimmerman jumped trayvon, with gun in hand, saying "die nigga!" as he did, the fact that we have a witness see Trayvon take down the victim, hitting the victim, and the witness asking trayvon to stop meant that the fight was over at least visibly. There's a third person now meaning the violence didn't have to continue. Trayvon continuing means that momentum had shifted from self defense to vengeance. Oh look you're making up more facts to fit your personal view of things. It doesn't matter if Zimmerman was "heavier" and "armed". That doesn't give anyone the upper hand where do you keep coming up with this stuff. Also you keep thinking that people only attack other people for a very good reason. This isn't the case in the real world. What are you going to start saying if Zimmerman is acquitted? You did read the rest of the post where I said John Good's testimony makes it impossible for the case not to be self defense?
Yes and I also read the part where you keep making unsubstantiated claims against Zimmerman and trying to excuse Trayvon's initial assault against him.
|
On July 02 2013 08:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:38 kmillz wrote:On July 02 2013 08:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:28 SKC wrote:On July 02 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. His neighborhood watch training specifically said not to follow suspects. The police told him he didn't have to follow. It's not about illegality, its about stupidity. It's not illegal to walk home after stopping by the store; but apparently that's enough to get shot. The issue is when people consider what he did worse than what Trayvon did. Although I still believe what he did is worse--I can't deny Good's testimony. Trayvon got the upper hand enough for a third party to ask him to stop. Trayvon continuing makes it self defense no matter how much Zimmerman may or may not have wanted to kill him. At what point before George Zimmerman shot him did Trayvon not have the upper-hand based on the evidence we have? (from the first point it got physical that is) The narrative of events only makes sense to me that Martin acted out in self defense, most likely from seeing a gun or seeing someone in the pose of having a gun. To me, Martin didn't have the upper hand since the opponent was heavier and armed. Martin getting on top of Zimmerman and firing blows is when he got the upper hand, enough that John Good asked him to stop (showing that the fight at least seemed over). It was when Trayvon continued from this point that no argument can be made that Trayvon was not on the offensive. To put it bluntly. Even if Zimmerman jumped trayvon, with gun in hand, saying "die nigga!" as he did, the fact that we have a witness see Trayvon take down the victim, hitting the victim, and the witness asking trayvon to stop meant that the fight was over at least visibly. There's a third person now meaning the violence didn't have to continue. Trayvon continuing means that momentum had shifted from self defense to vengeance.
I don't know, I've seen plenty of 17-18 year old guys that think nothing can hurt them go ballistic just because some perceived insult that can be nothing more than a look or an accidental push. Though that's usually with alcohol involved but I don't think it's that strange for someone to get aggressive over being followed and then potentially questioned about their motive for just walking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
