| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
MeLlamoSatan
United States136 Posts
On July 16 2013 00:55 Plansix wrote: GZ did some dumb shit, no one will argue, but that is not a crime. And this creates a legal precedent for people to drive around armed and create confrontations and then to end them with fatal gunshot wounds. Impunity. Seems like a warped version of justice to me. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On July 16 2013 00:57 MeLlamoSatan wrote: And this creates a legal precedent for people to drive around armed and create confrontations and then to end them with fatal gunshot wounds. Impunity. Seems like a warped version of justice to me. No it doesn't. All that happened is that a man who was clearly innocent by law was acquitted. Everything else is just fluff by people who wanted it to be something more. | ||
|
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
On July 15 2013 22:37 Flyingdutchman wrote: It is a little easy to assert that it 'has gone wrong' in some specific cases and therefore police officers have too much credit. And as far as I can tell, Dorner himself has had training, which in itself makes it a special case well outside the argument Kwark is presenting. Additionally, you cannot say the police officers handled the situation worse than civilians, and the point is therefore not relevant to the argument that training is important. I agree with Kwark, and I'd like to add as a counter statement to you: If training wasn't important, so that instinct is the only factor, then why do you have training for military and law enforcement? Besides, the training is meant to prevent 'instinctive' situations in the first place if you know what I mean. If GZ was properly trained it seems highly likely that he would have waited for backup or alternately he would have approached the situation differently. The incidents I was talking about was when Dorner was nowhere in sight and the police were firing at random cars and strangers. Sure, some civilians might have acted in a similarly incompetent manner, but then that was my argument all along (that training made little to no difference), and it is in fact your argument that makes no sense. I didn't say instinct was the only factor, I said it was the most important one. Military training is different, it is the job in and of itself. Police training (by comparison) is a weekend seminar, and sticks about as well as math. + Show Spoiler + hyperbole expertly applied for the purposes of comedy gold | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 16 2013 00:57 MeLlamoSatan wrote: And this creates a legal precedent for people to drive around armed and create confrontations and then to end them with fatal gunshot wounds. Impunity. Seems like a warped version of justice to me. As I said before, no you can't, that is illegal. Intent matters in these sorts of cases. If you go around with the intent to kill someone, its a crime. You also cannot "create confrontations" legally and would need to show you had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. All of that stuff is very hard to prove and if you don't you commited either murder or manslaughter. | ||
|
Yacobs
United States846 Posts
On July 16 2013 00:57 MeLlamoSatan wrote: And this creates a legal precedent for people to drive around armed and create confrontations and then to end them with fatal gunshot wounds. Impunity. Seems like a warped version of justice to me. You don't know who started the confrontation though. The fact that you presume GZ started it reveals your bias. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
If we take Zimmerman's story as basically true (and there is no evidence that it isn't), than he did absolutely nothing wrong, or even stupid. He just tried to help his community out and got beat down for it. 100% on Trayvon, 0% on Zimmerman. On July 16 2013 00:57 MeLlamoSatan wrote: And this creates a legal precedent for people to drive around armed and create confrontations and then to end them with fatal gunshot wounds. Impunity. Seems like a warped version of justice to me. Self defense laws have existed as long as society has... stop acting like this is some radically new idea. Also, actually, what this trial did was prevent the creation of a legal precedent for little thugs to attack people without having to fear being shot. | ||
|
Ansinjunger
United States2451 Posts
On July 16 2013 01:11 sc2superfan101 wrote: I think the saddest part of all this is the idea that being a member of the neighborhood watch is "stupid". If we take Zimmerman's story as basically true (and there is no evidence that it isn't), than he did absolutely nothing wrong, or even stupid. He just tried to help his community out and got beat down for it. 100% on Trayvon, 0% on Zimmerman. Self defense laws have existed as long as society has... stop acting like this is some radically new idea. Also, actually, what this trial did was prevent the creation of a legal precedent for little thugs to attack people without having to fear being shot. I would say he did some things that were unwise but understandable, and much easier to criticize in hindsight. | ||
|
HardlyNever
United States1258 Posts
Now, doing this in a neighborhood area like GZ did, probably wouldn't be a great idea, and I think GZ got "lucky" in the sense that no one testified that they saw the entire incident from beginning to end. However, finding people who you don't like, for whatever reason, in more secluded areas, instigating a fight, maybe taking a few hits to make it look plausible, then using lethal force to end it (and state you feared for your life), doesn't seem incredibly difficult to pull off, if you were inclined to do so (at least in the state of Florida). | ||
|
Feartheguru
Canada1334 Posts
On July 16 2013 01:18 HardlyNever wrote: I think the issue some people are having is that it seems fairly easy to instigate a conflict (with no witnesses besides the two people involved), kill someone, thus being the only person remaining who witnessed the entire event from beginning to conclusion (who did what, who was the instigator, etc.), then just claim self-defense (with the other witness being dead). Now, doing this in a neighborhood area like GZ did, probably wouldn't be a great idea, and I think GZ got "lucky" in the sense that no one testified that they saw the entire incident from beginning to end. However, finding people who you don't like, for whatever reason, in more secluded areas, instigating a fight, maybe taking a few hits to make it look plausible, then using lethal force to end it (and state you feared for your life), doesn't seem incredibly difficult to pull off, if you were inclined to do so (at least in the state of Florida). Neither is finding people you don't like in a secluded area, knifing them in the face and burying them in a ditch. So I don't see the point of this. Those circumstances are not that easy to fake, thats why forensic evidence is so useful. | ||
|
stratmatt
United States913 Posts
On July 16 2013 01:18 HardlyNever wrote: I think the issue some people are having is that it seems fairly easy to instigate a conflict (with no witnesses besides the two people involved), kill someone, thus being the only person remaining who witnessed the entire event from beginning to conclusion (who did what, who was the instigator, etc.), then just claim self-defense (with the other witness being dead). Now, doing this in a neighborhood area like GZ did, probably wouldn't be a great idea, and I think GZ got "lucky" in the sense that no one testified that they saw the entire incident from beginning to end. However, finding people who you don't like, for whatever reason, in more secluded areas, instigating a fight, maybe taking a few hits to make it look plausible, then using lethal force to end it (and state you feared for your life), doesn't seem incredibly difficult to pull off, if you were inclined to do so (at least in the state of Florida). Except that if it truly was Zimmerman's intention to purposefully instigate a phsyical conflict just so he could end it with deadly force and claim self-defense then he must be some grand fucking criminal mastermind to not only call 311 and report his victim beforehand but then commit his 'crime' right smackdab in the middle of a highly residential area. God, some of you people make no absolutely no f'n sense with the way you grasp for the most unlikeliest of scenarios. Sometimes the story isnt as fucking complex as you hope it to be. Sometimes, what the evidence shows, is what actually happened. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On July 16 2013 01:11 sc2superfan101 wrote: I think the saddest part of all this is the idea that being a member of the neighborhood watch is "stupid". If we take Zimmerman's story as basically true (and there is no evidence that it isn't), than he did absolutely nothing wrong, or even stupid. He just tried to help his community out and got beat down for it. 100% on Trayvon, 0% on Zimmerman. Self defense laws have existed as long as society has... stop acting like this is some radically new idea. Also, actually, what this trial did was prevent the creation of a legal precedent for little thugs to attack people without having to fear being shot. Fear is not an effective deterrent for bad behaviour because it encourages resentment of the system which leads to a complete disrespect for the rules that system makes (perhaps even leading to apathy about illegal activity). It's kinda like this: would you rather have a parent who explains to you why some things are right and some things or wrong, and then disciplines you in the interest of helping you see why stealing another kid's toy is wrong (giving you a talking-to, revoking privileges, not letting you play with one of your toys so you can understand what you did to the other kid etc.) or a parent who tells you a bunch of absolute rules, then slaps you or spanks you when you break them without really bothering to explain to you why what you did is wrong or without even thinking about why you might have done something against those rules? This idea of instilling fear just isn't healthy for anybody. Nobody should be doing good things because they're scared of the consequences if they don't, because then the good things, to their mind, are only good because some powerful person asserted that they are. It reminds me of the way inexperienced elementary school teachers would sometimes discipline children: by screaming at them, telling them to speak when spoken to (i.e. to shut them up when the student tries to explain their side) and by devising extreme punishments for minor mischief. Were these policies effective? Meh. All they really did was make sure you were extra careful about not doing something when that teacher/principal was around. I actually had the misfortune of having such a principal when I was in elementary school, and while her constant battles with students did increase the number of suspensions per term, absolutely nobody liked the principal, absolutely nobody thought her rules made any sense, absolutely nobody thought what they were doing was wrong, and absolutely nobody adhered to her rules the day after she was replaced. You have to ask why "little thugs*" even would go around attacking people. I'd be willing to bet that antagonizing them by threatening to kill them (which is the message you send when you characterize a very vague situation as a "little thug" attacking somebody without fear of being shot) you're not making them like the legal system any more, and you're definitely not making it any easier for them to see responsible citizenship as a lifestyle to pursue. *Characterizing Martin as a "little thug" based on the evidence that was presented in this trial is incredibly disingenuous. It's inflammatory, vitriolic, vengeful, and biased, and you hurt your own cause by demonizing in such fashion. Also, taking Zimmerman's story as being basically true is misleading. We have no opposing narrative from Martin because Martin is dead. Unless you are of the opinion that tangible evidence in this trial is sufficient to rule out every single narrative except for absolutely realistic and true narratives, you're kidding yourself. If you think Zimmerman didn't spin things to paint himself in a slightly better light, then you don't understand how trials work. This trial proved that there wasn't enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. It didn't prove that there was enough evidence to convict Martin of assault or attempted murder. | ||
|
Gowerly
United Kingdom916 Posts
Personally, and this has happened to me when people have tried to instigate something with me (which was never 1 on 1, though), I just GTFO. I don't want any of that. You can't call the police or anything at the time, though, as there's no way you'd hold onto your phone for that long. If someone doesn't want to fight you, they'll find a way to get out, generally running and/or screaming. You'd also need to make sure the other person wasn't armed. Put enough effort into instigating the fight and they can claim self defense on you. It seems pretty hard to strike the balance required to engineer that situation. | ||
|
HardlyNever
United States1258 Posts
On July 16 2013 01:22 Feartheguru wrote: Neither is finding people you don't like in a secluded area, knifing them in the face and burying them in a ditch. So I don't see the point of this. Those circumstances are not that easy to fake, thats why forensic evidence is so useful. The difference is one is a crime that you then conceal and try to get away with (murder), while the other is something you can openly admit to, and walk away scott-free. I'm not saying it is something I would do, but there are a lot of bizarre things I wouldn't do that other people do. And I don't think the circumstances are that hard to fake. But getting into specifics about hypothetical scenarios can be pretty difficult. | ||
|
Feartheguru
Canada1334 Posts
On July 16 2013 01:27 HardlyNever wrote: The difference is one is a crime that you then conceal and try to get away with (murder), while the other is something you can openly admit to, and walk away scott-free. I'm not saying it is something I would do, but there are a lot of bizarre things I wouldn't do that other people do. And I don't think the circumstances are that hard to fake. But getting into specifics about hypothetical scenarios can be pretty difficult. How is that difference beneficial to your argument? If I wanted someone dead I'd rather conceal and get away with it then be in GZ's position. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On July 16 2013 01:25 Shiori wrote: You have to ask why "little thugs*" even would go around attacking people. I'd be willing to bet that antagonizing them by threatening to kill them (which is the message you send when you characterize a very vague situation as a "little thug" attacking somebody without fear of being shot) you're not making them like the legal system anymore, and you're definitely not making it any easier for them to see responsible citizenship as a lifestyle to pursue. Why do little thugs go around attacking people? It's a complex question. People attack other people because they haven't been raised correctly, haven't been exposed to consequences for their actions, and have an inflated sense of entitlement. And to be perfectly honest, I don't give one shit if some punk who wants to attack people who annoy him feels like the legal system is mean for protecting his victims. If someone wants to physically assault people for no reason other than they feel like it than they should be afraid of the consequences, which include that person they are assaulting fighting back. This idea that we need to coddle people who refuse to act like civilized human beings is utterly ridiculous, almost as absurd as the idea that they are only attacking people because we haven't coddled them. Fear, in this situation, is a perfectly reasonable motivator to prevent attacks. If you just want to flex your nuts, you'll very quickly decide it's not worth it if you know your potential victim is armed and has the right (and the knowledge of said right) to defend himself from your assaults. *Characterizing Martin as a "little thug" based on the evidence that was presented in this trial is incredibly disingenuous. It's inflammatory, vitriolic, vengeful, and biased, and you hurt your own cause by demonizing in such fashion. Martin was at a point in his life where he was about to make a decision whether he would become a thug or not. We will never know which way he would have decided to go, and in all possibility he would have just grown up to be a perfectly responsible and honest and great citizen. Or maybe he would have followed the path he was on and become a monster, attacking people for no reason. All I know is that on that night, according to the evidence, he decided to be a thug and decided to attack another man for no reason whatsoever. It is not vitriolic to say that he was acting like a little thug when he jumped another man and proceeded to beat him down. That is what a little thug does, and whether or not Martin was like that all the time is irrelevant. On that night, at that time, that's what he was. Also, taking Zimmerman's story as being basically true is misleading. We have no opposing narrative from Martin because Martin is dead. Unless you are of the opinion that tangible evidence in this trial is sufficient to rule out every single narrative except for absolutely realistic and true narratives, you're kidding yourself. If you think Zimmerman didn't spin things to paint himself in a slightly better light, then you don't understand how trials work. This trial proved that there wasn't enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. It didn't prove that there was enough evidence to convict Martin of assault or attempted murder. There was no evidence that Zimmerman's story was not basically true, and great evidence that it was true. We have no opposing narrative, but we do have the fact that all the physical evidence corroborated Zimmerman's story. There was no realistic narrative that was put forward that implicated Zimmerman. If Zimmerman's story is true, and it is very likely that it was, than Martin attacked him for no reason and kept up the attack with a pretty wanton disregard for Zimmerman's safety or well-being. | ||
|
HardlyNever
United States1258 Posts
On July 16 2013 01:23 stratmatt wrote: Except that if it truly was Zimmerman's intention to purposefully instigate a phsyical conflict just so he could end it with deadly force and claim self-defense then he must be some grand fucking criminal mastermind to not only call 311 and report his victim beforehand but then commit his 'crime' right smackdab in the middle of a highly residential area. God, some of you people make no absolutely no f'n sense with the way you grasp for the most unlikeliest of scenarios. Sometimes the story isnt as fucking complex as you hope it to be. Sometimes, what the evidence shows, is what actually happened. You're taking this all wrong. I'm not saying that GZ specifically engineered this event to shoot somebody. I'm saying based on what you see in this trial, and others like it, it pretty difficult to refute "self-defense" in a lot of situations where the only two witnesses to the entire event are the person on trial and the dead person. The evidence doesn't show "what actually happened." It just can't prove 2nd degree murder. There is a huge difference. I'm not sure if you read everything in the case. | ||
|
stratmatt
United States913 Posts
On July 16 2013 01:27 HardlyNever wrote: The difference is one is a crime that you then conceal and try to get away with (murder), while the other is something you can openly admit to, and walk away scott-free. I'm not saying it is something I would do, but there are a lot of bizarre things I wouldn't do that other people do. And I don't think the circumstances are that hard to fake. But getting into specifics about hypothetical scenarios can be pretty difficult. Zimmerman did not get away scott-free. He was fucking charged with 2nd-degree murder. What the hell are you even trying to say? | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
On July 16 2013 01:35 stratmatt wrote: Zimmerman did not get away scott-free. He was fucking charged with 2nd-degree murder. What the hell are you even trying to say? Well he technically wasn't until the media started crying. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 16 2013 01:35 stratmatt wrote: Zimmerman did not get away scott-free. He was fucking charged with 2nd-degree murder. What the hell are you even trying to say? Because he was able to prove that he did it in self defense. Self Defense is very hard to prove without overwhelming evidence, most of which you can't doctor. If John Good did not witness the end of the fight when Martin was shot, there is a good chance that Zimmerman might not be free right now. On July 16 2013 01:37 DannyJ wrote: Well he technically wasn't until the media started crying. They were looking into a manslaughter charge before the media got involved, which was upped to 2nd degree murder after that. | ||
|
SilverLeagueElite
United States626 Posts
On July 16 2013 01:18 HardlyNever wrote: However, finding people who you don't like, for whatever reason, in more secluded areas, instigating a fight, maybe taking a few hits to make it look plausible, then using lethal force to end it (and state you feared for your life), doesn't seem incredibly difficult to pull off, if you were inclined to do so (at least in the state of Florida). Get into a fight with the potential of having the gun taken from you. Let yourself get punched and risk getting knocked out. Proclaim self defense and go through an investigation with possible witnesses. Wouldn't it be easier to just shoot/knife someone and throw away the weapon? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
herO vs TriGGeR
NightMare vs Solar
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
IPSL
eOnzErG vs TBD
G5 vs Nesh
Patches Events
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Afreeca Starleague
Jaedong vs Light
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
