| 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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 16 2013 23:33 Oleo wrote: Operators first question: Is he white, black or hispanic? Answer: He looks black. He is aware of TM's race. That is only proof that he was aware of his race. It doesn't mean he had any racial bais. Of course people can make their own judgment on the matter, but there is no proof that any racial bias went into the phone call or GZ's actions. | ||
|
dotHead
United States233 Posts
On July 16 2013 23:33 Oleo wrote: Operators first question: Is he white, black or hispanic? Answer: He looks black. He is aware of TM's race. Saying "he looks black" just shows that he really wasn't sure. If anyone was racially profiling it was the operator. Why didn't the operator ask if he was Indian, Asian, or Native American?  | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On July 16 2013 23:36 Plansix wrote: That is only proof that he was aware of his race. It doesn't mean he had any racial bais. Of course people can make their own judgment on the matter, but there is no proof that any racial bias went into the phone call or GZ's actions. That's not the argument. On July 16 2013 21:46 sc2superfan101 wrote: 2) Zimmerman wasn't aware of Trayvon's race when he called the police (no racial profiling) | ||
|
forsooth
United States3648 Posts
On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote: Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? Most if not all states permit the disproportionate use of force if a person feels that their life is threatened, the differences lie in where exactly that line is drawn. More permissive states for instance would permit you to shoot a burglar in your home on sight where others would require that he actually attack you or someone else in the home with a weapon before it became acceptable. | ||
|
Oleo
Netherlands279 Posts
On July 16 2013 23:36 Plansix wrote: That is only proof that he was aware of his race. No shit, that was the point, to the "Zimmerman wasn't aware of Trayvon's race ".... Whether he was racially profiling, is something only GZ knows and He'll deny even if he was, if he is smart. On July 16 2013 23:56 dotHead wrote: Saying "he looks black" just shows that he really wasn't sure. If anyone was racially profiling it was the operator. Why didn't the operator ask if he was Indian, Asian, or Native American? Then the response should have been: "I am unsure, but he looks to be black." An immediate "He looks black" is pretty much equal to "he is black" (in my world). Perhaps operators should give a 200 country-list and let the other guy pick the closest related, or you can ask for the 3 biggest groups and in the odd case that its not one of them, the other guy on the line will specify. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 16 2013 23:56 sluggaslamoo wrote: That's not the argument. Yes, but that still does prove anything. He was aware the TM appeared to be black, per his statement. Being aware of someones race does not mean that any actions were based on that. If the argument is that Zimmerman used racial profiling, you would need proof that he would have acted differently if TM was white/hispanic. I have not seen anything along those lines. | ||
|
HeavenS
Colombia2259 Posts
| ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
| ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
And yet, I was reading posts essentially blaming Trayvon for his own death, saying he "should've just walked home" like he doesn't have the right to walk down a public street when he's under suspicion by the local gun-wielding busybody. | ||
|
dotHead
United States233 Posts
On July 17 2013 00:24 Leporello wrote: And yet, I was reading posts essentially blaming Trayvon for his own death, saying he "should've just walked home" like he doesn't have the right to walk down a public street when he's under suspicion by the local gun-wielding busybody. He should have walked home, instead of attacking someone who might or might not have been following him. That is what got him killed, not being black, or walking in the rain, or wearing a hoodie. Attacking someone, and then not stopping when he yells for help, or when someone (John Good) tells you to stop. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On July 16 2013 23:33 Oleo wrote: Operators first question: Is he white, black or hispanic? Answer: He looks black. He is aware of TM's race. After like fifteen seconds of talking, he asks that question. At the time, Trayvon had been approaching Zimmerman. It was dark enough that Zimmerman might not have known his race when he originally made the call. No proof or evidence either way. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On July 17 2013 00:26 dotHead wrote: He should have walked home, instead of attacking an armed man. That is what got him killed, not being black, or walking in the rain, or wearing a hoodie. Attacking someone, and then not stopping when he yells for help, or when someone (John Good) tells you to stop. How do you know he wasn't trying to get home? And for that matter -- why does he have to go home? HEY -- maybe Trayvon decided to stare at the night sky for four minutes -- that's his right, you know? Why the FUCK is it that we're almost strictly questioning Trayvon's willingness to avoid an altercation, and not the guy who followed him? All the responses this post have gotten just assume that Trayvon must've camped out Zimmerman so that he could attack him. That kind of reasoning is fair when it's your actual job to look for any doubt on the defendant's behalf. That reasoning is the opposite of fair outside the courtroom. How do you know he was the initial aggressor in their physical altercation? He just decided to ambush GZ for no reason? It's possible, hence reasonable doubt, but nothing of the sort was actually proven. Good's testimony is probably the best piece of evidence that GZ was right to defend himself, but it says nothing about how the fight came to be, or what the circumstances leading up to the fight were. Was Trayvon pounding some stranger because he didn't like being followed, or because that stranger threatened him in some way or physically provoked him? But, hey, if you want to blame Trayvon for his own death, go ahead. I can't stop you. I just think it's gross that people want to only give reasonable doubt to the guy who got to walk away alive that night. I understand the court's reasoning for behaving that way -- it's their job to find any plausible innocence in the defendant. In a self-defense case where the victim is killed, that generally means the victim gets blamed for everything for the defendant's sake. It's important to keep that in perspective as we discuss our own personal judgments. I don't think I can put it any more plainly than this. If you still want to make assumptions about what happened that night to personally judge Trayvon for his own death, there's nothing more I can say. | ||
|
dotHead
United States233 Posts
On July 17 2013 00:30 Leporello wrote: How do you know he wasn't trying to get home? How do you know he was the initial aggressor in their physical altercation? He just decided to ambush GZ for no reason? It's possible, hence reasonable doubt, but nothing of the sort was proven. Good's testimony is probably the best piece of evidence that GZ was right to defend himself, but it says nothing about how the fight came to be, or what the circumstances leading up to the fight were. Was Trayvon pounding some stranger because he didn't like being followed, or because that stranger threatened him in some way or physically provoked him? But, hey, if you want to blame Trayvon for his own death, go ahead. I can't stop you. Because he was supposedly less than 70 yards from his house, and the altercation didn't happen for 4 minutes. Even Jenteel or whatever Miss Cursives name is, said that she heard someone (Presumably GZ) ask "What are you doing around here?". Then she heard the sound of wet grass (lol). Why didn't he just say, I'm visiting my dad, or I live here. Sounds like he just tackled him. GZ said the last rationally thing, then there was a fight... He wouldn't say What are you doing here, then attack him, he had a gun, if he wanted to kill him, he would have just shot him then. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21962 Posts
On July 17 2013 00:30 Leporello wrote: How do you know he wasn't trying to get home? Because he had 4 minutes to do so after Zimmerman lost sight of him. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 17 2013 00:30 Leporello wrote: How do you know he wasn't trying to get home? How do you know he was the initial aggressor in their physical altercation? He just decided to ambush GZ for no reason? It's possible, hence reasonable doubt, but nothing of the sort was proven. Good's testimony is probably the best piece of evidence that GZ was right to defend himself, but it says nothing about how the fight came to be, or what the circumstances leading up to the fight were. Was Trayvon pounding some stranger because he didn't like being followed, or because that stranger threatened him in some way or physically provoked him? But, hey, if you want to blame Trayvon for his own death, go ahead. I can't stop you. I just think it's gross that people want to only give reasonable doubt to the guy who got to walk away alive that night. I understand the court's reasoning for behaving that way -- it's their job to find any plausible innocence in the defendant. In a self-defense case where the victim is killed, that generally means the victim gets blamed for everything. It's important to keep that in perspective as we make our personal judgments. Someone started that fight and its is unclear who it was. We have no facts on that subject. However, we can all make our own judgments on the matter and I believe it is more likley that Trayvon like started the conflict because he did not like being follow by someone, white or otherwise. This is due to the evidence that was provided in the case and my own reading into the reporting done on Trayvon and Zimmerman. I also believe Zimmerman's main goal was to confirm that Trayvon was not in the area to vandlize anything(as was an issue for the area). At the end of the day they both fucked up. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On July 17 2013 00:24 Leporello wrote: Again, I'm not arguing that GZ actually did racially profile Trayvon, only that it's one of so many possibilities surrounding this case. We give him that benefit of the doubt, not just in the courtroom, but pretty heavily in this thread... And yet, I was reading posts essentially blaming Trayvon for his own death, saying he "should've just walked home" like he doesn't have the right to walk down a public street when he's under suspicion by the local gun-wielding busybody. "He should've walked home," can be a perfectly true statement without blaming Trayvon Martin for his own death. Those people are right, if he had gone straight home he would still be alive. It's one of many contributing factors that evening, in that if it had gone a bit differently he would still be alive. That said, I do think that Trayvon shares part of the blame in his own death, as without the altercation requiring Zimmerman to fire the gun he would still be alive. It is not against the law to follow someone, it is against the law to assault them. He absolutely has the right to walk down a public street, just like George Zimmerman has the right to be suspicious of him. In fact, as neighborhood watch, I'd argue that it's his responsibility to be suspicious. The gun is obviously excessive for neighborhood watch duties, but if he has a license to carry it and doesn't just take it around his neighborhood I see no reason why it is unusual that he was carrying. What Trayvon Martin didn't have the right to do was assault Zimmerman, which from all the evidence presented in this case, looks like the way it happened. It seems people are unfamiliar with the concept of a neighborhood watch. Your bias is showing when you call him a "gun-wielding busybody," but being a busybody is the entire point of the volunteer position. Up until the point where the fight broke out, Zimmerman was doing his job, so to speak, in keeping an eye on a suspicious character when there had been a problem with break-ins. If he shrugs off a suspicious character, for fear of racial profiling, that makes him a bad neighborhood watch and defeats the whole purpose of the initiative. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On July 17 2013 00:43 ZasZ. wrote: "He should've walked home," can be a perfectly true statement without blaming Trayvon Martin for his own death. Those people are right, if he had gone straight home he would still be alive. It's one of many contributing factors that evening, in that if it had gone a bit differently he would still be alive. That said, I do think that Trayvon shares part of the blame in his own death, as without the altercation requiring Zimmerman to fire the gun he would still be alive. It is not against the law to follow someone, it is against the law to assault them. He absolutely has the right to walk down a public street, just like George Zimmerman has the right to be suspicious of him. In fact, as neighborhood watch, I'd argue that it's his responsibility to be suspicious. The gun is obviously excessive for neighborhood watch duties, but if he has a license to carry it and doesn't just take it around his neighborhood I see no reason why it is unusual that he was carrying. What Trayvon Martin didn't have the right to do was assault Zimmerman, which from all the evidence presented in this case, looks like the way it happened. It seems people are unfamiliar with the concept of a neighborhood watch. Your bias is showing when you call him a "gun-wielding busybody," but being a busybody is the entire point of the volunteer position. Up until the point where the fight broke out, Zimmerman was doing his job, so to speak, in keeping an eye on a suspicious character when there had been a problem with break-ins. If he shrugs off a suspicious character, for fear of racial profiling, that makes him a bad neighborhood watch and defeats the whole purpose of the initiative. It's absolutely no better than making the assumption that Trayvon was racially profiled. I get argued with for simply suggesting that it's possible Trayvon was racially profiled, but people want to tell me how obvious it is that Trayvon was the initial aggressor, despite no hard evidence. M'kay. I sense a double-standard. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 17 2013 00:57 Leporello wrote: It's absolutely no better than making the assumption that Trayvon was racially profiled. I get argued with for simply suggesting that it's possible Trayvon was racially profiled, but people want to tell me how obvious it is that Trayvon was the initial aggressor, despite no hard evidence. M'kay. I sense a double-standard. Your right, there is no evidence. We can only go on the impressions we received from the trial. A lot of peoples impressions were that Trayvon was likely the aggressor. It may not be right, but even a member of the jury said last night that she believed that Trayvon was the aggressor. People are not just assuming without some sort of information to go on. | ||
|
Oleo
Netherlands279 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On July 17 2013 01:09 Oleo wrote: Its funny, in this thread whenever something is not entirely 100% proven the circumstanial evidence is twisted in a scenario favoring GZ and disfavouring TM, ignoring evidence which shows GZ is doing something wrong, interpretting any circumstantial evidence to show TM did a lot wrong. There is too much bias so enjoy your sorry selves. There is something in the US called "innocent until proven guilty" and so if we want to interpret this case by law, that's what we should be doing. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  46135Rain 2947Larva  735firebathero  496PianO 415Mini 366Last 266Killer 229Rush 128sorry 72[ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games Organizations Dota 2 StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
IPSL
Julia vs Artosis
JDConan vs DragOn
OSC
BSL 21
TerrOr vs Aeternum
HBO vs Kyrie
RSL Revival
Wardi Open
IPSL
StRyKeR vs OldBoy
Sziky vs Tarson
BSL 21
StRyKeR vs Artosis
OyAji vs KameZerg
OSC
OSC
Monday Night Weeklies
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
