|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. |
On March 24 2012 08:31 Ausfailia wrote:
EDIT: Holy shit, just read through the bit about "stand your ground" laws... in what fucked up parallel universe is it in any way justifiable to kill another human being because you're too stubborn to defuse the situation in other manners?
America.
Specifically: Florida.
|
On March 24 2012 03:04 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 02:34 Leporello wrote:Well, it's interesting to see what it is we are and are not arguing. The injustice in this case isn't necessarily in the conviction or exoneration of Zimmerman. The real injustice, for which no one has really been able to deny, is that the police very obviously didn't do their job as any reasonable person would expect them to. They tox-screen Trayvon -- but they don't tox-screen his assailant. They examine witnesses only days after the events transpired. They didn't bother to take any pictures of Zimmerman's fight-wounds, despite the fact that they're exonerating him of any wrong-doing via a "self-defense" claim. If someone shoots my unarmed child and claims self-defense -- don't you think I deserve more than this? Some are arguing the case and the circumstances surrounding it -- with what little facts are out there. Some are arguing that this story is getting more coverage than other stories about possible hate crimes. What they're missing is that the reason this story is getting attention isn't the crime itself -- it's the police's complete incompetence and lack of due process that makes this, deservedly, a national story. But some people would rather just argue about whether Trayvon was selling weed. maybe the police did enough, maybe they didnt. i find it hard to believe people actually know what they did since investigations are usually kept pretty secret so as not to compromise the investigation. i would love to hear a person who actually knows what police procedure is (and what the police actually did rather than speculating) to tell me that they didn't do what was necessary to investigate. given the media's apparent inability to report objectively on this story, i find their coverage to be slightly greater than bullshit. i think one of my first posts in this thread referenced the Duke lacrosse players, because the media did a great job on that one too, right? i would love to see sources saying what the police did or didnt do. what i dont want to see is people saying "they were incompetent," but then not knowing what they actually did to investigate.
I think we're forgetting this investigation was closed and done. What we see is all the parents had to console themselves and justify their son's death.
It wasn't until media attention that this investigation was reopened.
So we do know what due process the parents of the slain child were given. And it wasn't nearly enough. My source of the lack of police attention is simply the lack of sources itself. This case was closed with what little sources we have. This is all the parents were given -- if not less.
Think about your son being shot and killed by a stranger who followed him with a gun. The police tell you it's self-defense, despite common-sense that the other guy was older, bigger, had a gun, and was the one pursuing your son.
And the police didn't give them Zimmerman's toxicology screen? Picture proof of Zimmerman's fight? Thorough records of witness testimony? They just closed the case on them. Would you be satisfied if you were the parents, and that was your kid? No. The parents of Trayvon deserve this support, and the justice system deserves this scrutiny -- regardless of what facts surrounding the case may now come to light since the case has been reopened at a federal level.
|
I'm not going to comment on the evidence for or against the alleged criminal's guilt.
However, it does seem that the police department in question has a fairly shady history concerning similar incidents. At the very least, the federal government should put this police department under heavy scrutiny, and dig up their older cases to check for systemic incompetence.
|
On March 24 2012 08:48 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 03:04 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 24 2012 02:34 Leporello wrote:Well, it's interesting to see what it is we are and are not arguing. The injustice in this case isn't necessarily in the conviction or exoneration of Zimmerman. The real injustice, for which no one has really been able to deny, is that the police very obviously didn't do their job as any reasonable person would expect them to. They tox-screen Trayvon -- but they don't tox-screen his assailant. They examine witnesses only days after the events transpired. They didn't bother to take any pictures of Zimmerman's fight-wounds, despite the fact that they're exonerating him of any wrong-doing via a "self-defense" claim. If someone shoots my unarmed child and claims self-defense -- don't you think I deserve more than this? Some are arguing the case and the circumstances surrounding it -- with what little facts are out there. Some are arguing that this story is getting more coverage than other stories about possible hate crimes. What they're missing is that the reason this story is getting attention isn't the crime itself -- it's the police's complete incompetence and lack of due process that makes this, deservedly, a national story. But some people would rather just argue about whether Trayvon was selling weed. maybe the police did enough, maybe they didnt. i find it hard to believe people actually know what they did since investigations are usually kept pretty secret so as not to compromise the investigation. i would love to hear a person who actually knows what police procedure is (and what the police actually did rather than speculating) to tell me that they didn't do what was necessary to investigate. given the media's apparent inability to report objectively on this story, i find their coverage to be slightly greater than bullshit. i think one of my first posts in this thread referenced the Duke lacrosse players, because the media did a great job on that one too, right? i would love to see sources saying what the police did or didnt do. what i dont want to see is people saying "they were incompetent," but then not knowing what they actually did to investigate. I think we're forgetting this investigation was closed and done. What we see is all the parents had to console themselves and justify their son's death. It wasn't until media attention that this investigation was reopened. So we do know what due process the parents of the slain child were given. And it wasn't nearly enough. Think about your son being shot and killed by a stranger who followed him with a gun. The police tell you it's self-defense, despite common-sense that the other guy was older, bigger, had a gun, and was the one pursuing your son. And the police didn't give them Zimmerman's toxicology screen? Picture proof of Zimmerman's fight? They just closed the case on them. Would you be satisfied if you were the parents, and that was your kid? No. The parents of Trayvon deserve this support, and the justice system deserves this scrutiny -- regardless of what facts surrounding the case may now come to light since the case has been reopened at a federal level.
you are using the term "due process" incorrectly. zimmerman is the one entitled to "due process," not the family. and by exercising "due process" the police decided they couldnt arrest him because there was no probable cause. this is whether you agree with their decision or not.
as for the investigation, i dont know that the investigation ever concluded. do you know for a fact that it ended? i know they made a decision not to arrest him, but i thought they were still investigating him after that decision was made. just because you dont arrest someone doesnt mean the investigation ends. they may have done some stupid shit in how they investigated (which i have seen many examples of in the news, assuming they are true), but that doesnt mean they stopped investigating.
i saw that the justice department got involved after the media attention. once again, do we know that the police department closed this case? because i doubt that is a quick and simple process.
would i be satisfied? fuck no. thats what i said way back on like page three or four of this thread. he should be arrested and his guilt determined by a jury.
|
On March 24 2012 08:14 cz wrote:
2) The whole racism thing is entirely unproven. He's called 911 and identified the guy as suspicious BEFORE he realizes the guy is black. And no I wouldn't be surprised if he said "coons" and had a racist mindset, but presupposing that and putting your own "he's a racist" narrative on top of it is just your own desire to make the situation fit something you are comfortable with. The evidence is not there for that.
what is the whole racism thing, specifically regarding zimmerman and this case? I think it's a clear and cut display of black male profiling, not necessarily some supremacist/anarchist "he's black/brown/blue therefore he must die" kind of thing. the profiling thing may be subconscious for zimmerman, but then it rears its head from the police department's side as well in my opinion, and it wouldn't have played the same had treyvone been say, a white male. This is dismissing the possible coon remark. when Martin ran away, he didn't treat it like something he was "unsure' of... he didnt offer anything like "he looks black, but not sure" or "he looks black, but possibly hispanic" etc..
He treated Martin as someone running away, maybe even perhaps in Zimmerman's eyes , getting away. this should dismiss any theory that Zimmerman was "afraid" at least at that point of the call, because it's illogical to pursue something like that unless there is true danger right in front of your eyes for you or someone else or property etc etc, which he obviously didn't find, it was assumption after assumption after assumption.
and your wording "he identified the guy as suspicious BEFORE he realizes he was black." how do you get that from the released call recording? he said he's following someone suspicious, the operator asks him if the guy is white, hispanic or black and he says...he looks black, (imho in a tone that screams "well duh", but thats not important thats probably my bias creeping in). i dont think you can strike out that he didn't look for this (his general racial description) before the operator asked him the question! he presented him as suspicious intitially in my estimation to justify the call.
the problem with the whole racism thing as in regards to this case, is that racism is such a negative overhyped thing in the USA, even though nobody talks about it (lol) because its one of the few issues people have a really hard time staying "objective" about. we've never created a general zeitgeist of understanding of racism in america beyond 'its bad" they lump things like eugenics with stereotypical profiling, media's manipulation and perceptions with Hitler and it creates this binary, on or off effect that makes most people go "eeeehhhh" when a claim that something racist has happened is presented. its always been a broad-stroke, thus making it easier to dismiss. my opinion at least. 
if im missing something that would corroborate he didn't know/think martin was black before calling, my apologies.
edit: fixed for clarity
|
On March 24 2012 08:58 BlackWhole wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 08:14 cz wrote:
2) The whole racism thing is entirely unproven. He's called 911 and identified the guy as suspicious BEFORE he realizes the guy is black. And no I wouldn't be surprised if he said "coons" and had a racist mindset, but presupposing that and putting your own "he's a racist" narrative on top of it is just your own desire to make the situation fit something you are comfortable with. The evidence is not there for that. what is the whole racism thing, specifically regarding zimmerman and this case? I think it's a clear and cut display of black male profiling, not necessarily some supremacist/anarchist "he's black/brown/blue therefore he must die" kind of thing. the profiling thing may be subconscious for zimmerman, but then it rears its head from the police department's side as well in my opinion, and it wouldn't have played the same had treyvone been say, a white male. This is dismissing the possible coon remark. when Martin ran away, he didn't treat it like something he was "unsure' of... he didnt offer anything like "he looks black, but not sure" or "he looks black, but possibly hispanic" etc.. He treated Martin as someone running away, maybe even perhaps in Zimmerman's eyes , getting away. this should dismiss any theory that Zimmerman was "afraid" at least at that point of the call, because it's illogical to pursue something like that unless there is true danger right in front of your eyes for you or someone else or property etc etc, which he obviously didn't find, it was assumption after assumption after assumption. and your wording "he identified the guy as suspicious BEFORE he realizes he was black." how do you get that from the released call recording? he said he's following someone suspicious, the operator asks him if the guy is white, hispanic or black and he says...he looks black, (imho in a tone that screams "well duh", but thats not important thats probably my bias creeping in). i dont think you can strike out that he didn't look for this (his general racial description) before the operator asked him the question! he presented him as suspicious intitially in my estimation to justify the call. the problem with the whole racism thing as in regards to this case, is that racism is such a negative overhyped thing in the USA, even though nobody talks about it (lol) because its one of the few issues people have a really hard time staying "objective" about. we've never created a general zeitgeist of understanding of racism in america beyond 'its bad" they lump things like eugenics with stereotypical profiling, media's manipulation and perceptions with Hitler and it creates this binary, on or off effect that makes most people go "eeeehhhh" when a claim that something racist has happened is presented. its always been a broad-stroke, thus making it easier to dismiss. my opinion at least. if im missing something that would corroborate he didn't know/think martin was black before calling, my apologies. edit: fixed for clarity
Just wanted to say I really agree with this. Also fuck Geraldo Rivera and his "hoodie was responsible as much as Zimmerman" bullshit. That is the exact kind of evasive thinking that reflects a reluctance to really focus on racial issues and concepts which I would say is a step that is tantamount to progressive thinking and at least *reducing* the harmful effects of racism today. (I say reducing because I'm not sure it will ever go away so long as humans are perceptive and sensitive to contrasts biologically. But we can certainly advance our thought.)
link for the inclined:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/geraldo-rivera-finds-real-culprit-trayvon-martin-slaying-182043689.html
and his twitter (don't worry I already blast him)
https://twitter.com/#!/GeraldoRivera
|
On March 24 2012 06:25 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 06:20 Defacer wrote:On March 24 2012 06:11 Zaqwe wrote:On March 24 2012 06:06 Defacer wrote:On March 24 2012 05:30 Zaqwe wrote:On March 24 2012 05:20 Defacer wrote:On March 24 2012 05:04 Zaqwe wrote:On March 24 2012 05:01 BillClinton wrote:
Do you really want to live in a place where whenever you feel threatened for whatever reason you (and others) pull your gun(s)?
Even if Martin was a dealer how can you argue it was good that he was killed, it will lead to more mutual suspicion and lower the inhibition level for aggression/crime. Do you really want to live in a place where if you are pinned on the ground being beaten in the head you are not allowed to use a firearm to save your life? You got it backwards, Zaqwe. Do you really want to live in a place where someone can follow you, pull a gun on you, and you're not allowed to attack in order to save your life? Despite some ambiguity, it's very, very clear that Zimmerman was a greater threat to Trayvon than the other way around. Trayon posed absolutely no threat until Zimmerman created a confrontation while armed. Zimmerman didn't pull a gun on him. If Trayvon was aware of the gun he wouldn't have left Zimmerman's hands free holding a gun to shoot him with. When Trayvon decided to attack Zimmerman he obviously was not aware of the pistol. You have no way of knowing whether or not Zimmerman pulled a gun first. Your entire argument has been based on your fantasy of how the altercation developed, and a single, inconclusive, eyewitness account. I just offered the idea that "Zimmerman pulled a gun first" as an entirely plausible scenario that would easily rationalize Trayvon attacking or fighting back. You literally don't know what you're talking about because you weren't there. And the fact that you dismiss a perfectly plausible scenario despite arguing based on personal speculation betrays your hypocrisy and bias. TLDR: you just got served. It's extremely implausible that Zimmerman pulled out a gun, Trayvon then attacked him and punched him in the face ignoring the gun and allowing Zimmerman to shoot him. That's just preposterous. But if he did, you'd absolutely agree that Trayon was simply defending himself, no? Or else that would make you a hypocrite. And it's not preposterous at all. You've obviously never been in a real fight. It's not a choreographed Jackie Chan movie where A leads to B leads to C. Neither Zimmerman or Trayon are MMA fighters with training on how to disarm someone. It's a chaotic mess. Sigh, at least I know now that if I draw a gun on Zaqwe, he'll just stand there and let himself get shot. It doesn't take any training to know that if you are fighting a guy who is holding a gun you struggle for the gun, not punch him in the face and leave his hand free, holding a gun, and allowing him to shoot you. Really your scenario is just so detached from reality I don't know what to say that could bring you back to Earth. Why would you punch someone in the face who you know is holding a gun, ignoring the gun, and letting them shoot you? There's no coherent logical reason to claim Zimmerman pulled out a gun until he was already on the ground being beaten in the head. You're making stuff up, and you're not even trying to have your fabricated story make any sense.
I love how Zaqwe considers himself the authority on made-up fantasy fights. He's talking about Zimmerman and Trayvon like its Spiderman/Superman fan fiction.
|
On March 24 2012 09:10 Chessz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 08:58 BlackWhole wrote:On March 24 2012 08:14 cz wrote:
2) The whole racism thing is entirely unproven. He's called 911 and identified the guy as suspicious BEFORE he realizes the guy is black. And no I wouldn't be surprised if he said "coons" and had a racist mindset, but presupposing that and putting your own "he's a racist" narrative on top of it is just your own desire to make the situation fit something you are comfortable with. The evidence is not there for that. what is the whole racism thing, specifically regarding zimmerman and this case? I think it's a clear and cut display of black male profiling, not necessarily some supremacist/anarchist "he's black/brown/blue therefore he must die" kind of thing. the profiling thing may be subconscious for zimmerman, but then it rears its head from the police department's side as well in my opinion, and it wouldn't have played the same had treyvone been say, a white male. This is dismissing the possible coon remark. when Martin ran away, he didn't treat it like something he was "unsure' of... he didnt offer anything like "he looks black, but not sure" or "he looks black, but possibly hispanic" etc.. He treated Martin as someone running away, maybe even perhaps in Zimmerman's eyes , getting away. this should dismiss any theory that Zimmerman was "afraid" at least at that point of the call, because it's illogical to pursue something like that unless there is true danger right in front of your eyes for you or someone else or property etc etc, which he obviously didn't find, it was assumption after assumption after assumption. and your wording "he identified the guy as suspicious BEFORE he realizes he was black." how do you get that from the released call recording? he said he's following someone suspicious, the operator asks him if the guy is white, hispanic or black and he says...he looks black, (imho in a tone that screams "well duh", but thats not important thats probably my bias creeping in). i dont think you can strike out that he didn't look for this (his general racial description) before the operator asked him the question! he presented him as suspicious intitially in my estimation to justify the call. the problem with the whole racism thing as in regards to this case, is that racism is such a negative overhyped thing in the USA, even though nobody talks about it (lol) because its one of the few issues people have a really hard time staying "objective" about. we've never created a general zeitgeist of understanding of racism in america beyond 'its bad" they lump things like eugenics with stereotypical profiling, media's manipulation and perceptions with Hitler and it creates this binary, on or off effect that makes most people go "eeeehhhh" when a claim that something racist has happened is presented. its always been a broad-stroke, thus making it easier to dismiss. my opinion at least. if im missing something that would corroborate he didn't know/think martin was black before calling, my apologies. edit: fixed for clarity Just wanted to say I really agree with this. Also fuck Geraldo Rivera and his "hoodie was responsible as much as Zimmerman" bullshit. That is the exact kind of evasive thinking that reflects a reluctance to really focus on racial issues and concepts which I would say is a step that is tantamount to progressive thinking and at least *reducing* the harmful effects of racism today. (I say reducing because I'm not sure it will ever go away so long as humans are perceptive and sensitive to contrasts biologically. But we can certainly advance our thought.) link for the inclined: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/geraldo-rivera-finds-real-culprit-trayvon-martin-slaying-182043689.html and his twitter (don't worry I already blast him) https://twitter.com/#!/GeraldoRivera
I agree too, BlackHole and Chessz have really good points about how we have not been able to move forward with our thinking about racism because of how we handle the issue. And Rivera's comments are a good example of the completely back-asswards way of thinking that keeps us from moving forward.
"My own son just wrote to say he's ashamed of my position re hoodies ... "
I sympathize with his son. I feel ashamed just being in the same country as Rivera.
Geraldo's argument is If he didn't want to get shot, he shouldn't have worn that. It is essentially the same argument as 'If she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that.'
Shame on you, Geraldo. Shame on you.
|
On March 24 2012 08:48 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 03:04 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 24 2012 02:34 Leporello wrote:Well, it's interesting to see what it is we are and are not arguing. The injustice in this case isn't necessarily in the conviction or exoneration of Zimmerman. The real injustice, for which no one has really been able to deny, is that the police very obviously didn't do their job as any reasonable person would expect them to. They tox-screen Trayvon -- but they don't tox-screen his assailant. They examine witnesses only days after the events transpired. They didn't bother to take any pictures of Zimmerman's fight-wounds, despite the fact that they're exonerating him of any wrong-doing via a "self-defense" claim. If someone shoots my unarmed child and claims self-defense -- don't you think I deserve more than this? Some are arguing the case and the circumstances surrounding it -- with what little facts are out there. Some are arguing that this story is getting more coverage than other stories about possible hate crimes. What they're missing is that the reason this story is getting attention isn't the crime itself -- it's the police's complete incompetence and lack of due process that makes this, deservedly, a national story. But some people would rather just argue about whether Trayvon was selling weed. maybe the police did enough, maybe they didnt. i find it hard to believe people actually know what they did since investigations are usually kept pretty secret so as not to compromise the investigation. i would love to hear a person who actually knows what police procedure is (and what the police actually did rather than speculating) to tell me that they didn't do what was necessary to investigate. given the media's apparent inability to report objectively on this story, i find their coverage to be slightly greater than bullshit. i think one of my first posts in this thread referenced the Duke lacrosse players, because the media did a great job on that one too, right? i would love to see sources saying what the police did or didnt do. what i dont want to see is people saying "they were incompetent," but then not knowing what they actually did to investigate. I think we're forgetting this investigation was closed and done. What we see is all the parents had to console themselves and justify their son's death. It wasn't until media attention that this investigation was reopened. So we do know what due process the parents of the slain child were given. And it wasn't nearly enough. My source of the lack of police attention is simply the lack of sources itself. This case was closed with what little sources we have. This is all the parents were given -- if not less. Think about your son being shot and killed by a stranger who followed him with a gun. The police tell you it's self-defense, despite common-sense that the other guy was older, bigger, had a gun, and was the one pursuing your son. And the police didn't give them Zimmerman's toxicology screen? Picture proof of Zimmerman's fight? Thorough records of witness testimony? They just closed the case on them. Would you be satisfied if you were the parents, and that was your kid? No. The parents of Trayvon deserve this support, and the justice system deserves this scrutiny -- regardless of what facts surrounding the case may now come to light since the case has been reopened at a federal level.
Sometimes the American legal system may backfire, but more time than not it benefits a lot more people than it hurts. Sure, a murderer may go free every once and awhile. But by having to absolutely prove your case it also helps out a lot of people who are not murders who are suspects of murder but didn't actually do it. Wouldn't it be worst if a larger number of innocent people went to jail just so a few guilty people don't get away because of 'loopholes'?
And from the sounds of it, the gunman didn't have any beef or reason to murder the child. So perhaps he was really acting in self defense. Unless there are more witnesses, you really can't tell definitively.
|
On March 24 2012 08:45 Chessz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 08:31 Ausfailia wrote:
EDIT: Holy shit, just read through the bit about "stand your ground" laws... in what fucked up parallel universe is it in any way justifiable to kill another human being because you're too stubborn to defuse the situation in other manners? America. Specifically: Florida.
Zimmerman should walk, and the NRA and politicians should hang.
Stand your Ground Laws were a response to Duty to Retreat Laws. Apparently in some states (Red States in particular) people think you do not have a civic duty to avoid a fight if possible, rather you should just fight.
And now we are suffering the consequences. In Stand your Ground states, you can invite someone over for dinner, shoot them in cold blood, and then say you were attacked.
And just like Zimmerman, you'll get off free because there is no evidence on the other side.
In states where you have a Duty to Retreat, you have to prove that you had no other option but to fight back, that you had no opportunity to retreat, and that, in my opinion, is the way it should be.
|
i dont think the stand your ground law even matters. assuming the kid was on top of zimmerman punching him in the face when he shot the kid, the requirement to retreat (in other jurisdictions) would be satisfied. you cant retreat when the kid is on top of you.
On March 24 2012 10:24 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 08:45 Chessz wrote:On March 24 2012 08:31 Ausfailia wrote:
EDIT: Holy shit, just read through the bit about "stand your ground" laws... in what fucked up parallel universe is it in any way justifiable to kill another human being because you're too stubborn to defuse the situation in other manners? America. Specifically: Florida. Zimmerman should walk, and the NRA and politicians should hang. Stand your Ground Laws were a response to Duty to Retreat Laws. Apparently in some states (Red States in particular) people think you do not have a civic duty to avoid a fight if possible, rather you should just fight. And now we are suffering the consequences. In Stand your Ground states, you can invite someone over for dinner, shoot them in cold blood, and then say you were attacked. And just like Zimmerman, you'll get off free because there is no evidence on the other side. In states where you have a Duty to Retreat, you have to prove that you had no other option but to fight back, that you had no opportunity to retreat, and that, in my opinion, is the way it should be.
you realize that you can do that under any self defense law, not just stand your ground. all you have to do is say that you couldnt retreat and then it doesnt matter if there was a stand your ground law or not. if you kill the person and there are no witnesses, it doesnt matter what self defense law there is because its your word against a ouija board. it only really matters when there are witnesses.
|
On March 24 2012 10:28 dAPhREAk wrote:
i dont think the stand your ground law even matters. assuming the kid was on top of zimmerman punching him in the face when he shot the kid, the requirement to retreat (in other jurisdictions) would be satisfied. you cant retreat when the kid is on top of you.
It all depends on how the situation unfolded ... and there really isn't a full eye-witness account of that.
The fact that Zimmerman sought a confrontation was undeniable. Did he do anything to provoke a fight? Did Trayvon feel his life was in danger? Who knows?
|
On March 24 2012 10:33 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 10:28 dAPhREAk wrote:
i dont think the stand your ground law even matters. assuming the kid was on top of zimmerman punching him in the face when he shot the kid, the requirement to retreat (in other jurisdictions) would be satisfied. you cant retreat when the kid is on top of you. It all depends on how the situation unfolded ... and there really isn't a full eye-witness account of that. The fact that Zimmerman sought a confrontation was undeniable. Did he do anything to provoke a fight? Did Trayvon feel his life was in danger? Who knows?
totally agree. this whole case is going to revolve around what happened between the time zimmerman first confronted trayvon and when the shot was fired.
|
On March 24 2012 07:37 cz wrote:
Why ban zaqwe? The post that got him the ban was fine, certainly no worse than average for the past 5 pages I've been posting here for. It's also well within the context of the discussion, not at all derailing the discussion.
Really bad ban from someone who I think has a different view on the discussion at hand.
if TL is banning people for making statements not backed by facts, then i should start reporting people about 70 pages back. i mean, someone did kind of set the tone for the thread if we look at the first post after the op
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=14017170
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=14017362
|
I'm not following this so closely, maybe someone can explain something to me....
How does the "stand your ground" law change anything? Whether or not a person tries to flee a fight, they still have the right to self defense once they are attacked, right?
Are you telling me that outside of Florida, if someone attacks me and I didn't try to flee first, I've somehow forfeit my right to defend myself?
|
On March 24 2012 11:18 liberal wrote:
I'm not following this so closely, maybe someone can explain something to me....
How does the "stand your ground" law change anything? Whether or not a person tries to flee a fight, they still have the right to self defense once they are attacked, right?
Are you telling me that outside of Florida, if someone attacks me and I didn't try to flee first, I've somehow forfeit my right to defend myself?
where there is no "stand your ground" law, you have the duty to retreat before you can use deadly force. otherwise its not justified. so, if someone attacks you and you kill them, but you had the ability to just walk away before killing them then you cant claim self defense.
|
On March 24 2012 11:26 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 11:18 liberal wrote:
I'm not following this so closely, maybe someone can explain something to me....
How does the "stand your ground" law change anything? Whether or not a person tries to flee a fight, they still have the right to self defense once they are attacked, right?
Are you telling me that outside of Florida, if someone attacks me and I didn't try to flee first, I've somehow forfeit my right to defend myself? where there is no "stand your ground" law, you have the duty to retreat before you can use deadly force. otherwise its not justified. so, if someone attacks you and you kill them, but you had the ability to just walk away before killing them then you cant claim self defense.
So wait. Suppose someone pulls out a gun in front of a police officer and tells the police officer to back off. The police officer has to walk away or does he have a right to shoot/stay in position since he believes his life is in danger?
|
On March 24 2012 11:41 Housemd wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 11:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 24 2012 11:18 liberal wrote:
I'm not following this so closely, maybe someone can explain something to me....
How does the "stand your ground" law change anything? Whether or not a person tries to flee a fight, they still have the right to self defense once they are attacked, right?
Are you telling me that outside of Florida, if someone attacks me and I didn't try to flee first, I've somehow forfeit my right to defend myself? where there is no "stand your ground" law, you have the duty to retreat before you can use deadly force. otherwise its not justified. so, if someone attacks you and you kill them, but you had the ability to just walk away before killing them then you cant claim self defense. So wait. Suppose someone pulls out a gun in front of a police officer and tells the police officer to back off. The police officer has to walk away or does he have a right to shoot/stay in position since he believes his life is in danger?
if you cant retreat then you have no duty to retreat.
edit: wait, are you saying that the guy is telling the police officer to back off like he has no intention of shooting the police officer? because there shouldnt be any reasonable fear of injury/death in that case.
|
On March 24 2012 11:02 taintmachine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 07:37 cz wrote:
Why ban zaqwe? The post that got him the ban was fine, certainly no worse than average for the past 5 pages I've been posting here for. It's also well within the context of the discussion, not at all derailing the discussion.
Really bad ban from someone who I think has a different view on the discussion at hand. if TL is banning people for making statements not backed by facts, then i should start reporting people about 70 pages back. i mean, someone did kind of set the tone for the thread if we look at the first post after the op
He was banned because he had 100 of his 107 posts in this thread and he was presenting media speculation and the witness testimony on his side as fact instead of possible evidence.
Also to the convo above me police are in a completely different situation. They do have the ability to defend themselves but if you replaced police officer with bouncer or somebody then it goes how daphreak answered.
to below me
+ Show Spoiler +On March 24 2012 07:13 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 07:07 cz wrote:On March 24 2012 07:04 Zaqwe wrote:On March 24 2012 06:54 PrinceXizor wrote:On March 24 2012 06:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 24 2012 06:50 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 24 2012 06:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 24 2012 06:42 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 24 2012 06:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 24 2012 06:38 Wrongspeedy wrote:
[quote]
Good info, still pretty vague. They list Tray as 6' and 160lbs too. Which sounds closer to the truth than 6'3 140. Really wish they would have followed threw better. Taken pictures of Zimmermans injuries, as well as taking his clothes or whatever. I wonder how his interrogation went.
may i see where it says that they didnt take pictures or take his clothes? It doesn't say it in that report. But I haven't seen any pictures of his injuries, and other people have posted that he left the station in his clothes. But I don't know if they put evidence up. Might have been treehugger I don't remember which post it was. i have read every post in this thread and most of the articles quoted. i have seen people say that the cops didn't do anything, but never anything that shows what they actually did or did not do. its an open investigation, its not like the police release all of their evidence because the media is in a frenzy. Lol I didn't say they would release all the evidence. And I didn't say the cops didn't do anything. What I said was is that I have read that he left the police station in the clothes he came in. Whether or not thats true I don't know. But not following through 100% with an investigation, is the almost the same as doing nothing. Entire cases sometimes rest on a single piece of hard evidence. okay. the point im making is that you (figuratively, not you personally) cant say the cops didnt do a good job if you dont know what they did or didn't do. we know some of what they didn't do, and it doesn't make sense that they did some of the things they did. like not letting witnesses fully give accounts. coercing other witnesses. "correcting" them if they mentioned they saw zimmerman attack martin. i mean there was a lot of pretty bad policework going on. Nobody has ever claimed they saw Zimmerman attack Trayvon. Stop using outright lies to fuel your bandwagon. A police officer told someone who thought the screaming was from Trayvon that it was actually Zimmerman who was screaming. A witness who saw the source of the screams identified Zimmerman as the one shouting for help, which matches Zimmerman's story that he was indeed shouting for help. I don't see a problem with correcting someone who was mistaken. I think those witnesses are really biased by the media. They talk about hearing a boy's scream and thus are associating it with Martin. This is like 3 weeks after the shooting. Martin is at least 6 feet tall and is 17 years old: he isn't going to scream or shout like a boy. There's no reason to expect him to have a higher pitched voice than Zimmerman. Not even just a scream, she calls it a "child crying" and makes very sweeping conclusions about what went on while admitting she didn't see anything until after the shot and didn't even realize Zimmerman was the shooter. She has no basis for concluding who was the source of the screams she heard but has obviously invented a fantasy in he head thanks to media exposure. She's a terrible "witness" but is raking in tons of cash making media appearances and is getting a lot of attention because she is willing to distort the truth to support the anti-Zimmerman lynch mob. By contrast the actual witness who saw the assault, known only as John, has not shown his face in the media at all, has made no paid appearances, and was interviewed by FOX one day after the shooting, before any media attention, when his memory was fresh and not perverted by media exposure. User was temp banned for having over 100 posts in this thread alone, and for presenting witness testimony and media speculation as fact
I was just going by the post that he was banned for.
|
On March 24 2012 11:47 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 11:02 taintmachine wrote:On March 24 2012 07:37 cz wrote:
Why ban zaqwe? The post that got him the ban was fine, certainly no worse than average for the past 5 pages I've been posting here for. It's also well within the context of the discussion, not at all derailing the discussion.
Really bad ban from someone who I think has a different view on the discussion at hand. if TL is banning people for making statements not backed by facts, then i should start reporting people about 70 pages back. i mean, someone did kind of set the tone for the thread if we look at the first post after the op He was banned because he had 100 of his 107 posts in this thread and he was presenting media speculation and the witness testimony on his side as fact instead of possible evidence.
like many other people in this thread? i am pretty sure that is not the reason for the ban. its much much more complicated than that. regardless, this isnt the place to discuss it. automated ban list thread.
Zaqwe was just temp banned for 2 days by HawaiianPig.
That account was created on 2012-03-23 04:03:14 and had 109 posts.
Reason: Your unfounded opinions are causing an unnecessary amount of unrest in the Trayvon Martin thread. Take a break.
edit: well, i had hoped that it wasnt just based on the fact that he was citing the same article over and over, but im not really sure. see guy above who quoted the ban reason in the actual thread. mine is from the ban list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
