or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

killing Trayvon - Page 166

post #2476 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I'm really annoyed that you guys will go on for days about how Zimmerman shouldn't have put himself in a position where Martin could attack him, then call Martin "an innocent kid" as if him attacking Zimmerman was an accident.
LIke I said: either Zimmerman was reckless or Martin was innocent. You can't have it both ways.

It's because people don't want to feel stupid for jumping to conclusions so early and saying that Martin was completely innocent. If they are being honest with themselves then they can see this is a pretty open and shut case.
post #2477 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraiche View Post

My problem with the Zimmerman case is the fact that Zimmerman had multiple opportunities to avoid confrontation and ultimately Trayvons death.
He had no reason to leave his car. He had no reason to engage in a conversation let alone a fight with Trayvon. And armed with a gun, he could have kept his distance when approaching him. He could fire warning shots or shoot his leg.
He deliberately made a series of bad decisions that put in him a dangerous position. Hypothetically, if I walk up to a gang banger at night to engage in a conversation that I knew would put me at risk, how can I claim self defense? It's like calling the Iraq war self defense.

I disagree - Zimmerman had a right to do these things, subject to the standard behaviours controls for negligence/recklessness. My feeling is that these action were part of series of rather negligent behaviors that perhaps gave Trayvon the impression that he was being stalked/followed. Whether that should get a criminal punishment or should be relegated to serious civil liability is something I go back and forth on. It might be that the proper punishment here for Zimmerman's behavior should really be a massive civil suit for negligent death. Unfortunately, I suspect that the FL self-defense statute works to remove civil liability as well.

Also, the idea that you can do "warning shots" or "shoot somebody in the leg" is a goddamn hollywood fiction. For example, I think shooting someone the leg can kill them from bleeding out if it hits the major leg artery (someone can correct me on this, but from what I remember from physiology is there is a major artery on the inside thigh, correct?)
post #2478 of 6250
And your "warning shot" is likely to injure an innocent person or cause damage to someone's property.
post #2479 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

Are you suggesting that if you walk up to a gang banger and insult him, justice demands that you allow yourself to be murdered?

Not at all.

I am suggesting that there is a difference between self-defense and provocation. Stand your ground laws should not apply to provocation.

If it was Martin who approached Zimmerman, that would be self-defense. However, this was not the case.
post #2480 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraiche View Post

Not at all.
I am suggesting that there is a difference between self-defense and provocation. Stand your ground laws should not apply to provocation.
If it was Martin who approached Zimmerman, that would be self-defense. However, this was not the case.

Asking someone what they are doing is not provocation. Self defense is self defense, even if you are a jerk.
post #2481 of 6250
I honestly don't know what you people are arguing at this point. Are you saying that approaching Martin and asking him what he was doing makes Zimmerman a murderer? Or that he is guilty of some crime you just made up that amounts to "asking for it"? I mean, I seriously don't get it.
post #2482 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Because a normal innocent who is wrongly suspected wouldn't respond with violence?
You can't envision a situation where a person realizes that they're being pursued for no apparent reason and feels threatened enough to defend them self? With their fists, of course, not with deadly force.
Quote:
The fact is that it's Martin whose actions were unusual, stupid, and criminal here, not Zimmerman's.
plain.gif You are seriously emotionally vested in character assassination against Martin, aren't you? There's no evidence that Martin was doing anything illegal at the time (prior to possibly jumping Zimmerman). You can link together various factors to indicate that he might have been the type of person who might rob a house, but Zimmerman wouldn't have known any of it.
post #2483 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

Asking someone what they are doing is not provocation. Self defense is self defense, even if you are a jerk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

I honestly don't know what you people are arguing at this point. Are you saying that approaching Martin and asking him what he was doing makes Zimmerman a murderer? Or that he is guilty of some crime you just made up that amounts to "asking for it"? I mean, I seriously don't get it.

I think people are wondering to what extent you can provoke a fight and then claim self defense when it goes sour. If you run down someone on the street and start screaming at them, they feel threatened and slug you, are you justified in shooting them? That doesn't seem right intuitively, but obviously that's not a legal justification.
post #2484 of 6250
Well, no. Every self defense statute specifies "a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury". A punch in the face doesn't count. Throwing someone to the ground and ramming their head into the concrete probably does.
post #2485 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

I think people are wondering to what extent you can provoke a fight and then claim self defense when it goes sour. If you run down someone on the street and start screaming at them, they feel threatened and slug you, are you justified in shooting them? That doesn't seem right intuitively, but obviously that's not a legal justification.

This.

I know what stand your ground is from a common sense perspective. Same goes with lethal force in self defense. How can anyone with any level of common sense just dismiss this whole thing with so many out of place circumstances?

To me some of this is legitimate and then on the other hand it reminds me of vigilantism.
post #2486 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

Well, no. Every self defense statute specifies "a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury". A punch in the face doesn't count. Throwing someone to the ground and ramming their head into the concrete probably does.

I'll disagree with this. A punch in the face from a big guy, boxer or high ranking martial artist can easily cause serious bodily harm or death. If, as you point out, the person perceives the threat imminent they can use lethal force. It's not about any particular act, it's about perceived threat. What will matter is whether or not others would perceive the threat in the same way.
post #2487 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

Well, no. Every self defense statute specifies "a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury". A punch in the face doesn't count. Throwing someone to the ground and ramming their head into the concrete probably does.

Probably learned that technique from the cops, who seem to do just that on a regular basis with no repercussions.
post #2488 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post

I'll disagree with this. A punch in the face from a big guy, boxer or high ranking martial artist can easily cause serious bodily harm or death. If, as you point out, the person perceives the threat imminent they can use lethal force. It's not about any particular act, it's about perceived threat. What will matter is whether or not others would perceive the threat in the same way.

It's not about perceived threat so much as whether that perception was reasonable. That's a question for the jury.
post #2489 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

You can't envision a situation where a person realizes that they're being pursued for no apparent reason and feels threatened enough to defend them self? With their fists, of course, not with deadly force.
plain.gif You are seriously emotionally vested in character assassination against Martin, aren't you? There's no evidence that Martin was doing anything illegal at the time (prior to possibly jumping Zimmerman). You can link together various factors to indicate that he might have been the type of person who might rob a house, but Zimmerman wouldn't have known any of it.

He didn't do anything illegal--until he jumped Zimmerman. The last part is the rub, isn't it? You know, at this point, we really have two stories.

The first is Zimmerman's--that he watched Martin from his truck, followed Martin a hundred feet or so and turned around. Martin backtracked, approached him, said something like "What's your problem?" then attacked him. Then we have the girl on the phone, who says Martin was worried by Zimmerman following him. So far so good. But they meet up somehow anyway, she doesn't know who approached who or what, but Martin says "Why are you following me?" and presumably Zimmerman attacks Martin. The girl's story is dubious because she waited so long to tell it, and because of the time involved (if her story is believed, Martin must have been walking away from Zimmerman at a pretty leisurely pace since he had three or four minutes and only covered a hundred feet or so if he didn't backtrack) -- but whatever.

Anyway, neither the girl nor Zimmerman describes Martin as attacking Zimmerman in self-defense as you seem to postulate.
post #2490 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

He didn't do anything illegal--until he jumped Zimmerman. The last part is the rub, isn't it?
It gets to the nut of this issue. What happened in the moments leading up to the shooting? All this shit you keep bringing up about the pot in his system (zomg it might have led him to be casing houses!), school suspensions, "burglary tools" wtf that means, means nothing other than fighting a media narrative that you don't like.
Quote:
You know, at this point, we really have two stories.
The first is Zimmerman's--that he watched Martin from his truck, followed Martin a hundred feet or so and turned around. Martin backtracked, approached him, said something like "What's your problem?" then attacked him. Then we have the girl on the phone, who says Martin was worried by Zimmerman following him. So far so good. But they meet up somehow anyway, she doesn't know who approached who or what, but Martin says "Why are you following me?" and presumably Zimmerman attacks Martin. The girl's story is dubious because she waited so long to tell it, and because of the time involved (if her story is believed, Martin must have been walking away from Zimmerman at a pretty leisurely pace since he had three or four minutes and only covered a hundred feet or so if he didn't backtrack) -- but whatever.
Anyway, neither the girl nor Zimmerman describes Martin as attacking Zimmerman in self-defense as you seem to postulate.

I was putting that out there because you said the only reason someone might attack someone who was pursuing them was because they were a criminal. That's obviously absurd, and just another part of your continued effort to needlessly paint Martin as a criminal thug. Either he attacked Zimmerman first or he didn't. That's really all that mattered. Him being a criminal (or not) in any other context is pretty much meaningless.

As the story develops, it appears that Zimmerman didn't do anything illegal by Florida laws. That doesn't mean that Martin was a scumbag deserving of being gunned down, which appears to be the narrative you want to paint.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon