The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.
Forum rules
IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Mother Theresa » 28 Apr 2012, 16:05

Tigerman wrote:
bileduct wrote:You stated that the girlfriend's testimony supports Zimmerman in that it proves Trayvon instigated the confrontation with Zimmerman. The actual ABC Report, which all of the reports you have produced are based on, clearly shows ABC News paraphrasing the girlfriend as saying that Zimmerman cornered Martin and a conversation took place.


If the conversation took place as reported, it does indicate that TM initiated the confrontation.


I haven't been following the story closely in the news and I haven't read this thread, but I take issue with the suggestion that the confrontation might have been started by Trayvon Martin. Isn't it undisputed that TM was an unarmed teen walking home from the store and Zimmerman followed him continuously for quite some time, even when instructed by 911 that he should not follow him, but he continued to do so and then, according to the girlfriend, Martin called her, frightened because someone was following him, uncertain who that person was or what were his intentions, and he wondering how he could escape the guy?

That, to me, sounds like a clear case of Zimmerman starting the confrontation: big, hulking dude following a scared kid in the dark. Even if Martin did then attack Zimmerman (I have no idea whether the evidence supports that or not), I would still say Zimmerman started the confrontation by following him like that and creating such fear that Martin felt he was in danger and had to strike first to protect himself.

It's ludicrous to argue Zimmerman was justified in then shooting the kid -- in "self defense" -- because he was attacked by the kid. For christsake, how can it be self defense to track down a small defenseless victim, get so close he's terror-stricken, and then when he lashes out in fear to blast him with a hidden gun and claim you feared for your life? If it weren't so stupid and tragic I'd post a :lol:
"The internet is a monster over which we have no control. We can’t even turn it off." Jeremy Clarkson
Forumosan avatar
Mother Theresa
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 12159
Joined: 13 Sep 2002, 07:53
Location: Taipei
14 Recommends(s)
44 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Tigerman » 28 Apr 2012, 16:27

Mother Theresa wrote:I haven't been following the story closely in the news and I haven't read this thread, but I take issue with the suggestion that the confrontation might have been started by Trayvon Martin. Isn't it undisputed that TM was an unarmed teen walking home from the store and Zimmerman followed him continuously for quite some time, even when instructed by 911 that he should not follow him, but he continued to do so and then, according to the girlfriend, Martin called her, frightened because someone was following him, uncertain who that person was or what were his intentions, and he wondering how he could escape the guy?

That, to me, sounds like a clear case of Zimmerman starting the confrontation: big, hulking dude following a scared kid in the dark. Even if Martin did then attack Zimmerman (I have no idea whether the evidence supports that or not), I would still say Zimmerman started the confrontation by following him like that and creating such fear that Martin felt he was in danger and had to strike first to protect himself.

It's ludicrous to argue Zimmerman was justified in then shooting the kid -- in "self defense" -- because he was attacked by the kid. For christsake, how can it be self defense to track down a small defenseless victim, get so close he's terror-stricken, and then when he lashes out in fear to blast him with a hidden gun and claim you feared for your life? If it weren't so stupid and tragic I'd post a :lol:




Florida law also allows an instigator to use deadly force in certain situations:



GZ is approximately 5'7" tall and is hardly what I'd call big and hulky. TM was over 6 feet tall.
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17407
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
232 Recommends(s)
156 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Mother Theresa » 28 Apr 2012, 16:54

I'm vaguely familiar with Florida's Stand YOur Ground law and I'm aware that a (the?) key question is whether, although Zimmerman may have acted like a total idiot, yahoo cowboy, his behavior may, nonetheless, have been lawful pursuant to that law.

However, I still don't see how one could possibly refer to Martin as the aggressor or suggest he initiated the confrontation, when it seems completely obvious the only reason they may have wrestled on the ground and Martin was shot to death is because Zimmerman followed him around to the point that Martin was scared he was about to be attacked. That is, it was clearly Martin defending himself and not the other way around, even if Martin threw the first punch (which I understand we don't know).

So it seems absurd to argue Zimmerman may have "reasonably believed" it was necessary to shoot Martin "to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself." If he wanted to prevent his own imminent death or great bodily harm, he shouldn't have followed around the unarmed kid while packing a gun and scaring the kid into defending himself.

If I were a teen walking home late at night in the dark and some weird dude started following me around, and I tried to escape him but he kept following me, and I called my girlfriend and she told me run away from him, but he kept coming after me, I can imagine that I, too, might tackle the guy and start wailing on him out of fear (if that's what happened), and in such a case -- again -- it seems absurd to refer to the followed as the aggressor and the follower as defending himself.

If Zimmerman wanted to defend himself, he should've walked away instead of harassing the poor kid literally to death.
"The internet is a monster over which we have no control. We can’t even turn it off." Jeremy Clarkson
Forumosan avatar
Mother Theresa
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 12159
Joined: 13 Sep 2002, 07:53
Location: Taipei
14 Recommends(s)
44 Recognized(s)

6000

The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby headhonchoII » 28 Apr 2012, 17:44

There is a clear lack of evidence as to what actually happened, but in most countries you would get manslaughter for a street fight in which the unarmed participant died in an altercation with an armed person. What is it they call, excessive use of force?

Take out all the other irrelevant background story and that is really what you have.

I realize the US has it's own peculiarities of course.
I can remember the fourth of July runnin' through the backwood bare.
And I can still hear my old hound dog barkin' chasin' down a hoodoo there
Chasin' down a hoodoo there.
headhonchoII
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 12149
Joined: 26 Aug 2002, 10:40
Location: Taipei
1476 Recommends(s)
553 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Tigerman » 28 Apr 2012, 18:27

headhonchoII wrote:There is a clear lack of evidence as to what actually happened, but in most countries you would get manslaughter for a street fight in which the unarmed participant died in an altercation with an armed person. What is it they call, excessive use of force?

Take out all the other irrelevant background story and that is really what you have.

I realize the US has it's own peculiarities of course.


Not so peculiar. Its quite possible that GZ could be deemed by a jury guilty of manslaughter. This can happen if the prosecution fails to make its case for 2nd degree murder. The jury would be permitted to find GZ guilty of a lesser crime even if they disagree with the prosecutions charges re 2nd degree murder.

Also, not so peculiar, the US, like most common law jurisdictions allows the affirmative defense of self defense. If GZ can show that he acted in self defense and that the defense is available to him, he will be acquitted.
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17407
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
232 Recommends(s)
156 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Mother Theresa » 28 Apr 2012, 18:58

But honestly, Tigerman, doesn't it seem a little peculiar that, in a developed nation with the world's oldest living constitution and a highly-sophisticated legal system, it's possible that it does not constitute a crime for a guy to walk down the street with a hidden gun, start following an unarmed teenager, block after block after block, to the point that the kid gets scared, a confrontation ensues, they armed man shoots the kid to death, and he is then exonerated because he claims he was acting in self-defense and feared for his life from the kid that he was following around?

I do. I find that bizarre and illogical.
"The internet is a monster over which we have no control. We can’t even turn it off." Jeremy Clarkson
Forumosan avatar
Mother Theresa
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 12159
Joined: 13 Sep 2002, 07:53
Location: Taipei
14 Recommends(s)
44 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Tigerman » 28 Apr 2012, 19:41

Mother Theresa wrote:But honestly, Tigerman, doesn't it seem a little peculiar that, in a developed nation with the world's oldest living constitution and a highly-sophisticated legal system, it's possible that it does not constitute a crime for a guy to walk down the street with a hidden gun, start following an unarmed teenager, block after block after block, to the point that the kid gets scared, a confrontation ensues, they armed man shoots the kid to death, and he is then exonerated because he claims he was acting in self-defense and feared for his life from the kid that he was following around?

I do. I find that bizarre and illogical.


I like very much that we require the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that those it charges with a crime are guilty of that crime.

The facts are not exactly as you have described them above. There are many possible ways that the incident might have played out, and we don't know exactly how it did.

Its possible that GZ was a jerk, and that he stalked TM, and that he wanted to cause a confrontation so that he could use his gun to kill TM. Its just as likely, however, that it didn't go down that way at all. It is possible that TM initiated the fight. If he did, then I think GZ has a pretty good argument for self defense.

You know that the state's burden is a difficult one to meet, and that by comparison, GZ's burden is easy to meet.

I think its interesting that so many are willing to characterize GZ as a really foul person and look at TM as a pure little angel. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between those two extremes, and as such, it doesn't strike me as an impossibility that TM (or GZ) started the fight. If TM started the fight, I can understand him being angry, scared, annoyed... but, none of those are a valid reason to start a fight under any theory of self defense.

If GZ is guilty, its the state's responsibility to prove that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I think its going to be difficult to do so for 2nd degree murder, based on the evidence currently known (to us).
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17407
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
232 Recommends(s)
156 Recognized(s)

6000

The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby flike » 28 Apr 2012, 19:44

Mother Theresa wrote:But honestly, Tigerman, doesn't it seem a little peculiar that, in a developed nation with the world's oldest living constitution and a highly-sophisticated legal system, it's possible that it does not constitute a crime for a guy to walk down the street with a hidden gun, start following an unarmed teenager, block after block after block, to the point that the kid gets scared, a confrontation ensues, they armed man shoots the kid to death, and he is then exonerated because he claims he was acting in self-defense and feared for his life from the kid that he was following around?

I do. I find that bizarre and illogical.

You find it bizarre and illogical that such a possibility exists? hmmm. I suspect you're overstating your case. So do you think Zimmerman should be denied a trial?
"It is a privilege to be the stand-in for Spencer Tracy. Tracy is a fine actor, but he is most important because he understands why it is necessary to take orders from the front office." Louis B. Mayer, 1938 Academy Awards ceremony

"Why do you not sit on my lap when we talk contracts, like my other stars do?" Louis B. Mayer to Luise Rainer, 1937

"His hand always touched my right tit whenever he said the word 'daughter'." Joan Crawford, regarding Louis B. Mayer, 1938
flike
Mandarin Marvel (Guóyǔ gāoshǒu)
Mandarin Marvel (Guóyǔ gāoshǒu)
 
Posts: 1876
Joined: 16 Nov 2003, 09:06
23 Recommends(s)
24 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby bileduct » 28 Apr 2012, 19:50

Tigerman wrote:The facts are not exactly as you have described them above.

Seriously, how would you know?
bileduct
Càiniǎo
Càiniǎo
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 27 Apr 2012, 13:13

6000

Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Tigerman » 28 Apr 2012, 19:57

Tigerman wrote:The facts are not exactly as you have described them above.


bileduct wrote:Seriously, how would you know?


Seriously? Because certain facts are left out of that description.

Are you suggesting that the facts are exactly as MT described them?
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17407
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
232 Recommends(s)
156 Recognized(s)

6000

PreviousNext




 
 
 x

Return to International Politics



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 5 visitors

We don't have a boyfriend in every city. And our median age these days is 44.
From "13 Things Your Flight Attendant Won't Tell You"