Neighborhood watch shooting in FL

RuperT · Post by **RuperT** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:29 pm

How about if anyone kills anyone, they go to jail? If it was justified, they go to Hero's Respite for a year, where they get their MBA or something instead of hard labor?

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:31 pm

Blackhawk wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote: How about if you kill someone, a criminal act, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that the killing was justified? A claim of self-defense that is deemed true until disproven can be problematic, especially when the the witness best equipped to evaluate it is dead.
What if you kill someone in not-quite self defense (ie - guilty of murder), and can't prove self defense?

What if you honestly kill someone in self defense (ie - not guilty), and can't prove self defense?

Both individuals above would be punished in the hypothetical system.

Both individuals might go free in the current system.

Which is better?

Yeah, I get the problem. But I do think that a de facto presumption of truth for a self-defense claim is not the answer. I'd lean towards self-defense claims having to be evaluated and, perhaps not have to be "proven" true, but deemed plausible before someone is allowed to walk. In the Zimmerman case, the burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove that it was not self-defense. The jury concluded that there was not enough evidence for this. But what if the defense had some responsibility to convince the jury that self-defense was plausible in this scenario? Imagine if someone did kill another in cold blood, and there were no witnesses. Are we really going to say that the perpetrator can just claim self-defense and the burden is on the prosecution to prove otherwise? That sounds crazy to me.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:37 pm

Captain Caveman wrote:Imagine if someone did kill another in cold blood, and there were no witnesses. Are we really going to say that the perpetrator can just claim self-defense and the burden is on the prosecution to prove otherwise? That sounds crazy to me.

It happens, but it is rare and getting rarer. It is unusual that there is absolutely no evidence, especially since a genuine self defense claim is usually made right away. Evidence has to match the claim. If even one piece contradicts the details of the self defense story, the case is shot.

But, yeah - people do get away with murder sometimes, usually because our system is designed with protecting the innocent being a higher priority than punishing the guilty (something I agree strongly with.)

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:44 pm

Captain Caveman wrote:
Blackhawk wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote: How about if you kill someone, a criminal act, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that the killing was justified? A claim of self-defense that is deemed true until disproven can be problematic, especially when the the witness best equipped to evaluate it is dead.
What if you kill someone in not-quite self defense (ie - guilty of murder), and can't prove self defense?

What if you honestly kill someone in self defense (ie - not guilty), and can't prove self defense?

Both individuals above would be punished in the hypothetical system.

Both individuals might go free in the current system.

Which is better?
Yeah, I get the problem. But I do think that a de facto presumption of truth for a self-defense claim is not the answer. I'd lean towards self-defense claims having to be evaluated and, perhaps not have to be "proven" true, but deemed plausible before someone is allowed to walk. In the Zimmerman case, the burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove that it was not self-defense. The jury concluded that there was not enough evidence for this. But what if the defense had some responsibility to convince the jury that self-defense was plausible in this scenario? Imagine if someone did kill another in cold blood, and there were no witnesses. Are we really going to say that the perpetrator can just claim self-defense and the burden is on the prosecution to prove otherwise? That sounds crazy to me.

My problem is that I don't doubt this was self defense but I don't think he should have inserted himself into a situation that made self defense necessary. Somehow examining how do you discourage that act is what I'm thinking or how/why do you attach retribution to that. I have no problems with the idea that Zimmerman ultimately shot the kid because he feared for his life. The anxiety doesn't stem from that. It's the stalking. The confrontation. The lead up that made self defense necessary.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:00 pm

Self-defense isn't even close to a get out of jail free card. Jodi Arias as a recent very public example.

gameoverman · Post by **gameoverman** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:58 pm

El Guapo wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:
gameoverman wrote: The President has got a lot of nerve with his statements because he's ordering the killing of people around the world without them even being charged with a crime. I'm sure they're all guilty of something though, just like people are sure Zimmerman is guilty of something.
signed,
Guantanamo Bay
I don't get the relevance here. I gather Obama's using this as a moment to talk about race relations in America. That seems an appropriate thing for a President to do. And I'm not sure what drone warfare and guantanamo bay and whatnot have to do with this.

Since the legal process of arrest, trial, conviction, sentencing is not being carried out, I think we can say that many of the people detained and/or killed have been done so on the basis of a profile. You're are riding in a car with So and So? You're a target for a drone strike, even if no one knows what exactly you are guilt of, if anything. That's the whole basis for pre-emptive strikes, you have a profile saying this is going to happen in the future so let's deal with it now.

So I think it's wrong for the President to decry profiling when he's leading the charge on that end. He knows what it feels like to be profiled himself, but he's doing it to others. In short, if I was advising the President I'd suggest he focus on things like changing the laws that are causing problems(SYG, mandatory sentencing) rather than criticize things that law enforcement and the intelligence agencies are doing themselves on a widespread basis.

For instance, the woman who got 20 years for firing a shot that killed no one actually got 20 years for committing a gun related crime with a mandatory sentence. That's a problem with the laws in Florida, not racism in the US.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:56 pm

"The tragedy wouldn't have happened if Trayvon Martin was armed" said the NRA never.

Sorry in one of those Friday moods.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:06 pm

If every leader was prevented from speaking about injustices or wrongs because they might be hypocrites by doing so, we'd have a hell of a lot more problems in this world than we do now.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:18 pm

YellowKing wrote:Yet again, there was no evidence in this particular case that Martin was racially profiled. That's not me saying it, that's the FBI saying it. I don't know how many times we have to reiterate that.

Correct. And in fact Zimmerman actually led a charge against a police officer's son for beating a black homeless man before this incident ever happened.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:23 pm

silverjon wrote:
YellowKing wrote:Yet again, there was no evidence in this particular case that Martin was racially profiled. That's not me saying it, that's the FBI saying it. I don't know how many times we have to reiterate that.
It has nothing to do with the evidence.

It has to do with people who live every day with the knowledge that some of the people they encounter *are* profiling them, and letting this be known via their actions (like crossing the street, locking a car door, clutching a purse tighter).

When you live with that, I don't think you can help but wonder if it happened to someone else with a more fatal outcome.

I've been similarly profiled for being a punk in my teens... but at least that was a result of my choices.

This case had ZERO to do with race before the usual suspects whipped the crowds into a racial frenzy. The ONLY thing that it happened to have was a black teen being shot by someone that wasn't black. There has been absolutely zero evidence (or even anything that you could let your imagination connect dots on) that makes this a racial incident in ANY way. The FBI investigated and couldn't find any racist connections with George Zimmerman. He's had a history of advocating for a black homeless victim, etc.

Was he innocent in this case? I have absolutely no idea. He used poor judgement at best, created a situation that caused Martin's death at worst, and most likely something in between.

dbt1949 · Post by **dbt1949** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:26 pm

Martin could have been me.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:32 pm

Fireball1244 wrote:You can change the law to say, however, that if you are in a situation where you come to feel that your life or safety is at risk, and you have the ability and opportunity to flee, you have an obligation to do so.

So you want someone who is confronted with a life threatening situation to turn their back, thus putting themselves in a compromising position with an attacker. I'm sure criminals will be elated to know that all they have to fear is a person trying to outrun them.

And you are going to come after me with criminal charges if someone confronts me with a life threatening situation and I try to defend myself? I have to convince a jury that I tried to get away without getting killed in the process.

Oh, and for the 100th time Zimmerman waived his Stand Your Ground hearing. This has nothing to do with that law. He likely would have lost that hearing in the first place because he is the one that approached Martin.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:37 pm

hepcat wrote:If every leader was prevented from speaking about injustices or wrongs because they might be hypocrites by doing so, we'd have a hell of a lot more problems in this world than we do now.

If Martin was white, would our white black President have used the office of the Presidency to talk about the case?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:39 pm

If tensions were this high in that case, why wouldn't he?

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:40 pm

hepcat wrote:Why wouldn't he have?

I'm confused now. Mine was supposed to be a joke.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:41 pm

msduncan wrote:
hepcat wrote:Why wouldn't he have?
I'm confused now. Mine was supposed to be a joke.

Ah, my apologies then. I thought you were one of those folks lambasting the president for trying to calm people down in his latest speech.

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:45 pm

hepcat wrote:If tensions were this high in that case, why wouldn't he?

Not to fan the flames but honestly I don't think he would. Just my opinion though.

-

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:46 pm

hepcat wrote:
msduncan wrote:
hepcat wrote:Why wouldn't he have?
I'm confused now. Mine was supposed to be a joke.
Ah, my apologies then. I thought you were one of those folks lambasting the president for trying to calm people down in his latest speech.

Actually I think he used his unique position to try to calm tensions. If they try to bring civil rights charges against Zimmerman with little to no evidence, I will disagree with that strongly.

I liked that he urged Americans to dialog on race and told the politicians to stay out of it.

Outrage meter low for me on his speech.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:12 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote:
hepcat wrote:If tensions were this high in that case, why wouldn't he?
Not to fan the flames but honestly I don't think he would. Just my opinion though.

-

If Martin had been white and Zimmerman black, and the resulting tension after the trial was this high, I have no reason to believe he wouldn't be speaking up in an effort to calm things down. Why do you believe he wouldn't?

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:21 pm

hepcat wrote:If Martin had been white and Zimmerman black, and the resulting tension after the trial was this high, I have no reason to believe he wouldn't be speaking up in an effort to calm things down. Why do you believe he wouldn't?

He'd be trying to calm people down who were upset that black Zimmerman was going to jail for 30 years. Which, incidentally is why he has to try to calm people down in this scenario.

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:33 pm

hepcat wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote:
hepcat wrote:If tensions were this high in that case, why wouldn't he?
Not to fan the flames but honestly I don't think he would. Just my opinion though.

-
If Martin had been white and Zimmerman black, and the resulting tension after the trial was this high, I have no reason to believe he wouldn't be speaking up in an effort to calm things down. Why do you believe he wouldn't?

I haven't seem anything from him to make me think he would. This is the third time he had inserted himself into a local "racial" issue. I'm not outraged by any means I just don't believe if the situation were reversed that he would be speaking out. At the very least not in the same manner.

-

Victoria Raverna · Post by **Victoria Raverna** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:37 pm

noxiousdog wrote:Self-defense isn't even close to a get out of jail free card. Jodi Arias as a recent very public example.

Was the victim black?

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:41 pm

Victoria Raverna wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:Self-defense isn't even close to a get out of jail free card. Jodi Arias as a recent very public example.
Was the victim black?

One of my animal neighbors let me know that you dreamed about my town the other night.

Victoria Raverna · Post by **Victoria Raverna** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:42 pm

msduncan wrote:
hepcat wrote:If every leader was prevented from speaking about injustices or wrongs because they might be hypocrites by doing so, we'd have a hell of a lot more problems in this world than we do now.
If Martin was white, would our white black President have used the office of the Presidency to talk about the case?

If Martin was white, the president wouldn't have to talk about the case because GZ would be arrested on the spot and found guilty by the court.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:44 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote: I haven't seem anything from him to make me think he would. This is the third time he had inserted himself into a local "racial" issue. I'm not outraged by any means I just don't believe if the situation were reversed that he would be speaking out. At the very least not in the same manner.

-

What have you seen from him that makes you think he wouldn't?

If he were stoking the fires of racial tension, I could agree with you. But he's not. He's trying to do the opposite. If racial tensions were high because a black Zimmerman shot a white Martin, I'm sure he'd speak out as well if it were at this level of national consciousness. Because let's face it: this hasn't been a "local racial issue" for ages. The media made sure of that on day one. It's been nationwide since then.

Victoria Raverna wrote:
msduncan wrote:
hepcat wrote:If every leader was prevented from speaking about injustices or wrongs because they might be hypocrites by doing so, we'd have a hell of a lot more problems in this world than we do now.
If Martin was white, would our white black President have used the office of the Presidency to talk about the case?
If Martin was white, the president wouldn't have to talk about the case because GZ would be arrested on the spot and found guilty by the court.

Easy there. Dunc was just joking.

Redfive · Post by **Redfive** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:48 pm

Victoria Raverna wrote:
msduncan wrote:
hepcat wrote:If every leader was prevented from speaking about injustices or wrongs because they might be hypocrites by doing so, we'd have a hell of a lot more problems in this world than we do now.
If Martin was white, would our white black President have used the office of the Presidency to talk about the case?
If Martin was white, the president wouldn't have to talk about the case because GZ would be arrested on the spot and found guilty by the court.

So there would have been different evidence presented during the trial in your scenario?

stimpy · Post by **stimpy** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:54 pm

How the hell has this not been moved to R&P?

Mods are asleep at the wheel.........unless it's a Daehawk thread, I guess.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:55 pm

I'm pretty sure this is now a social experiment.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:56 pm

If Zimmerman had been black, we wouldn't have heard about the case, as the headlines wouldn't have made it into a national issue about racism - an issue (in this, specific case) that never existed.

As far as I can determine, people are pissed because it reminds them of racism, and they want Zimmerman punished for that.

Racism is real, and there are real racist issues and crimes that could be used to keep the discussions active. This isn't one of those issues.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:57 pm

stimpy wrote:How the hell has this not been moved to R&P?

Mods are asleep at the wheel.........unless it's a Daehawk thread, I guess.

Thread was not started as an R&P topic. That's been a long standing rule of thumb here. Now STFU and go back a few pages and read through the Starr Report I posted.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Blackhawk wrote:If Zimmerman had been black, we wouldn't have heard about the case, as the headlines wouldn't have made it into a national issue about racism - an issue (in this, specific case) that never existed.

As far as I can determine, people are pissed because it reminds them of racism, and they want Zimmerman punished for that.

Racism is real, and there are real racist issues and crimes that could be used to keep the discussions active. This isn't one of those issues.

That is true. However, part of stopping people from feeling that this is a racial issue is understanding WHY such a large number in the black community see it as such. I think that's the dialog that Obama has been trying to initiate and direct.

stimpy · Post by **stimpy** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:04 pm

msduncan wrote:
stimpy wrote:How the hell has this not been moved to R&P?

Mods are asleep at the wheel.........unless it's a Daehawk thread, I guess.
Thread was not started as an R&P topic. That's been a long standing rule of thumb here. Now STFU and go back a few pages and read through the Starr Report I posted.

If you're talking to me, you can go fuck yourself.
I dont give a shit how the thread was started, it has degraded into nothing BUT politics.
Isnt THAT the whole reason we have that forum.

I dont want you dicks cluttering up my NSFW hot girl threads.

Now....piss off.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:14 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:I don't mean this in an insulting way, but you just don't get it. You are looking at this through the lens of a white guy trying to rationally approach the known facts of the case.

RunningMn9, you can't open your mouth without being insulting. Or at the very least smug and condescending.

Yes, I am looking at this through the lens of a white guy. How else can I look at it, being a white guy? But God forbid I try to "rationally approach the known facts of the case." Better to engage in speculation I guess.

And just as you claim I can't know if Zimmerman racially profiled, neither can you. The difference is I at least have some third-party evidence backing my stance up, whereas all you have is the "black guy was the victim, must have been racial profiling" argument.

I'm not saying racial prejudice is not an issue. I'm saying using this case as a springboard for it is buying into the media hype machine.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:26 pm

Victoria Raverna wrote:
msduncan wrote:
hepcat wrote:If every leader was prevented from speaking about injustices or wrongs because they might be hypocrites by doing so, we'd have a hell of a lot more problems in this world than we do now.
If Martin was white, would our white black President have used the office of the Presidency to talk about the case?
If Martin was white, the president wouldn't have to talk about the case because GZ would be arrested on the spot and found guilty by the court.

I disagree.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:40 pm

stimpy wrote:
msduncan wrote:
stimpy wrote:How the hell has this not been moved to R&P?

Mods are asleep at the wheel.........unless it's a Daehawk thread, I guess.
Thread was not started as an R&P topic. That's been a long standing rule of thumb here. Now STFU and go back a few pages and read through the Starr Report I posted.
If you're talking to me, you can go fuck yourself.
I dont give a shit how the thread was started, it has degraded into nothing BUT politics.
Isnt THAT the whole reason we have that forum.

I dont want you dicks cluttering up my NSFW hot girl threads.

Now....piss off.

Hmm... I thought my humor was pretty obvious when I pointed him to the Starr Report link and told him to go read it in response to his complaints that it was an R&P thread.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:21 pm

YellowKing wrote:Yes, I am looking at this through the lens of a white guy. How else can I look at it, being a white guy? But God forbid I try to "rationally approach the known facts of the case." Better to engage in speculation I guess.

And just as you claim I can't know if Zimmerman racially profiled, neither can you.

You can't look at it through any other lens (neither can I). But you (we) can stop acting like our lens is the only one, best one, or right one. We can understand that right or wrong, other frames of reference exist that are formed by a realities that we don't perceive.

I can't know if Zimmerman racially profiled. I don't care whether he did or not. The racial aspect of this case isn't about that. It's about the role of race in how "the system" works. It works very differently for you and me than it does for some. And THAT is what they are pissed about.

This is just another example of that (from their perspective).

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:29 pm

stimpy wrote:How the hell has this not been moved to R&P?

Because mods here don't move threads that topically drift, only ones that were misplaced in the first place. And having recently spent some time at a more heavily moderated forum, I appreciate the hands-off approach more than ever.

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:37 pm

silverjon wrote:
stimpy wrote:How the hell has this not been moved to R&P?
Because mods here don't move threads that topically drift, only ones that were misplaced in the first place. And having recently spent some time at a more heavily moderated forum, I appreciate the hands-off approach more than ever.

+1

-

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:08 am

Unless it gets out of hand, and please let's try to keep it civil, it doesn't really need moving. After 50+ pages anyone who doesn't want to read it knows to ignore it.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:11 am

Rip wrote:
Victoria Raverna wrote: If Martin was white, the president wouldn't have to talk about the case because GZ would be arrested on the spot and found guilty by the court.
I disagree.

If Martin was white, GZ might not have bothered with him in the first place. Or GZ did pursue him, Martin might not have felt the weight of yet another guy following him and maybe questioning him for just walking down the street. Who knows what would have happened. The thing is, he wasn't white.