Slashdot Mirror
Lowell Observatory Pushes To Name an Asteroid "Trayvon"
Flash Modin writes "The observatory where Pluto was discovered is pushing to name an asteroid after a black teenager killed in a controversial confrontation in Florida last year. William Lowell Putnam III says his family has identified with the cause of African American rights, and thus an asteroid named after Trayvon Martin is perfectly appropriate. Putnam is the sole trustee of the observatory, which was founded by Percival Lowell during his search for canals on Mars. Astronomers at the observatory discovered the asteroid in 2000, but it has not been formally named. Putnam has already asked the Minor Planet Center once to designate the asteroid 'Trayvon,' but they told him the designation was 'premature.' Now that there's been a verdict, the observatory is reapplying in hopes the naming body will see things different."
injecting stupid political games into space has got to be a new low in astronomy
What if it then heads towards earth and could destroy our planet... But we intern build ships to fly and land on it and blow it up before it can? is that deja vu?
as long as they also name one Nicole Brown Simpson, I will go for it!
It's being followed by a pale asteroid named Zimmerman.
Table-ized A.I.
I don't really think naming celestial bodies after victims is a good idea.
Astronomers usually want to inspire hope, and looking up at things named after victims just doesn't seem right.
Blow it up!
The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
What is Obummer fixing?
1) Adding more to the national debt than even Monkey Boy Dubya did - Check
2) Failed to end wars in Iraq/Afghanistan despite campaign promise - Check
3) Didn't shut down Gitmo despite campaign promise - Check
4) Signed the extension to the warrantless wiretapping programming despite claiming to be against it before becoming president - Check
5) Enormously expanded the scope NSA surveillance over the general public - Check
6) Starting even more skirmishes in the Middle East that the US has no part in being in - Check
Care to chime in what exactly he's supposedly fixed?
The other side of the coin
Trayvon Martin referred to his intended victim with the racists epithet, 'Creepy-Ass Cracker' before attacking him. George Zimmerman defended himself from the racist. Trayvon died because he was a racist thug on drugs.
Zimmerman should of laid down and taken his beating - cause that's what "keeping it real" means.
(I donated to zimmerman, because that could of been me)
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Putting aside the fact that Martin was a racist thug who got killed by someone in self defense...and that merely bringing his name and media/court situation up he was involved in that is currently still getting people across the country all pissed off at each other if its even discussed...and that this is probably just an attention-whore publicity act...and that I doubt he had much to do in the field of the sciences...what was I talking about? Oh, yeah let's name an asteroid after him. Whatever.
well, my latest beef is that the dude is trying to support people that do this
Syrian Rebels behead 40 people including a 40 day old infant..
AQ vows to slaughter Christians as soon as Obama weakens Assad
Syrian "Freedom Fighters" rape, brutalize, and disfigure an 8 year old child..
Add these to the COUNTLESS other stories of "Rebels" and "Freedom fighters" who are roving in packs.. Capturing, sodomizing, and beheading Christians all throughout the ME and these are the people Obama wants to support. These are the people he want's to give billions of dollars to. These are the people he wants to give fighter jets to. These are the people he thinks should running things in the ME.
But hey.. So they raped a bunch of children to death.. Big deal.. At least they didn't use chemical weapons right?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
"William Lowell Putnam III says his family has identified with the cause of African American rights, and thus an asteroid named after Trayvon Martin is perfectly appropriate."
So a teenager whom a jury said was shot in self-defense (or there was no convincing evidence otherwise) is perfectly appropriate? Might as well name the asteroid "Al Sharpton".
How about a black scientist, like George Washington Carver? Or Mae Jemison or Guion Bluford, since this is space and asteroids we're talking about? Maybe a Rosa or a Frederick or a W.E.B. might have done a thing or two for civil rights and African Americans?
“As I see it, the social fairness showed to Trayvon Martin was very sadly lacking.”
Oh, I don't know, dominating the cable news cycle for months on end, hundreds of thousands of people taking selfies wearing hoodies and national black leaders/celebrities calling for a Double Jeopardy trial and/or punishment for George Zimmerman seems to show some kind of social backing.
Why don't we start enshrining every person that gets shot in a bar fight next?
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
I don't think Trayvon was "George Zimmerman's black."
uppity [úppitee]
adj
presumptuous: behaving in a way that is considered presumptuous and more suited to somebody belonging a higher social class or position (informal)
Hmmm, I don't see physical assault as part of the definition of "uppity." And the only time Trayvon was in a "higher position" was when he was on top of Zimmerman, beating his head into the ground, so that doesn't really work. You must not be using that right. Maybe because you are trying to be incendiary?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Name Asteroid after Trayvon. A few weeks later it collides with a smaller rock, that nudges it into a path such that it turns Miami into a large smoking hole in the ground.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
I might be wrong, but I don't think Zimmerman even knew what race Trayvon Martin was before Martin jumped him.
Whatever might be said of Zimmerman, he didn't follow the kid because he was black. People made poor choices and somebody paid with their life. It's a tragedy, but to turn it into a race issue does a tremendous disservice to all the great people who have worked hard and sacrificed so much to advance civil rights in this country.
When an unarmed black kid is being stalked by someone like you they are just supposed to say yes sir massa sir or you feel entitled to kill them for not knowing their place. I hope that you tell any women out there that if they are being stalked by someone like you that they should just lay back and enjoy it. Otherwise you'll have to kill them and claim you were just standing your ground.
Gezz... if someone told me that this was in "The Onion", I probably would have believed it.
Funny how the recordings don't seem to indicate that.
Nice Dodge.
Course, we're not discussing cars here right?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Perhaps these two will get even bigger asteroids!
We can name some ice chunks in Saturn's belt after all of the black kids beating up and killing white people over Treyvon.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So now the Discovery Channel Telescope wants to get into TV race baiting politics and "entertainment"? Time to let them go full commercial or nonprofit, and defund any public monies.
Checking the transcript, it seems Zimmerman identified him as "looks black" - nonetheless, I believe the testimony was that he didn't know Martin's race when he started following him. He only knew for sure when Martin turned to confront him the first time as he was on the phone with the dispatcher.
Regardless of the details of the case itself, it's pretty clear that Martin was a racist (he used racial insults against Caucasians). He does not deserve to have an asteroid named after him, and if the civil rights movement picks him as a symbol, it will only hurt their cause.
Yes, let's name all of the asteroids after attempted murders who got justice. Nothing political or controversial about that.
I'm looking forward to smoking some illegal drugs, putting on bulky clothing and going out an shoplifting some stuff, then attacking the first cracker that gives me a dirty look. All the evidence of my motivation can be suppressed, and I'll get a space rock named after me too.
Wow. I hope you realize your version goes a lot further than the court verdict.
The court found that there wasn't sufficient proof that Zimmerman initiated the fight, or that he didn't have reasonable grounds to fear for his life.
That's a long way from determining that Martin, initiated the confrontation, tried to kill Zimmerman, shoplifted (first I heard of this), or was going to smoke drugs that evening (irrelevant even if true).
I stole this Sig
If these fools name some hapless piece of drifting interplanetary space debris "Trayvon" in their misguided attempt to glorify a dead, racist, drug-abusing, violent criminal thug, how long until there's an IGG funding drive for development of a "Zimmerman" missile to destroy it?
Kind of a long way to go (in multiple senses of the phrase) to get people interested in space again, isn't it?
I think these people have had far too much time on their hands for far too long.
"Space Madness" has obviously taken hold of this group. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZCiZpph9jo
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
In related news, and in a fitting analogy, the Observatory is recommending that a newly identified black hole be named "Zimmerman."
After all, wasn't Pluto, now no longer a planet, named after a Disney dog?
Right. And wasn't Uranus, no longer an asshole, named after a black hole?
Your macho, thug tirade just convinced me to donate to zimmerman *again*.
If every thug who ever ambushes a stranger and does the "ground and pound" dance gets shot and killed, the world will be a better place.
If they are going to name a space object after him, might I suggest the Unibomber instead...
You might as well, its consistent with the value of everything else you've said.
The post isn't scapegoating anybody but stating facts.
By 2012, more debt was added during Obama's presidency than both of W's terms.
Obama promised to end both wars and close Guantanamo. None of those happened.
Obama signed the warrantless wiretap extension in 2012 after claiming he would end the practice in 2008.
His presidency has seen programs like PRISM vastly expanded beyond what W started.
Lastly, the saber rattling and threats of military strikes against Syria is clearly happening during his presidency.
Martin was a thief and a thug and was headed for bigger trouble but fortunately he was stopped before that happened.
Then who will (unfortunately) stop you before "it" happens?
^--see topic
Wait, what?
Trayvon Martin was literally beating Zimmerman to death. Any hit of Zimmerman's head to the pavement--witnessed by one of the prosecution's witnesses--could have been his last moment alive, without Trayvon even needing to find the gun to use against him.
The fact that you are too stupid or ignorant to recognize that is obvious in the fact that you missed the_Bionic_lemming's point: if Zimmerman did not act, then he would be dead or badly injured by a thug or "bully", completely regardless of the thug's race, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else that you want to associate with the shooting.
After all, who else is going to "ground pound" someone for following them in their neighborhood? Oh, I know: a bully.
Here's to hoping that it's not the_Bionic_lemming that is beaten into some form of social enlightment...
"When Putnam originally suggested the name to Minor Planet Center, they responded, "That's real retarded, sir."
In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
Trayvon was a bully actually. He was bragging in a facebook post about how he slapped a bus driver for something to the effect of looking at him wrong. When caught red handed painting graffiti, he was found with burglary tools and women's jewelry in his backpack by a school staff. Also, apparently the stuff he bought at the convenience store just before his death were for the purposes of making "Purple Drank".
Yeah, and this is the guy they want to name an asteroid after.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
There was absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman initiated the fight considering that Trayvon did not have a mark on him except the fatal gunshot wound.
Considering that it was not until Zimmerman was being "ground pounded", quoting the prosecution witness testimony, it seems pretty obvious what happened here: Zimmerman was overzealous while following a suspicious person walking through his neighborhood, who confronted Zimmerman and then attacked him after not liking whatever response followed, if any. Had Zimmerman been looking to follow and kill a black guy, then he would have pulled his gun before the beginning of the fight, and he would have lost it after having his head repeatedly thrown against the pavement, which would have been Zimmerman's last moments alive on Earth because you do not bash someone's skull into pavement repeatedly to say hello.
The toxicology report showed that Trayvon did have drugs in his system, which is far from irrelevant considering that they alter one's state of mind. He had also been suspended from school because he was suspected of gratifying, which led to the discovery of female jewelry in his backpack and a screwdriver believed to be used to break into lockers.
Trayvon is not a hero. It is doubtful that he is even worth mourning considering that he had amounted to absolutely nothing while undeniably living the life of an unintelligent thug based on his own Twitter feed and friends. Based on the logical course of events, given the evidence, the world would be a better place if he had never made the news (in other words, had the shooting not been linked to race).
I hope to never see the day that this asteroid hits Earth after barely missing the Moon, only to have people turn it around to say that Earth flew into it. That would be quite fitting given its proposed name.
Even if they were Black, themselves. One-drop rule.
So exactly what African American rights is it that William Lowell Putnam III says his family has identified with, and why are they any different than the rights any other person living in the US has? Is it the right to beat up someone because you find them creepy?? To pummel someone just because you think they are following you, even though they haven't made any overtly threatening moves? Simple because someone is a racist and thinks that if a light skinned person is following them the 'crackah' must be up to no good??
.. name your asteroid Trayvon. It will still be an insignificant speck of dust in the universe. Kind of fitting really ... an insignificant asteroid named for someone that tried to kill someone else. That if he had lived could very well be in jail by now.
Or is it some other made-up rights that I'm not aware of???
It's only controversial to those that tried their best to turn it into a race thing instead of a self-defense thing. The racists that forced Florida to have a wasted trial with no real evidence for the prosecution just to appease so many racists. Those that want to ignore the evidence presented in court and play 'what if' games that don't use any facts at all but assumptions made my people who weren't even there.
Go ahead
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
No room in that rainbow for the 80 year old War Veteran beat to death by black punks who look like Obama?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/died-soldier-world-war-ii-vet-killed-beating-fend-attackers-cops-article-1.1438024
Howbout Asteroid Belton, a guy who actually did something for his country?
Or are Asteroids only named for juvenile delinquents.?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Martin was a thief and a thug and was headed for bigger trouble but fortunately he was stopped before that happened.
Sometimes thieves can be taught to not be thieves. Sometimes thugs see the error in their way and change. A dead person cannot be taught to be alive again.
Zimmerman should of laid down and taken his beating - cause that's what "keeping it real" means.
(I donated to zimmerman, because that could of been me)
That happened. Another couple brave black boys beat an 88 year old WWII vet to death. Laying down and taking it is for the infirm or foolish.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/died-soldier-world-war-ii-vet-killed-beating-fend-attackers-cops-article-1.1438024
Oddly, Obama did't jump on TV and claim these punks looked like him.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
There was absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman initiated the fight considering that Trayvon did not have a mark on him except the fatal gunshot wound.
All that the injuries show is that Martin was winning, and outside of Zimmerman's testimony we don't really have evidence that Martin started the fight either.
Considering that it was not until Zimmerman was being "ground pounded", quoting the prosecution witness testimony, it seems pretty obvious what happened here: Zimmerman was overzealous while following a suspicious person walking through his neighborhood, who confronted Zimmerman and then attacked him after not liking whatever response followed, if any.
Assuming that happened the response could be part of an initiation.
Had Zimmerman been looking to follow and kill a black guy, then he would have pulled his gun before the beginning of the fight, and he would have lost it after having his head repeatedly thrown against the pavement, which would have been Zimmerman's last moments alive on Earth because you do not bash someone's skull into pavement repeatedly to say hello.
Not many claim that "Zimmerman been looking to follow and kill a black guy". They claim he followed Martin for no reason, somehow instigated or didn't try to avoid the confrontation (knowing he had a gun), then shot Martin when his life wasn't really in jeopardy.
And really, especially with the other people around Zimmerman wasn't in realistic danger of being killed due to the ground pounding. Though I'll forgive him for panicking and freaking out that his gun might come into play.
Most likely Martin was a teenager who had some issues and was way too ready to start a fight. A guy pissed him off by following him, and a fight started. Martin went in with the objective of beating him up, instead the guy panicked and shot him.
Martin was deserving of some community service and some counselling. He didn't deserve to die.
I stole this Sig
you can't condemn martin's behavior
trayvon martin should be in jail for assault
I'm sorry sir, I think you just condemned his behavior.
Hes referring to the doctored recordings where Zimmerman is made to sounds like he uses a racial epithet. Didnt a news organization have to apologize for airing the doctored recording?
Clearly the black woman on the jury was being racist. And clearly its whiteys fault even when hes not actually white.
Stand your sky!
Table-ized A.I.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57591520-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-neighbor-testifies-trayvon-martin-was-straddling-zimmerman-moments-before-fatal-gunshot/
He saw. I'll take the victim's word when the back of his head is bloodied alongside a swollen face, and an uninvolved party corroborates the story immediately following the incident. Trayvon did not have a mark on him, so it's pretty clear who was on the bottom given the visible, physical damage to Zimmerman.
If you are willfully blind to the evidence, then that's your own fault, but it's time that you stop spreading ignorant information. You may want Trayvon to be innocent, but absolutely nothing points to it, including his own offline and online antics and the prosecution's lead witness admitting that Trayvon used racial slurs immediately before the fight.
some mouth breathing moron thinks he has a right to walk around with a gun
He does. Someone should re-read the constitution, and the law in florida. Just because YOU have contempt for your rights, doesnt mean the courts do.
play cop
He WAS on the neighborhood watch in an area which had suffered a rash of break ins. Come on, this was widely reported.
innocent civilians
Yes, heres the thing, a jury found that Martin WASNT innocent, and that there was grounds for a plea of self-defense. That, too is a right that citizens have.
laws that somehow support this disgusting behavior
Most societies that you would want to live in have both an adversarial court system, and a defense for killing on the grounds of self-defense. Thank goodness that is the case here. What laws, specifically are you thinking of-- hopefully not the "stand your ground" law which had absolutely no relevance to the case?
stand your ground laws, carry/ conceal laws: they have to go
Ah, yes, you were, which indicates you were successfully distracted by the media in a discussion on irrelevant laws. Look through the court transcripts and see if "stand your ground" had any relevance: You will find it did not. The issue at stake was whether Zimmerman was justified in killing Martin in self-defense.
You seem to have bought into the race-card-Zimmerman-was-a-racist story that was spun up by the media, so I really suggest you go back and look at the facts, not the op-eds and commentary that was spun up around the whole issue. The amount of bias that came out in this whole ordeal was astounding, from the doctored recordings, to the doctored photos, to the claims that Zimmerman was white, to the claims that white-on-black violence is anywhere near common (in reality, 80+% of violence is intra-racial-- white-on-white, black-on-black, etc).
I know you think you're making a solid argument, but all you've done is make a bunch of emotional claims which don't reflect anything that was actually entered into evidence in the case.
1. Martin was not stalked. The only concrete evidence presented is that he was followed for roughly 11 seconds, after which several minutes passed before the confrontation happened. Any claims that Zimmerman followed or "stalked" Martin after those 11 seconds are pure speculation.
2. No evidence was presented that Martin was aware that Zimmerman had a gun, and any claim that Martin's behavior was influenced by such knowledge is pure speculation.
3. The claim that Martin's behavior is what a reasonable person, i.e., "most of us", would do is either flat out nonsense, or based on a conjecture that Martin's true behavior was something other than what Zimmerman's testimony claimed.
4. No evidence was presented that Zimmerman tried to "play cop". Observing someone in a public place is not "playing cop" and is a right that everyone has.
5. No evidence was presented that Zimmerman was a "wannabe tough guy" or that his behavior was in anyway an overcompensation for feelings of inadequacy. Any claims otherwise are pure speculation, and are no more likely than Zimmerman's claim that he was just a typical concerned citizen.
6. No evidence was presented that Zimmerman profiled Martin. Any claims otherwise are pure speculation.
7. No evidence was presented that Zimmerman went out looking for a confrontation. Futhermore, no evidence was presented that Zimmerman even went out looking for someone to even observe. The only evidence presented was that Zimmerman, upon observing Martin during a routine activity, intentionally chose to continue to observe Martin.
8. No evidence was presented that Zimmerman profiled Martin or that Zimmerman had a history of prejudicial or racist behavior. Any claim that he behaved differently towards Martin because of his race is pure conjecture.
9. No evidence was presented that Zimmerman was more or less cowardly than an average, reasonable person. (Plus is contradictory to try to label him as both a coward and as someone who was apparently looking for a fight.)
10. If Zimmerman's testimony is true, than he did not confront an "innocent civilian". If we take what Zimmerman said happened at face value, then it was Martin that escalated the situation to criminal behavior and it was Martin who confronted an "innocent civilian".
---
Now, it's possible that everything you claim actually did happen, however as you can see from the list above, your version of what you think happened isn't based on any evidence. It's nothing but conjecture with nothing to back it at all. Even if you give zero weight to Zimmerman's testimony, it doesn't matter, because the version of events that you think happened still have ZERO backing in the evidence that we do have. As much as you want it to be, the Zimmerman case is NOT going to be some watershed moment in the evolution of society. The true "clear thinkers", who are able to look at the case in a rational, and non-emotional way have already decided that justice was served, based on the facts presented.
It seems everyone wants their bit of drama and news headlines these days. Nothing is sacred anymore - doing things with a modicum of respect and class is too boring.
Having said that, science doesn't have to be completely serious all the time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9007_James_Bond)
"Holy crap! A weapon just floating in space!"
And really, especially with the other people around Zimmerman wasn't in realistic danger of being killed due to the ground pounding.
Well you definitely flunked out of medical school. And even if he wasn't, permanent brain damage is reason enough. And even if that wasn't, then you still cannot say that a reasonable person would not fear for their life in that situation.
Martin was deserving of some community service and some counselling. He didn't deserve to die.
Perhaps not, but that's a risk you always take when you kick someone's ass with a sidewalk.
I feel like we're sinking deeper each and every time I find myself saying "We have just reached a new low in stupidity."
stand your ground laws, carry/ conceal laws: they have to go
I completely agree. Do you know how hard it is to make a living as a mugger when you have to worry about people fighting back? And the damn women, they carry guns in their purses these days. Back in the day, you could put a knife to her throat, drag her in an alley and rape her, no questions asked. Now you're constantly worried about some bitch thinking she's the Kill Bill chick and wants to show some resistance. Since when is it worth my life to stop robbery or rape? Am I not a person too?
Well you definitely flunked out of medical school. And even if he wasn't, permanent brain damage is reason enough. And even if that wasn't, then you still cannot say that a reasonable person would not fear for their life in that situation.
It happens but as evidenced by the lack of dead MMA fighters it's not that common. And I'm not saying that a reasonable person wouldn't fear for their life, I don't think it's a reasonable fear but reasonable people panic all the time.
I stole this Sig
But even if those didn't exist, you cannot reasonably compare a controlled fight on a special stage with doctors and judges standing around to stop the fight if it gets out of hand with a street brawl on concrete and no one there.
I don't think it's a reasonable fear but reasonable people panic all the time.
A stranger is on top of you, bashing your head on the ground with no sign of stopping. You don't think that it's a reasonable fear that you're going to lose your life?
Trying to name an asteroid after Martin is an overt political act that has no place in the naming of such bodies. It's absurd and wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalities_in_mixed_martial_arts_contests
But even if those didn't exist, you cannot reasonably compare a controlled fight on a special stage with doctors and judges standing around to stop the fight if it gets out of hand with a street brawl on concrete and no one there.
But there were bystanders around who had called the police. They very well could have stepped in if the fight got out of hand.
A stranger is on top of you, bashing your head on the ground with no sign of stopping. You don't think that it's a reasonable fear that you're going to lose your life?
Reasonable enough to be scared? Definitely.
Reasonable enough to kill them. No.
But then again I could panic and I think I'd be perfectly justified in doing so, which is why it's probably a good thing I don't carry a gun.
I stole this Sig
I guess this has been a very long time coming then--since the Revolutionary War--because the US has had gun rights the entire time.
You cannot, in one sentence, say that Trayvon should be in prison for assault, and then follow it up by calling him an innocent man. He either is innocent, or he is guilty of assault; he cannot be both.
Not supporting Trayvon is not the same as supporting Zimmerman's initial behavior: following Trayvon. This certainly triggered Trayvon, but at the end of the day, it was still Trayvon that was senselessly beating Zimmerman to death. Had Trayvon told that "cracker" to go to hell without touching him (let alone slamming his head into the pavement repeatedly), then one of two things would have happened: Trayvon would have been killed in cold blood or Trayvon would still be alive today.
Both outcomes are dependent on Zimmerman, but the point that he certainly took the beating of his life before fatally wounding Trayvon indicates that Trayvon initiated the fight, which leads to a valid self defense. Having one's head slammed against the pavement repeatedly is indicative of imminent danger, and whether Zimmerman responded with a rock, knife, screwdriver, or gun, it is irrelevant. Zimmerman waited until the appropriate bodily limit before escalating in a situation that Trayvon directly created by behaving sketchily, walking through the backyards of a neighborhood with a neighborhood watch, at night during a hard rain.
This does not justify Zimmerman following Trayvon. At the same time, it does not mean it was unjustified either. It just makes it harder to rest the sole blame onto Trayvon, but with-or-without a gun, I see no problem in defending one's neighborhood from would-be predators. If Trayvon were a reasonable person, then Zimmerman's head would not have been bruised, bloodied and visually distorted, and he would most likely be alive today.
Frankly, your description of Zimmerman is no different than the supposed people you would rather perform the confrontation: the police. Yet, they are just people like the rest of us and often times they are deemed the flunkies of our area (how many people describe the average police officer politely?). If I see a hooded figure suspiciously walking through my area's backyard, then I will call in the police. But I am hoping that a cop shows up with his gun, looking to confront the person.
Society is not suddenly filled with tough guys. Society is suddenly filled with a bunch of weak-minded people. Nothing has changed over the years except the decision that the criminal has somehow become the victim. You literally made the decision in three sentences by changing him from a mentally-convicted criminal to an innocent.
Perhaps the idea that the "tough guy" is the one carrying the gun, at least theoretically for one's own protection, should be inverted. Trayvon was the tough guy that decided he could beat the hell out of Zimmerman for following him in his neighborhood. I feel like I should once again reiterate that nothing would have happened if Trayvon had not attacked Zimmerman, as evidenced by Zimmerman's past actions (numerous calls into 911) and the complete lack physical damage to Trayvon beyond the fatal gunshot wound.
Trayvon was a bully actually. He was bragging in a facebook post about how he slapped a bus driver for something to the effect of looking at him wrong. When caught red handed painting graffiti, he was found with burglary tools and women's jewelry in his backpack by a school staff. Also, apparently the stuff he bought at the convenience store just before his death were for the purposes of making "Purple Drank".
Yeah, and this is the guy they want to name an asteroid after.
It's worse than that.
They actually think that a verdict being handed down in this particular case should have an effect on the outcome of getting a name like "Treyvon" approved.
It obviously shouldn't. Perhaps there was an overreaction as an end result to the confrontation, but it sure as hell doesn't eliminate the fact this kid was a punk that doesn't deserve to be immortalized. In fact, nothing around that case should be immortalized. It's not exactly an event in human history we want or need to remember due to the events that led up to someone's death, along with the questionable legal outcome.
I suppose we should expect to see Rodney King and Tupac wanting to be immortalized in the stars soon too...
But there were bystanders around who had called the police. They very well could have stepped in if the fight got out of hand.
OH REALLY? Willing to bet your life on the kindness and willingness of strangers, especially when they don't know who is in the right?
Reasonable enough to be scared? Definitely. Reasonable enough to kill them. No.
You consider the fear that you may be killed reasonable enough to be scared, but not reasonable enough to defend yourself with the only weapon you have? I don't think that we're going to get anywhere with this: our views on self defense are clearly irreconcilable.
"Why do people keep spouting this nonsense?"
Because it's easier to repeat a lie than to accept the truth...
OH REALLY? Willing to bet your life on the kindness and willingness of strangers, especially when they don't know who is in the right?
Actually the bystander effect doesn't apply here. It kicks in when there's a bunch of bystanders, none of whom have a clear responsibility to intervene, so none take the initiative to be the one person who steps out from the crowd. It's much different with a small handful of people.
You consider the fear that you may be killed reasonable enough to be scared, but not reasonable enough to defend yourself with the only weapon you have? I don't think that we're going to get anywhere with this: our views on self defense are clearly irreconcilable.
Maybe. We don't know how aggressive or out of control Martin really was, that goes a long way to determining if Zimmerman's fear would have been rational or just panic. But I think it's unlikely that an unarmed Zimmerman would have been a dead or seriously injured Zimmerman.
I stole this Sig
You're free to presume that, but I think the evidence is inconclusive at best. People around a lot of guns are people who feel threatened, some are more cautious, but some react to threats with aggression. Some will avoid confrontation because of how quickly they escalate, some will escalate more readily because the last one to escalate dies. You can spin whatever narrative you want but you need actual evidence.
I stole this Sig
Zimmerman was patrolling a GATED community in which Martin himself also lived as far as I know. I don't like the idea of gated communities but if you live in one, you basically agree with neighborhood watches.
Zimmerman HAD the right to play cop given to him by everyone who choose to live in that GATED community, including Martin.
And Martin only lived there because he was a thug wannabe and had been kicked out by his parents.
It is clear where you loyalties lie, you believe Martin should be able to do whatever he want, up to and including crime and nobody has a right to say "not in my neighborhood". Zimmerman was patrolling for a reason, crime had gone up. Oddly enough just after Martin moved in, Martin who on his phone had evidence of several crimes.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
He WAS on the neighborhood watch in an area which had suffered a rash of break ins. Come on, this was widely reported.
Anyone who knows anything about Neighborhood Watch programs knows that the absolute, number 1 rule is do not confront someone that looks suspicious, call the police, but do not attempt to confront them. Number 2 rule? Do not carry a gun.
"Members should never confront suspicious persons..."
"It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they shall not carry weapons..."
Neighborhood Watch Manual
The fact that Zimmerman was a part of the local Neighborhood Watch means that he had explicit training on how to behave in this sort of situation and he directly went against them. That's more than simply being ignorant, he willfully went against he advice he had been given. Then there is the part where the 911 operator also told him not to follow Martin. Ignoring all of that and going after Martin are the actions of a cowboy looking for trouble rather than someone levelheaded and trying to minimize trouble.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Named for Danish film director Morten Lindberg would be cool.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
I feel like we're sinking deeper each and every time I find myself saying "We have just reached a new low in stupidity."
The feeling is correct. It's like reading out the altitude in a free falling elevator,
you could never speak fast enough to keep pace with events...
but the direction is certain and the conclusion will be no surprise...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
"Perhaps not, but that's a risk you always take when you kick someone's ass with a sidewalk."
Right, and getting your ass kicked and suffering brain damage is the risk you take when you stalk someone looking for confrontation despite being told not to by the police. It doesn't give you the right to kill them though, actually scratch that, judging by the court case I guess in America it actually does.
No contact details could be found for either the owner, or the observatory, but at least here is their Facebook page: linkie
Trayvon Martin was clearly a violent criminal. Why in the world does anyone feel sorry for that creep. He was attempting to murder Mr. Zimmerman when he was shot. Is that really hard to understand?
http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/05/07
naming anything in space is laughable when you consider what you are in relation to it.
Good people go to bed earlier.
"He WAS on the neighborhood watch in an area which had suffered a rash of break ins."
In normal countries neighbourhood watch doesn't mean going round looking for trouble with a gun. It means keeping an eye out for anything suspicious and phoning the professionals (the police) to deal with it and why do you think that is? Precisely to avoid shit like this.
"Yes, heres the thing, a jury found that Martin WASNT innocent"
Wrong, it found that there wasn't enough evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was guilty which is not the same thing. But you're not responding to what the GP was saying anyway, you're talking about the fight which is really what the court case is about. The point the GP made that you're responding to was that before Zimmerman created a situation that caused that fight to break out Martin was innocent because he was just walking along the street doing nothing wrong and he was - the GP's point is that up until the fight started Martin was innocent of wrongdoing and hence because he was an innocent civilian wandering the streets Zimmerman should've had no right to stalk him.
"What laws, specifically are you thinking of-- hopefully not the "stand your ground" law which had absolutely no relevance to the case?"
I suspect he's referring to laws that allow someone to stalk someone with a gun resulting in a fight in which the victim of stalking dies that has no repercussions for the stalker. The point is that even if Martin was very much guilty of starting the fight and even if the worst case is true that Martin wanted to kill Zimmerman the point is that the law should've protected Martin from being stalked by a hobby-cop with a gun that triggered the whole fight scenario in the first place. Those "most societies you would want to live in" that you talk about would also recognise this and punish Zimmerman for creating the situation by having him found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder, the US seems to be an exception in this regard.
Fundamentally the point is that Martin may have started the fight but Zimmerman's actions clearly provoked Martin into starting the fight and that is why in normal sensible societies it'd be a clear case of manslaughter - that provocation causes Zimmerman to have some degree of responsibility for the situation.
I think it's right that Zimmerman wasn't found guilty of murder because the evidence does seem to show that Martin started the fight and may well have been willing to do some serious, possibly fatal damage to Zimmerman, but I also think it's pretty clear cut that Zimmerman created the whole situation which in most sane societies would definitely put him in line for a manslaughter conviction.
Effectively the whole case has created a precedent where you can go out armed, provoke someone until they attack you, shoot them, and get away with it. That's a horrendously bad precedent to be setting as it allows people to engineer murder which they can get away with and that is why most sane countries will ensure both parties are punished - the provoker and the person responding to the provocation to make it clear that neither action is tolerated. Clarification of legalisation of provocation resulting in a fight to the death is defacto what has happened here with this court case.
Right, some random .org without any actual standing.
No, USAonWatch is managed by the National Sherrif's Association and organizes roughly 20.000 neighborhood watch programs. They have been around for 40 years. There is pretty much no one else in the "business" of organizing neighborhood watch programs.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Well, if they do, just shoot them and say you were defending yourself.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Posting during a break from your SEAL activities?
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Sure why not immortalize a young man that was nothing more than a thug, punk, thief and drug user attacking a Latino guy. There are many more people deserving of such than him.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
I did not know that the sky is property of United States.
How about Finland name some object "Aki Sirkesalo"?
Aki Sirkesalo it is!
The sky is Finnish!
So that's where it ends.
Zimmerman should have laid down and taken his beating - cause that's what "keeping it real" means.
(I donated to zimmerman, because that could have been me)
How about just NO.
If it does ever head to Earth, it too will be a shooting star.
Actually, he has said he wants to do none of those things, and instead only perform targeted missile strikes. As for the rebels, you are cherry picking the worse(it is okay, the media did too) to make broad generalizations. The reality is, there are thousands of rebel groups in Syria, most fighting Assad in a respectable way. A handful are terrorists are extremely brutal. A handful are fighting other rebel groups.
Kinda silly to make the claim that Obama wants to fund baby killing terrorists when there are only a few of those in the hundreds of thousands of rebels, and no funding is being planned anyways.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Since GZ would be dead now hadn't he carried a gun, I guess you'll advocate for NW to change their policies.
Or, ask a 17 years old football player to bash your head on concrete, and you'll agree.
Out of joke, the point is there is much more pressure to protect the criminal's life than the victim's. This has to be changed.
Do you know what stand your ground is? It's a law that protects a person from a trial if they claim it, it also protects a person from having to prove they ran away before using deadly force. How exactly is Zimmerman supposed to run away when he is being pummeled on the ground? Zimmerman did not stand his ground he was getting beaten on it, it is a simple self defense case. Remember there is no evidence on how the altercation started, did Trayvon attack Zimmerman from behind, did Zimmerman confront Trayvon, did they both come around a corner and bump into each other. It's simply not known we can only speculate, last I checked you can't speculate beyond a reasonable doubt.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
"Amateur Cop" is a thing in the US. Zimmerman was part of a police-sponsored neighborhood watch program, in which people take it upon themselves to ... well, watch the neighborhood. The opening of this whole thing is that he saw a guy that "looked suspicious" (for whatever reason), got out of his car, and followed at a distance. That's pretty normal.
The "At a distance" thing is important, and something a lot of people missed. Trayvon turned down a street and went south; Zimmerman passed that street heading east, watching to see where Trayvon was going while reporting to the dispatcher. What Zimmerman was not doing was following Trayvon down the road in the shadows, inching closer, trying to get a bead on the little black kid; everyone wants to perpetuate this "stalking an innocent teenager" thing anyway, but that's not what happened.
What happened after that is less understood. Somehow Trayvon got to his house (south), then came back 100 meters (north) and a confrontation occurred. This became a physical altercation, which ended with Zimmerman shooting Trayvon to death. The murder argument comes down to an argument over whether or not Zimmerman was being beaten to death (or reasonably believed he was being beaten to death)--this is why you keep hearing that Trayvon was "armed with concrete" and smashing Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk.
Zimmerman had a permit to carry a gun because he's a shitty fighter. If he wasn't such a useless lump of shit, maybe he could have fought back and controlled the situation. He's lucky Trayvon didn't just take his gun and shoot him to death with it. Non-US people might find the concept of regular citizens carrying guns a little displacing--it's not a thing people do in England, for example--but in the US, people actually carry guns in case they're attacked. Beyond that, shooting Trayvon to death is just the natural result of being in a situation where he thought he was gonna die--that is, the natural action is to try to not die, and the only capable way he could think of to not die was to kill Trayvon.
Everything between the confrontation and the death is unclear. Fortunately for Zimmerman (and the rest of us), because nothing here screams "violent premeditated or negligent homicide", the only rational thing to do is accept "self-defense" and move on. Unfortunately, people are not rational and start screaming for blood, trying to blame Zimmerman while dismissing the very real and strong possibility that he was, in fact, going to die if he didn't shoot Trayvon right there. So we have this mess.
I don't understand the "Civil Rights" involved. They say Trayvon's rights were violated. What rights? He was observed in public; if he wasn't doing anything bad, the police wouldn't have even been able to search him. He could have 20 pounds of cocaine and stolen jewelry on him, and the cops could show up like "we heard reports of a suspicious person," and he's like "Everything's alright here," and they're like "Can we search your bag?" "No." That's it. Nothing actually happening here? The cops don't even get to frisk you. Other people are entitled to observe you, the police are entitled to pass through the neighborhood and ask you if you're alright and whatever, but if you're not obviously committing a crime (even if you really ARE, but it's not visible and they have no probable cause to assume you're a criminal) then they can't do shit. You could have burglary tools and a bomb in your backpack and they can't even check it to make sure you just have school books (unless somebody reported seeing you using burglary tools to try to break into somewhere).
I guess the only civil right here might be the right to, you know, not get shot to death; and you immediately waive that right when you're in the process of murdering someone.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Not just different. Wildly different. Here almost everyone sides with the self-defense (established) theory. The few exceptions are on the whole suspiciously grammar-impaired.
In the general public it's the opposite, starting from Tricky Baracky who feels a strong sense of identity with the aggressor (did he often use the term "cracker" as a pot-smoking teenager?).
You may have guessed the "different from" sign disappeared from the subject of my post.
A martyr is someone who dies for a noble cause, isn't it?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Wow. I hope you realize your version goes a lot further than the court verdict.
That version includes all the evidence the judge suppressed and the prosecution actively tampered with, found on Trayvon's phone, email, and Facebook pages.
That's a long way from determining that Martin, initiated the confrontation, tried to kill Zimmerman, shoplifted (first I heard of this), or was going to smoke drugs that evening (irrelevant even if true).
In the absence of knowing Trayvon's "real" intent, the trial amounted to little more than establishing his general character as either the saint the media painted him as, or just-onother-random-thug... Or more realistically, somewhere in between (decent kid doing stupid shit that got him killed). So yes, it does have relevance.
No. It's someone who is killed for their, usually religious, beliefs. Nobleness of how they died is not a factor.
The evidence in the trial indicates that Martin doubled back and approached Zimmerman, which excludes the argument that Zimmerman confronted Martin.
Zimmerman had a permit to carry a firearm. There is no impetus for Zimmerman to disarm himself and leave his firearm unattended when he notices a suspicious person. Watch members do not possess police powers and thus do not carry weapons in their watch duties--unlike security guards who carry weapons because they're security guards; however, watch members are at all times normal citizens, they are not on-duty security, they are not an on-duty para-police force, and they are thus not legally or otherwise administratively required to not carry firearms which they would normally carry. Contrast that with working as a cashier at K-Mart, where your employer tells you NO FIREARMS and you leave your gun locked up at home. You're scheduled at K-Mart and you're on-duty or off-duty; but as a Neighborhood Watch member, you're at all times effectively watching for suspicious behavior, and so precluding the carry of firearms in all cases would preclude EVER carrying a firearm.
In other words: the argument involving neighborhood watch firearms policies effectively is an argument that Zimmerman should never have been allowed to carry a gun, ever, at any time on any day, simply because he was a neighborhood watch member. In this case, especially, since Zimmerman wasn't out actively patrolling and had only incidentally noticed Martin.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
You've bought the false narrative. GZ didn't "follow" or "stalk" TM at any time. Scroll back up for a good writeup on what actually happened.
Do you have ESP?
A couple of things you may not know. Zimmerman's great grandfather was black (50 years ago that would have made Zimmerman black). If the ethnicity of Zimmerman's parents had been reversed (and thus his last name been Mesa rather than Zimmerman) this story would never have made anything other than local news. This story is an example of racial profiling...by the news media, which assumed that George ZImmerman was a white racist of primarily German descent, rather than a Hispanic of mixed descent (including African).
The other important fact is that there is NO evidence that George Zimmerman ever confronted Trayvon Martin and some evidence which suggests that it was Trayvon Martin who confronted George Zimmerman.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I much prefer a world where you can be beaten to death, but if you fight back and save your life, the guy who was trying to kill you gets asteroids named after him and the president praising him only because of his color.
THL phish sticks
Were these black boys left loose once they claimed a "stand your ground" defense? No? Thought so.
You do know that "stand your ground" wasn't applied on the Zimmerman case, right?
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
The preponderant majority of evidence, expert testimony, and jury conclusion points to Travon trying to beat George into the pavement.
Maybe no-one teaches kids in the "black community" how to fist fight without trying to kill someone when they are already down. But thank God we live in a country where you don't have to just wait for the cops to come while you are being killed.
THL phish sticks
You know something I've noticed about most of the people who complain about closing Gitmo? They forget they're the ones who didn't want Obama to do that.
That's great. Doesn't apply to me in the least.
Ps, the National Debt math is flawed, and the deficit is shrinking.
How is it flawed? And what relevance does a single year's deficit shrinking have to do with the fact that more debt was added on in 4 years than W's out of control spending for 8?
Ah. I thought a martyr could be someone who stood for a political or social cause as well. Someone who died for something, because they were just trying to do what they thought was right.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
He WAS on the neighborhood watch in an area which had suffered a rash of break ins. Come on, this was widely reported.
That area was not a participant in the neighborhood watch program. This was not widely reported.
a jury found that Martin WASNT innocent, and that there was grounds for a plea of self-defense.
What? A jury was asked to rule on a crime committed by Trayvon Martin, and found him guilty?
You seem to have bought into the race-card-Zimmerman-was-a-racist story that was spun up by the media
Most people are at least a little racist. And the stats on interracial violence are skewed by basis on convictions.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Anyone who knows anything about Neighborhood Watch programs knows that the absolute, number 1 rule is do not confront someone that looks suspicious,...
That's wonderful. There is NO evidence that George Zimmerman ever confronted Trayvon Martin and some evidence that suggests that Trayvon Martin confronted George Zimmerman (including the testimony of Rachel Jeantel). So, The first part of your argument is a fail. In addition, there is, again, no evidence that George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin after the dispatcher told him that they did not need him to do that (note: the dispatcher did NOT tell him NOT to follow Martin, only that they did not need him to do that). The dispatcher told him that they did not need him to follow Trayvon Martin after more than once asking Zimmerman for information that ZImmerman would have needed to attempt to follow Martin in order to know (such as "Where is he now?"). So, a second part of your argument is a fail.
Basically, you have reached a conclusion without actually knowing the facts of the case, and then reinterpreted the evidence to support your conclusion.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I've found that most people who are defensive of Trayvon Martin tend to live in safe suburban communities or heavily gentrified urban centers. What this means is that they really have no clue what it's really like in lower income areas beyond what they see in movies and hear in the news.
So when people suggest there's a serious problem in these communities it gets dismissed as stereotyping. And what problems are acknowledged are always blamed on the establishment. But no one ever looks at the communities themselves. There are a lot of kids out there who while aren't outright criminals are indeed thuggish assholes like Trayvon. They're the kinds of kids who won't back down because they don't want to look like a punk, and so end up in way over their heads.
I happen to live in an area that straddles the divide between a nicer, more affluent community and a crap area with a lot of low income housing. There's a pervasive lack of respect and manners amongst the kids in those low income neighborhoods. It's not all of them, but it's far too many. Do something as innocuous as jogging, especially as a white guy, and inevitably some asshole will heckle you. There's this persistent tendency to lash out at anything they perceive as different. And mind you, I'm not talking about outright crime here, but that's often the inevitable trajectory.
But ultimately, who's fault is this? It's the parents who don't give a shit about raising their kids properly. Where were Trayvon's parents as he was growing up? They're complicit in their son's death because if they had raised him properly he'd be less likely to seek out confrontation and he probably wouldn't have even been in that situation at all because he'd be doing something more responsible.
The frustrating bit in all this is that instead of identifying the real problems with the culture we're all fixated on nonsense. Inevitably people are going to the scapegoat and trotting out the victimization card. Same old garbage and so the problems never end.
Effectively the whole case has created a precedent where you can go out armed, provoke someone until they attack you, shoot them, and get away with it.
Except, of course, that there was no evidence that George Zimmerman ever did anything which legitimately provoked Trayvon Martin (that is, Zimmerman did not do anything that would have been an acceptable defense against the assault charge which Trayvon would have faced if the police had arrived before Zimmerman shot him).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I don't like living in a world where fights end with the victim grievously wounded or dead - I'd much rather have the unprovoked aggressor shot and killed to serve as a deterrent to other aggressors.
But you already clearly understand where the *real* problem is - the aggressor who decides to start a fight with a stranger for no reason. We may differ on the best way to deter aggressors, but understanding what the root cause is always the first step to coming to a real answer.
It's fitting in a way because if that asteroid threatens earth we are going to use our weapons to destroy it in order to defend our lives. Seriously though this makes me sick to my stomach. Trayvon was a punk with a record and he was not some innocent martyr to black people but was instead a hoodlum who assaulted the wrong guy.
"In normal countries neighbourhood watch doesn't mean going round looking for trouble with a gun."
Poisoning the well/true but irrelevant.
"It means keeping an eye out for anything suspicious and phoning the professionals (the police) to deal with it and why do you think that is? Precisely to avoid shit like this."
Bullshit. That is straight up bullshit. You cannot, in any country, simply call the police when you see anything the slightest bit suspicious and then run the other way and trust them to deal with it. That's ridiculous.
As a neighborwood watcher you are always, of course, happy to call the cops and let them deal with someone just as soon as the situation allows. But the cops dont just run around at the beck and call of the citizens you know. If you want them to come you have to wait until you have something they consider a good reason. And you will still have to wait for them to show up as well.
You try to avoid confrontation, and you also try to be prepared for it, and you have to accept that it's a risk in what you are doing. You are trying to deter criminals, and criminals are unlikely to be happy about being deterred.
"Wrong, it found that there wasn't enough evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was guilty which is not the same thing."
No, actually, you are wrong. His guilt was admitted from the start, there was no question that he killed Mr Martin, so the jury didnt even consider the question! What the jury found was that the action was justified, since Mr Martin was at that very time actively and credibly attempting to murder Mr Zimmerman, or that at least any reasonable person in Mr Zimmermans position would have believed that to be the case.
In other words this isnt the standard 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' verdict as you seem to think, but an affirmative defense which was shown by the evidence to be true. This and so many other details you would know if you read the trail transcripts instead of learning all you think you know from yellow journalism.
"Effectively the whole case has created a precedent where you can go out armed, provoke someone until they attack you, shoot them, and get away with it."
It has done nothing of the sort. This case set no precedents, it affirmed a chain of precedents back through centuries of Common Law.
If you decide to walk through my neighborhood, I can walk along and follow you and if your face isnt known to me I will do just that. As long as you dont start breaking into houses or something you really have no reason to care. And the only way you will ever find out that I have a pistol is if you actually decide to attack me. In which case it's very likely to be the last thing you learn.
If you are worried about me using this as a loophole to arrange your death, please re-read it a couple times. You have to attack me for it to work. Dont attack me, dont worry. Is that really too difficult for you?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
"Except, of course, that there was no evidence that"
That's probably because the only witness is dead.
This would be the ultimate in PC stupidity. I would rather name an asteroid after Neil deGrasse Tyson. Not only is he a more worthy honoree, but an observatory should suggest honorees that are relevant to their own science.
in desperate need of a penis extension does not mean anything , and only provides a brief bit of entertainment for the grownups.
Following someone is reasonable provocation of physical assault? If not, then we have no precedent. If it is, well maybe I need swing by Gander Mountain after work because who knows what other reasonably innocuous activities are "provocation."
I feel like we're sinking deeper each and every time I find myself saying "We have just reached a new low in stupidity."
What some people see as sad commentary others see as a challenge.
"Bullshit. That is straight up bullshit. You cannot, in any country, simply call the police when you see anything the slightest bit suspicious and then run the other way and trust them to deal with it. That's ridiculous."
What the fuck? That's the way it works basically everywhere (excluding America by the sounds of it) though no one said anything about running the other way, that's obviously some odd figment of your imagination you're using to try and justify your disagreement. You just keep your fucking distance if you think the person in question could be dangerous and if you lose sight of them you certainly don't go looking for them.
"If you want them to come you have to wait until you have something they consider a good reason. And you will still have to wait for them to show up as well."
That's exactly the point. If they decided they weren't going to come and told him to keep his distance as they did then he should've done exactly fucking that. Then Martin wouldn't be dead and Zimmerman wouldn't have had the shit kicked out of him.
"No, actually, you are wrong. His guilt was admitted from the start, there was no question that he killed Mr Martin, so the jury didnt even consider the question!"
Now what are you wittering on about? I didn't even begin to claim the case was about whether he was guilty of killing the guy simply pointing out that the case established that he wasn't guilty of murder.
"It has done nothing of the sort. This case set no precedents, it affirmed a chain of precedents back through centuries of Common Law."
I live in the land where Common Law was born, and I assure you that's most definitely not true. Historical common law precedent most definitely establishes that Zimmerman would be guilty of provocation and hence manslaughter. If you in America have managed to bastardise that to defacto legalise protection from the law for manslaughter after provoking a fight then that's a relatively modern problem with US law and most definitely not historical common law.
"If you decide to walk through my neighborhood, I can walk along and follow you and if your face isnt known to me I will do just that."
If I find there's some paranoid ass pretending to be a big man in a neighbourhood then I'll follow him around night after night until he finally snaps and has a go at me at which point I'll shoot him which will be okay, because it'd be in America. America, fuck yeah!
Seriously what the fuck is wrong with your country? You're all so paranoid that you really actually have to stalk any stranger that enters your neighbourhood with your hand on your gun at the ready? Where the fuck did it all go wrong for you all in the US? I thought you separated from the UK so you could be free, not so you'd be scared shitless of the slightest passing through of an unknown person through your neighbourhood. No wonder you have such an absurdly high number of gun deaths if you're all walking around finger on the trigger at the slightest sight of a stranger. That's bound to end badly, as it seems to have in this particular case.
You've bought the false narrative. GZ didn't "follow" or "stalk" TM at any time. Scroll back up for a good writeup on what actually happened.
Zimmerman himself said he was following Martin while on the call to 911. Here is the quote from the transcript:
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/326700/full-transcript-zimmerman.pdf
Zimmerman was in his car, he got out, Martin didn't pull him out.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Well, that is a possibility, but unlikely, since the existing evidence suggests that it was Trayvon Martin who initiated the confrontation (so testified Rachel Jeantel, who was on the phone with him shortly before the confrontation started). In addition, the existing evidence suggests that all George Zimmerman did was attempt to answer the questions which the police dispatcher asked him, after calling to report a suspicious looking young man wondering around the neighborhood in the rain (note: Zimmerman did not know, and apparently had not thought about, the race of the young man until after he was on the phone with the police dispatcher).
What exactly do you postulate that George Zimmerman did to provoke Trayvon Martin to attack him? Please stick to possibilities that are not contradicted by known facts and the limited testimony of eye witnesses.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
What's so odd about that? We already have Abbott (17023) and Costello (17024) rubbing shoulders with Larry (30440), Curly (30441), Moe (30439) and Shemp (30444). There are Tomhanks (12818) and Megryan (8353) and even a James Bond (9007) and Monty Python (13681).
Bullwinkle may not be an asteroid yet, but his creator Alan Anderson (14158) does.
Gun ownership is UP
Violent crime is DOWN.
Google it yourself.
Pretty simple. An armed society is a polite society.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
That's wonderful. There is NO evidence that George Zimmerman ever confronted Trayvon Martin and some evidence that suggests that Trayvon Martin confronted George Zimmerman (including the testimony of Rachel Jeantel).
Jeantel testified that as he neared the home of his father's girlfriend, Martin tried to lose Zimmerman.
"And then he said, 'That N-word is still following me now,'" said Jeantel. "I asked him how the man looked like. He just told me the man looked 'creepy.' 'Creepy, white' -- excuse my language -- 'cracker. Creepy [expletive] cracker."
Jeantel says she heard Martin talking to Zimmerman in the background of the call.
"He said, 'Why are you following me for?' And I heard a hard-breathing man say, 'What you doing around here?'" said Jeantel.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/justice/zimmerman-trial
Right there in the testimony you cited she notes Zimmerman following Martin and gets close to him while breathing heavily. If he Zimmerman had simply been standing around his car, he wouldn't have been out of breath.
BTW, random-bolding doesn't say what you think its says about the strength of your argument.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Earth is in imminent danger from it and we can blast it to bits
You realize that even if you do everything that the guy with the gun says, he might shoot you anyway, right? You want to live in a world where only criminals have guns.
That is absolutely true. Here in Oklahoma, less than a mile from my house a black guy pulled a gun on a white guy and his girlfriend that were in their car. The thief made the girlfriend strip and stand in the middle of the road, and ordered the guy to give him his wallet. The guy in the car complied with everything the thief asked, and then the black guy shot and killed him.
Several days later, the same black guy killed a woman who was selling him a stereo.
He's now serving about a 20 year sentence, but he'll probably be out in 5 years or so.
Meanwhile, also in Oklahoma, a white guy who killed a black guy who attempted to rob him at gunpoint is serving life in prison.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Surprisingly, I can actually type more than you. I formulated the explanation on the fly.
For a while it was fashionable for people to accuse me of parrotting Wikipedia; never being able to find anything I was saying on Wikipedia eventually put a stop to that.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Before or after Zimmerman got out of the car to attack Trayvon, against the advice of the dispatcher?
If he wasn't out to attack the black kid, there's no way Trayvon could have even touched Zimmerman. Yes, black guys run fast, and american trucks are slow. But the truck is still fast enough to get away.
I get so tired of this absolute bullshit spin on the order of events it's not funny. Trayvon supporters invariably get the facts wrong and utterly fail simple logic.
1) Zimmerman was already outside of his truck when the dispatcher advised him he did not need to follow. The dispatcher testified this was to avoid legal liability on himself in the event Zimmerman was harmed. This was not a command and not legally binding. Just as Trayvon had a right to be out in public, Zimmerman had a right to be where he wanted. It was his home. And no, it wasn't Trayvon's home. He was a guest.
2) Beyond your own fantasy world, there is no evidence that Zimmerman "got out of his car to attack" anyone.
3) You are an idiot.
This case had nothing to do with race and everything to do with defending oneself against an aggressor. Anyone who brought race into it was a racist. The only reason this even went to court is because racists are trying to make it where you can't defend yourself if your aggressor is black.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
So. You will just take it when someone decides to beat you to death. Good to know.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Zimmerman didn't follow him night after night. Zimmerman followed him once. If Zimmerman had followed him night after night it would have been provocation and probably would have ended up with a much different result. Setting the precedent that anything potentially provocative negates my right to defend myself is incredibly dangerous. I've had two friends assaulted in road rage incidents (where in your definition of provoke) provoked the violence by not giving a safe distance before merging in front of another vehicle. That makes a self-defense argument almost completely worthless.
The story is set and all will fall in line.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
He was let down by his parents for not raising him properly. He was let down by his communities lack morals. He was let down by societies glorification of "the Thug Life".
He never had a chance to become a decent man. Family, Community, Federal Government and the Press all conspired to turn him into a violent and irresponsible person who was taught to blame white males for every problem he saw.
Teaching of personal responsibility would have created a Trayvon that not only would have never died that night, but one that could have been a benefit to his community. We lose good black men and women everyday to the teachings of Jacksons and Sharptons.
It really was a shame that Trayvon had to die that night. A much bigger shame is all the other young black men that will die this year and next.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Even though what the jury found was that George Zimmerman acted in Self Defense. Jury instructions aside. They did not find him innocent due to the stand your ground laws. They found that he acted in self defense, The same verdict would have come in states with out "Stand your ground laws".
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
At least something like this can give Trayvon's murder [... nonsense redacted]
I will correct your ignorance. Trayvon was not murdered. The case went to court as all the bleating liberals wanted. Remember the bitching about "all we want is justice?" The jury had it's say and as everyone knows who actually watched the trial, got the decision correct. Even the prosecutors realized at the end that they didn't prove shit, and asked for manslaughter instead. Now they are facing judicial sanction motions for their behaviors. The state's attorney was even afraid to try to indict before a grand jury, and had to run a Hail Mary to bring the case to court. And the state of Florida is facing a $200,000 reimbursement bill for prosecuting a man with no evidence other than listening to idiots like yourself screaming murder. Despite all the hand wringing, belly aching, protesting, bitching, and complaining, George Zimmerman was cleared of wrongdoing, including manslaughter. Accept it. If you couldn't win this case with all the odds stacked in your favor, it was a slam dunk.
Ps, the National Debt math is flawed, and the deficit is shrinking.
The national debt continues to grow, and will continue to grow. I'm not sure if the deficit is growing or not - Congress hasn't passed a budget in 5 years or so -- so that math is a little fuzzy. However, the deficit can shrink and the debt will continue to grow.
Let's say you make $50,000 a year. Last year you spent $70,000 and you currently have $100,000 in debt.
If you make $55,000 next year and your spending remains steady at $70,000, your deficit will shrink but your debt will grow to $115,000 (plus interest)
You try being followed by a stranger late at night in your neighborhood and see if you don't feel even the slightest bit provoked or concerned. Zimmerman followed when he shouldn't have and now someone's dead because of it.
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
Decent kids don't get caught with backpacks full of burgled jewelry, suffer from failing livers from ingestion of purple drank, or go out into the night seeking random creepy crackas to beat up, possibly to death.
Sorry, guy, but muh baby Tray-Tray was every bit the thug going to his early grave that people have said he was.
I wasn't racist before this trial. I feel the pressure to be one now, coming from inside. My sense of fair play is violated. I choose, instead, to judge people by their actions. I judge Trayvon to be worthless scum, and I judge Zimmerman to be a good man who helps other people, whether he is watching out for people burgling other houses in the rain, or pulling families out of overturned cars (liberal families who hate him, by the way), or going about any of the far less publicized activities he took upon himself that lead to him becoming captain of his neighborhood watch.
Except that wasn't when the fight occurred, you racist loon! Your sweet baby Tray Tray got away. He then came back as Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle and proceeded to curb stomp him. He lost all possible claim to being the victim of a stalker when he came back and started stalking Zimmerman.
Also, normal people don't beat people's heads into the concrete for following them.
No wounds on baby Tray Tray except for his knuckles where he was beating the shit out of Zimmerman, and the single gunshot wound. Sorry, kiddo, but you don't get off on felony assault because of the words someone said to you before said assault. You might get out of a misdemeanor assault like that.
What about all the other colors of people that this also happens to? It isn't exclusively to black people.
It's hard to make a living as a mugger if you only prowl the neighborhood where you are on the neighborhood watch. Also, people might start to notice when you are killing dozens of people in self defense.
Also, it's kind of hard to get them to jump on top of you and pound your head into the concrete.
Neither can the victims that Trayvon would have inevitably left in his wake. Had Zimmerman not been armed, the story wouldn't have merited more than a 10 second blurb on the nightly news, just another hispanic killed by a black. Who knows how many more would have died before he was imprisoned or killed by some OTHER thug?
No, it'll be the yet to be formed Latin American Space Agency.
People will for some reason be totally unable to distinguish the two organizations. Those pointing out that they are two different organizations will be deemed to be racists, just like those NASA guys who shot down that asteroid.
Fundamentally the provocation argument in court (in most countries where they have such sane precedent) depends on whether your friends went looking for trouble. Obviously your friends didn't (though they should receive a citation at least for dangerous driving) but Zimmerman clearly was putting himself in a situation where he was looking for trouble.
The problem is this particular case gives the suggestion that you can outright go looking to provoke trouble with the intention of entering a possible confrontation, kill the guy, and get away with it. It suggests there's no question in even the most obvious circumstances that even if you actively provoke a dangerous situation that you can be held responsible for it and that's the problem.
Jeantel says she heard Martin talking to Zimmerman in the background of the call. "He said, 'Why are you following me for?'
The only part of what happened that Jeantel knew is what she heard said. What she heard was Trayvon Martin start the conversation, which implies that Martin confronted Zimmerman, not the other way around (which was the point I was making, even Rachel Jeantel, whose testimony was clearly biased in an attempt to find Zimmerman guilty, testified that it was Martin who began the confrontation). So, her testimony that Zimmerman was following Martin at that point is meaningless (how does she know?) It is worth noting that when Jeantel was first interviewed about her phone conversation with Martin she reported that Zimmerman said "What are you talking about?" when Martin asked him why he was following him.
The confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman occurred at a T intersection of two paths. An intersection where someone walking down the cross of the T could not see someone coming up the T itself (and vice versa). The evidence of various testimony suggests that Zimmerman was walking along the cross and Martin was coming up the T itself from the house he had been staying at (Rachel Jeantel testified that he told her he was almost to the house at one point before he turned away from it).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I agree, he shouldn't have got out of the assault even if he survived, it was indefensible.
But that doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman shouldn't also have gotten out of a manslaughter charge for creating a situation against the advice of the 911 responder that resulted in that death.
They were both in the wrong.
Well that was kind of the point, given that the only person who can give the other side of the story is dead it's not surprising that we only have one side of the story is it?
The fact is we have calls before and after, but we have no idea what Zimmerman may or may not have said to Martin outside of that.
We do know however that Zimmerman put himself in the situation against the advice of the 911 responder however and that in putting himself in that situation he created a scenario which resulted in someone dying. Something that could not have happened if he heeded the advice of the 911 responder and backed the fuck off and that is why he holds some responsibility for the incident.
Bullshit. I wanted to close gitmo when Bush was in office, and I want it closed now. Not everyone changes their opinions when the telescreens tell us to, you know.
The US is at war with al-Qaeda. The US has always been at war with al- Qaeda *bzzt* The US is allied with al-Qaeda. The US has always been allied with al-Qaeda.
Of course, I didn't really need to reply. The fact that you think the national debt is shrinking exposes your absolute lunacy.
The US has a legal definition of stalking. Nothing about Zimmerman's behavior suggests that any stalking occurred. Everything Zimmerman did, that we know, was perfectly legal behavior if perhaps stupid. However stupidity is not a crime.
All tragedies are usually a series of bad decisions each of which the person who made that decision could have chosen the other and the tragedy would not have occurred.
Zimmerman could have chosen to stay in his car. But he didn't.
Martin could have just gone to his father's house instead of turning around and heading back for Zimmerman as his friend suggested. But he didn't.
Martin could have chosen not to assault Zimmerman. But he didn't.
I'm sure there others that might have played a part but ultimately what matters is the decision from which it is possible to reasonable determine that bodily harm or death could have occurred.
Was there anything about getting out of the car and looking for Martin that was inherently dangerous? No
Was there anything about turning back from his father's house to confront Zimmerman that was inherently dangerous? No
Was there anything about choosing to assault Zimmerman that was inherently dangerous? Yes
Ultimately, Martin sealed his own fate when he made the choice to assault Zimmerman. Had he not made that decision and instead chose to talk to Zimmerman, what would have happened? Well, Martin would most likely still be alive. Had he just gone home he would still be alive and the incident would have been written off by the police.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
The black community has bit hit the hardest by this rhetoric. But as personal responsibility is replaced by "who do I blame?" in general every one will suffer. Not just minorities either. The thug life is glorified with the young of the white middle class not as well. Black communities have already been destroyed by it and it is coming to all communities. We can not do anything about it either. We will just be shouted down as racists as those that destroyed the minority communities push the same agenda upon society as a whole.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Correct, SYG couldn't apply because at the point at which Zimmerman used self defense had not avenue of retreat. Meaning that in a duty to retreat state, Zimmerman still would have had justified self defense.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
The reality is, there are thousands of rebel groups in Syria, most fighting Assad in a respectable way.
Did you do a census or use random sampling to deduce that most of the groups are fighting in a respectable way? I'd love to see your data.
Also, I'm not sure if you did this on purpose, but are you confusing "most of the rebel groups" with "most of the rebels" since many of the groups are very small and a few of the big rebel groups make up the majority of the actual people?
and no funding is being planned anyways.
You are joking right? NO funding? For someone as knowledgeable about the Syrian rebels as yourself, you must know that we are arming and training them. Here are some links to get you started:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10283758/First-Syria-rebels-armed-and-trained-by-CIA-on-way-to-battlefield.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/us-aid-to-syrian-rebels
Congress has passed many budgets in the last 5 years. It's the Senate that has failed to act.
Provoked or concerned? Choose one. As distorted as the school systems have made provocation, provocation is a person intentionally drawing you into confrontation. I can "feel provoked" but that doesn't make the action a provocation if it was unintentional. The reason is if I intend to provoke you into a confrontation then I relinquish some or all of my right to self-defense. I could say The Dodgers suck unknowingly standing next to the biggest fan in the history of the club. He might feel provoked, but I shouldn't lose the right to put hands on him if he takes a swing at me. Now if I'm standing there knowing that he is the biggest fan and I'm harrassing him, that is an entirely different matter.
Again, about 80% of the disagreement is simply because you keep repeating 'facts' that are anything but. Read the trial transcripts and forget all the junk you learned from reading fact-free tabloid 'journalism' and then you might be capable making a point.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I don't believe it is clear he was looking for trouble. Putting himself in a situation where there could be trouble isn't necessarily provocation either. I could probably pull off a self defense argument going to a ill-reputable bar and wait for a brawl to break out.
We do know however that Zimmerman put himself in the situation against the advice of the 911 responder...
No, we do not know that. We know that when the police dispatcher (not 911 responder) told him that they did not need him to follow Martin, George Zimmerman said, "OK". We do not know what he did after that. We, also, know that before the dispatcher told him that they did not need Zimmerman to follow Martin, the dispatcher had asked him for information that he could only ascertain by attempting to follow Martin (it is worth noting that the dispatcher would not necessarily have realized this when s/he asked the questions, but we can know that from looking at things in hindsight).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
That is not what I did. I believe in personal responsibility. That is not what is being taught by our leaders or our society anymore. What we are teaching is coming back to bite us and it will get worse.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
The United States Congress is consists of two houses: the House of Representatives and the Senate. You are correct that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has passed several budgets and the Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to approve a budget.
Trayvon's supporters claim that he was the one screaming for help, not Zimmerman. Has that actually be disproven? My understanding is that many people still believe that Trayvon was the one being attacked, not the other way around.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Injecting highly controversial politics into naming celestial objects is an excellent idea.
I wholeheartedly support this. Unless it's against my team. Then I wholeheartedly hate it.
Bad Idea
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfReCoRRIow
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Both guys were on their side of town. Trayvon's dad (whom he lived with occassionally) lived there, and George Zimmerman lived there. It was "turf" of both, if you believe people have exclusive rights to some property they don't own.
It's not really important. Would be nice to know, but we just don't know and can't determine this, so it's not actually important because it's meaningless as evidence.
The physical evidence shows Trayvon with minimal injuries and George with severe injuries, so we can piece together from this that George was the one taking a beating and Trayvon was in control of the situation. That's far more important than who was screaming for help; it's particularly more important than bickering over a fantasy of who was screaming for help when we can't get anyone to agree on a firm stance on who's voice that is.
Sometimes evidence A doesn't matter. Sometimes it really, really doesn't matter--even if we can prove Trayvon was screaming for help, what do we do with this physical evidence that indicates that Trayvon was ... ... screaming for help while viciously, successfully pummeling someone to death with little to no effort?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Right, but if a guy comes at you with a gun you might legitimately feel your life is at stake and started beating them in self defence. There are too many unknowns and too many possible scenarios to make any kind of judgement I think.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If Trayvon were a woman, straddling a man and beating the crap out of the man, the man would be justified in shooting her, regardless of race.
It comes down to that - Martin was straddling Zimmerman, Zimmerman was out of other options. In England, he'd just have had to die or be badly beaten, but here, he got to live with minor damage.
You don't get to beat people for following you. The only possible case Martin would have is if Zimmerman started the fight - facts not in evidence. The evidence had hints that Martin started the fight (the phone conversation with the girlfriend). Even if Zimmerman started the fight, Martin would still be at fault for removing his ability to retreat - stand your ground would defend Martin from having to leave, but doesn't defend him from preventing Zimmerman from leaving (by straddling and beating him). The straddling is a major escalation.
The problem with the "blame the victim" charge for drunk rape victims is that this has been used against alleged perpetrators when there was no rape.
Drunken rape really has two scenarios, that some advocates unfairly treat as equal:
1) woman goes out, gets drunk, says no, is forced -- actual rape
2) woman goes out, gets drunk, goes home with guy, regrets it in the morning when sober, cries rape -- not actual rape
confusing things worse is case 3
3) woman goes out, gets drunk, hooks up with equally drunk guy, neither remembers exactly what happened, other than there was some sex, woman cries rape -- who know what the hell happened, maybe we should ban alcohol, or stupidity or something, can you people behave???
At some point, the principle of "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" needs to kick in. Case 3 certainly has doubt. Differentiating between 1 and 2 is definitely a problem, but I don't think the solution is "always believe the woman".
Probably best for men and women to avoid getting that inebriated. Your putting your fate in the hands of an RNG.
The conflict had gone on for a couple minutes already, with no intervention, and apparently getting progressively worse for Zimmerman. How long do you wait?
The "stalking" charge was addressed best by tftp (111690) above. They were both in their own neighborhood, which had been victimized by a wave of burglaries. Zimmerman (and the rest of the neighborhood) were well justified to keep an eye on what was going on in the neighborhood.
Zimmerman would have been within the law in England at least - per Wikipedia, England requires two occasions of the behavior (and that would be assuming that the behavior itself was a "stalking" behavior. Wikipedia doesn't say much about how to judge that).
Facts not in evidence. You should have shared your evidence with the prosecutor, she could certainly have used it. The jury commented that it sounded like the dispatcher had egged Zimmerman on - they attributed some fault there. Should probably not rely on biased news sources and go directly to the facts introduced at trial.
Which is fair conjecture; but in context, it's just flame bait. When you step back and look at the whole case, you're grasping for straws; these arguments only become relevant when we're able to say with high confidence whose voice it is, otherwise they're just inflammatory and irrelevant.
It's similar to the argument: What if Zimmerman had been stalking Martin for weeks, subtly threatening him, and he was scared for his life; and then Zimmerman called the police to create a good cover story before finally murdering the kid? Evidence: Zimmerman sounded none too happy about "fucking punks" on the police call. Actually it was kind of muffled, are we sure now he said "punks" and not "coons"? Sounds racist to me. Maybe this was all planned out by mastermind murderer George Zimmerman from the get-go.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I do not think you understand what stalking is. It's very difficult for me to take anyone serious that still claims Zimmerman was stalking. If you wish to conflate stalking with observing from a nearby distance, you have nothing of value to say. And as many problems as we have now in the USA, I am certainly glad that watching out over your own property when people you don't know are wandering around at night nearby is still legal and acceptable.
You have corroborated factual evidence wrong. Your opinion is moot. Try back again after you educate yourself.
This is incorrect. The doctored recordings said "he looks black etc." The real recording said "There's a suspicious person out here. He looks to be on drugs." Then the Dispatcher asks "is he white, black or Hispanic?" And Zimmerman answers "He looks black"
Your sweet baby Tray Tray got away. He then came back
The very next line of her testimony suggests otherwise, just read that link:
Jeantel also said she heard a bump from Martin's headset hitting something and "wet grass sounds."
"I start hearing a little bit of Trayvon saying, 'Get off, get off!'" said Jeantel.
Thanks for doing this by the way, you guys are making me actually double-check my impressions and you are the ones proving to me that you are wrong.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
That's the problem. Zimmerman's behavior and past were brought to court, but Martin's behavior was suppressed. The jurors were never made aware of his rants on Twitter, attempts to obtain a gun, school suspensions, investigation for burglary, bragging about a beatdown, etc... All inadmissible.
The other problem is that the mainstream media, where most Trayvon apologists got their "facts" and formed their opinions, skillfully ignored his patterns of behavior. Many of the "facts" that were presented, were erroneous when compared to the police reports, eye witness reports, and medical evidence. Remember the big mainstream media push saying Zimmerman was never injured and "proof" was a low resolution transcoded video? I do. We had "protests" in my city afterwards. Did you ever see the actual photos before the trial began? I doubt it.
IN the U.S. there is absolutely nothing illegal about following someone you think may be engaged in criminal activity. It is considered a citizen's duty.
Good-bye
The only part of what happened that Jeantel knew is what she heard said.
Got it, the only part of her testimony that counts is the part that can exonerates Zimmerman, any other parts are just her being biased against Zimmerman - but not so biased as to just leave out the stuff that exonerate him. We are so lucky that she was honest enough to only lie a little bit.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Smartphone ownership is UP
Violent crime is DOWN.
Cat videos on Youtube are UP
Violent crime is DOWN.
Justin Beiber album sales are UP
Violent crime is DOWN.
Google it yourself.
Pretty simple. Looking for a rough correlation in two variables in one country is almost meaningless.
I stole this Sig
You realize that even if you do everything that the guy with the gun says, he might shoot you anyway, right? You want to live in a world where only criminals have guns.
Criminals don't just conjure guns up out of the ether. All those guns are manufactured legally and often enter the marketplace legally as well. You can get the guns away from the criminals but it's going to involve taking them away from the law abiding citizens too.
I stole this Sig
Manslaughter requires that the decision of the part who causes the death has was reasonable to forsee that a death would occur from the actions. The only choice which had a reasonable possibly foreseeable death was when Martin decided to assault Zimmerman.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
She did not actually see George Zimmerman follow Trayvon Martin, so she does not know that he did so. She is a thoroughly unreliable witness (not because she lied, but because she had a reason to interpret what she knew in such a manner as to put Zimmerman in the worst possible light). However, she was the prosecution's star witness, the witness most damning of Zimmerman, and even she said that Martin started the confrontation. Yet, you want to blame Zimmerman for confronting Martin!
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Lots of kids smoke pot, and talk a lot of gansta BS.
And AFAIK the only fighting we know Martin did is the fight with Zimmerman.
Zimmerman had a checkered past too, he was charged with assaulting an officer; accused by his cousin of molestation; his ex-girlfriend had a domestic violence restraining order against him, his marriage was in trouble and wife had just left to stay with her father. Is it that hard to believe the person with a violent documented history and current emotional distress could have instigated the fight?
I stole this Sig
"Manslaughter requires that the decision of the part who causes the death has was reasonable to forsee that a death would occur from the actions."
Can you provide a citation for that? I've never seen any such requirement in any jurisdiction ever otherwise it'd mean just about every involuntary manslaughter case ever was a miscarriage of justice in every applicable country across the globe.
I can only guess you're thinking of just voluntary manslaughter, but not all manslaughter is voluntary.
It means keeping an eye out for anything suspicious
He did.
phoning the professionals (the police) to deal with it
He did.
I suspect he's referring to laws that allow someone to stalk someone with a gun resulting in a fight in which the victim of stalking dies that has no repercussions for the stalker.
There is no such law. The premise of our consitution is that we have complete freedom unless restricted by a law.
It is not illegal to carry a gun. It is not illegal to follow someone. It IS illegal to attack someone, even if it is because they are following you.
Its as simple as that.
, provoke someone until they attack you,
Being provoked is not a justification for attacking someone. I have the right to call you names. If you knock me down because if it, you will likely go to jail.
Whole discussion is irrelevant, as whether or not ZImmerman "provoked" Martin would not excuse the attack by Martin.
So if the white guy had a gun, why would any of this change? Is he going to be able to get the gun cocked and pointed at the black guy before the black guy can pull his trigger? Would he be stupid enough to try? I'm not against guns, but we're not all Clint Eastwood. If both people have a gun, then it's more likely that someone dies, and it'll almost always be the aggressor gets the first shot.
this won't ever happen, but I'd love to have a legal reason to kick your ass
you're a bully...bullies are shirveled little half/men deep inside...they have to push others down to make themselves feel worthy
So if someone attacks you... you're a bully if you defend yourself. And you fully admit you wish you could bully him for his statements. This is strange reasoning. This entire thread, almost every post, feels like "black = white, up = down."
for the millionth time, what the responder said is of no relevance. She has no authority beyond any other citizen.
Zimmerman wouldn't have had the shit kicked out of him.
Acknowledging that makes everything else youve said irrelevant. Following someone, carrying a gun, etc is not sufficient justification for their attacking you. Their attacking you as Martin did IS sufficient justification for self-defense-- lethal if need be.
What? A jury was asked to rule on a crime committed by Trayvon Martin, and found him guilty?
A crucial point of the trial was whether Martin performed an assault that would be undeniably illegal. In ruling the shooting legal self-defense, they also ruled that Martin committed an act that is undeniably illegal.
And the stats on interracial violence are skewed by basis on convictions.
The stats on interracial violence indicate that, regardless of the offender and victim races, it hovers around 10-15%. Intra-racial violence, in all cases, tends to hover in the high 80s. You can try to spin that however you like, but no matter HOW you pull the stats, black-on-white violence is a higher prevelence-- both weighted by population and unweighted -- than white-on-black. The idea that there is this massive conspiracy to kill black people by whites is just ignorant; clean up the gang violence and you would immediately stop more than 50% of black deaths.
No one is trying to excuse the attack, just point out that Zimmerman's actions in any sane society would've been deemed reckless and/or criminally negligent (depending on how serious said jurisdiction takes the responsibilities of a neighbourhood watchperson) resulting in involuntary manslaughter.
In other words yes Martin's actions were quite clearly criminal, but in sane jurisdictions, so were Zimmerman's.
The doctoring made it sound like he called the black guy a nigger, which he clearly did not when you hear the full recording. Its probably one of the most blatant attempts to spin a story as a racial issue Ive ever seen in the media.
"I have the right to call you names"
No you don't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Fighting_words_and_offensive_speech
Apparently the founders were compensating for something when they decided that people have a right to defend themselves; or perhaps William Blackstone was just a little man when so clearly stated the castle doctrine.
endangering everyone else around them
The only person endangered by Zimmerman's concealed carry was the guy who attempted to assault him.
most sane adults
... will not assume that they are the best street fighter out there, but will understand that they nevertheless have a fundamental right to defend their life.
Ask yourself this, if Martin were a white woman who and Zimmerman a black man, then do you think Martin would be justified in putting up a defense.
No. Following someone does not justify assault. If that woman turned, confronted, and peppersprayed the black man, I would sincerely hope that she recieved an assault conviction.
Right, but if a guy comes at you with a gun you might legitimately feel your life is at stake and started beating them in self defence.
Thats true. It would be incredibly poor decision making, it would be illegal, and it would immediately generate grounds for self-defense, but you COULD choose to do that.
For the millionth time, there's no proof or evidence that GZ's life was in danger. Review the court's findings. It's funny to see all these 'tough guys' support such a pussy. "Praising him only because of his color"?? You don't think there was anything else significant about this case? Take a step back and evaluate your position on this matter. Imagine how the same scenario would play out with a 27 yr old black guy and a 17 yr old white kid.
For the million and oneth time, there's no evidence TM was 'beating GZ to death'. GZ had minor scratches on the back of his head. His nose was broken. Same as a lot of fist fights.
excluding America by the sounds of it)
Let me get this clear. Youre not from the US, and all of your statements on what US law is is based not on knowledge but on assumption?
Right then, I think we're done here.
Fundamentally the provocation argument in court ...depends on whether your friends went looking for trouble.
No, it doesnt, and you really need to stop commenting on US law when you are so clearly ignorant of what it says and how it works.
No, the court did not rule that. The jury took into account the stand-your-ground law. GZ didn't use SYG in his self-defence, but it was explained to the jury and was key in their decision. GZ only need to 'believe' his life was in danger. There did not have to be evidence of such. Based on the evidence alone, there was no justification for killing in self-defense. Under stand your ground, if someone punches you in the face, you can literally kill them (but only with a gun). Without stand your ground, killing him would have been considered too excessive.
The reaction from the police had much to do with race. Imagine they show up at the scene and there's a 27 yr old black guy with a gun and a dead 17 yr old white kid. Would they let him go without so much as a breathalizer? Just food for thought.
Thank you. I'm surprised how many pussies there are on slashdot who can't understand that a fist fight doesn't mean you're going to die. Maybe they've got pent-up hostility about all the times they got pummeled in high school. Believe me, I was on the losing end too, but I wouldn't have wanted those people to die as a result.
What's wrong with getting a hand gun? You're in favor of GZ but against the 2nd amendment?
He didn't, but the judge explained it to the jury, who were ordered to take it under consideration. One of the jurors came forward saying that without the law, it could've gone the other way.
COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?
JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/15/2306631/zimmerman-juror-says-panel-considered-stand-your-ground-he-had-a-right-to-defend-himself/
Zimmerman had a permit to carry a gun because he's a shitty fighter. If he wasn't such a useless lump of shit, maybe he could have fought back and controlled the situation.
I carry a gun, because 1) even though I'm a fit 6'+ man with boxing experience, I recognize that I truly am about as good as a 'useless lump of shit' when facing down multiple aggressors or those wielding deadly weapons like guns and others, and 2) bullets tend to fly further and do more damage than my fists. Fortunately, I was able to survive and learn from the above experiences which prompted me to get a carry license and buy the training to defend myself and my family in the first place.
He's lucky Trayvon didn't just take his gun and shoot him to death with it.
That's very likely the exactly reason Tray-Tray got shot. If you carry a gun and you're rolling on the ground in a struggle with someone, it becomes a life or death situation, or at least exponentially more quickly than otherwise; getting your head bludgeoned against the concrete notwithstanding.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
She did not actually see George Zimmerman follow Trayvon Martin
Ah, so when she reports Martin saying: 'That N-word is still following me now,'"
That actually means Martin was lying to her since she didn't actually see Zimmerman following him. He was totally working her in order to cover his plot to sneak up on Martin and beat him to a pulp. How foolish of me to not to see that.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
All that means is that Martin said that Zimmerman was following him. Since Martin is no longer alive, we cannot ask him for clarification as to what he meant by that. Perhaps he meant that he saw that Zimmerman was not in his truck any longer and assumed that Zimmerman was still following him. There can be several other reasons that Martin thought Zimmerman was following him that do not necessarily mean that Zimmerman was actually doing so, things we cannot find out by asking questions of Jeantel because she was not actually there.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
All that means is that Martin said that Zimmerman was following him
Right, he says zimmerman is following him and then shortly thereafter asks zimmerman why he's following him. Obviously Zimmerman was just standing around his truck minding his own business at that point and had not come up close enough to Martin for Jenteal to hear Martin's speech over the phone. He was probably just using a megaphone is all.
You stretch the limits of credulity to do exactly what you accused me of in your first post. With you it's always the benefit of the doubt for Zimmerman but not for Martin.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Or, maybe it was Martin who got close enough to Zimmerman? There is at least as much evidence supporting that conclusion as there is yours.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
why not osama bin laden? if we gonna start honoring criminals, go big.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
The jury took into account the stand-your-ground law.
The oft-referenced stand-your-ground law actually had little bearing on this case. It was ordinary self-defense, and there's no state in the nation where you cannot use lethal force if an assailant is using lethal force. A stand-your-ground law doesn't need to come into question. Now if Trayvon ran towards him and Zimmerman shot him before he got there, that would be a definite Stand Your Ground case (and a truly ugly one at that...), but those aren't the circumstances of the events as determined by the courts.
Based on the evidence alone, there was no justification for killing in self-defense
If your head is being repeatedly slammed into the pavement, you have every reason to think you're about to die.
Facts are not what they want. Once NBC edited the tapes to make Zimmerman a "White Racist" it was over.
The story is set and all will fall in line.
Zimmerman being a white racist sure would have made a "better story," wouldn't it?
This case had nothing to do with race and everything to do with defending oneself against an aggressor. Anyone who brought race into it was a racist. The only reason this even went to court is because racists are trying to make it where you can't defend yourself if your aggressor is black.
Hold on, hold on. Look, I think Zimmerman's story was the true one, and that the jury got it right, but you can't deny that the circumstances leading up to the incident were racially charged. Trayvon used an incorrect racial slur regarding Zimmerman. Zimmerman followed Trayvon because he profiled him, partly based on race. There were even reasons why racially profiling Trayvon wasn't unreasonable (there was a rash of break-ins in the neighborhood, a month earlier Zimmerman had caught a young black man breaking into a neighbor's home, Trayvon wasn't familiar and Zimmerman thought he looked like he was casing all the houses). And to say that anyone who mentions race with the case is a racist?
He was let down by societies glorification of "the Thug Life".
Oh my God, I wish I had mod points (and hadn't posted a thousand times in this story already).
This alone deserves +5, Informative.
wtf is purple drank?
Recreational drug cocktail
.
What is Obummer fixing?
1) Adding more to the national debt than even Monkey Boy Dubya did - Check
I could check it to see if those numbers are correct, adjusted for inflation, but I'm a bit too lazy, and I suspect you're correct on point #1 anyway. The housing meltdown happened the year Obama was elected, I don't think I can quite blame him for that. I suppose he could have fiddled while the economy burned to the ground, but some people hold their presidents to higher standards.
2) Failed to end wars in Iraq/Afghanistan despite campaign promise - Check
Iraq is long ended, Afghanistan has been winding down for a long time. Nothing much going on over there anymore except for the occasional terrorist strike, and I could see that existing forever.
3) Didn't shut down Gitmo despite campaign promise - Check
Amazing what a congressional cut of funding can do with your ability to act. Could Obama have done more if he really wanted to pull out all the stops? Probably.
4) Signed the extension to the warrantless wiretapping programming despite claiming to be against it before becoming president - Check
5) Enormously expanded the scope NSA surveillance over the general public - Check
These are big ones. Along with the drone programs / extraordinary rendition that he also didn't stop, I'd say those are his greatest failings as president.
6) Starting even more skirmishes in the Middle East that the US has no part in being in - Check
Libya turned out surprisingly well. I was worried we'd get bogged down there. I don't think I want Syria intervention, it seems like a far worse situation for everyone.
of trying to stand your ground when dealing with bigoted stalkers that don't like it when their blacks get all uppity.
The George Zimmerman case did demonstrate one important lesson: You don't have the right to assault with lethal force the weird guy walking after you.
Trayvon thought he could take him. He was wrong. Now we move on.
Wrong, stand-your-ground was fundamental to the jury's eventual verdict:
COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?
JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/15/2306631/zimmerman-juror-says-panel-considered-stand-your-ground-he-had-a-right-to-defend-himself/
And the only witness who said his head was being slammed repeatedly into the pavement was the guy on trial for 2nd degree murder. He had lesions on the back of his head but nothing serious. I don't believe Zimmerman, but I acknowledge he might be telling the truth and we'd never know. So should he spend time in jail? I don't know, it's a really complicated case, but i wish people would acknowledge for a second that GZ might be telling a lie to get out of a long prison sentence.
Or, maybe it was Martin who got close enough to Zimmerman? There is at least as much evidence supporting that conclusion as there is yours.
IF there is, than what is it? You were so bold and confident until I started digging in to your citation. What you have shown me is that your beliefs are based on a ridiculously lop-sided reading of the evidence not "at least as much" not even close, it is practically religious in how much it appears to simply be based on faith.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
how many are using chemical weapons? Just sayin....
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
So what percentage of street fights end with someone dying? 50%? 75%? probably less than .01%. When you're getting your ass kicked, it may *feel* like the other person is trying to kill you, but believe me it'll be okay.
That's because your definition of "US public" is formed by the TV, newspapers and websites you get information from. Which, judging by your picture of it, are mostly left-wing.
Note, I'm not on an "evil librul" drive here. I'm a social democrat myself (albeit one who respects 2A and carries himself). I read both mainstream and fringe media from both left and right, and one thing that was clear in Martin/Zimmerman case was that there was no consensus (informed or otherwise) on it in US - as it was generally misappropriated to rally people to the cause of gun control (and against "stand your ground" laws) and for black civil rights, neither of which have anything to do with the actual case at hand. So people formed along the usual political front lines on all of these issues - liberals ranting about how racist crazies get guns and go shoot up poor black kids, and conservatives ranting about how [black] thugs high on drugs ruin our neighborhoods, rape our women and threaten our children. All the usual drivel.
Meanwhile, those who have actually followed the case and looked into the details quickly found out that 1) stand your ground was not involved at all, 2) there was no racial bias involved, or at least there's no evidence to conclude that way, and 3) regardless of the irresponsible behavior of both actors, legally, Zimmerman was in the clear. Hence the purported "pro-Zimmerman bias" - which is really not a bias in favor of the guy, but rather just a factual assessment of the case. I suspect there is a higher proportion of people verifying data and reaching this conclusion on Slashdot compared to your typical discussion board, just because there are more skeptics here in general.
Actually, he has said he wants to do none of those things, and instead only perform targeted missile strikes.
If the strikes are all against loyalist targets, this amounts to helping rebels win.
. The reality is, there are thousands of rebel groups in Syria, most fighting Assad in a respectable way. A handful are terrorists are extremely brutal. A handful are fighting other rebel groups.
There aren't a "thousands" of independent rebel groups in Syria. Vast majority of them are organized under several big umbrella organizations, and the biggest and strongest one of them is al-Nusra Front - Islamists with prominent radical Salafi / al-Qaeda ties. These are precisely the guys who chanted "Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave", and were already seen executing Shiites and Christians in captured areas - and promising more of the same, with the official stated goal of establishing a theocratic Sunni state a la Taliban's Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. They are also the ones that are fighting practically all other rebel groups - in particular, they've had some minor crashes with the (much more secular) FSA, and significant clashes with Kurdish independence fighters.
The TL;DR version of the above is that right now, rebel victory translates to al-Nusra - radical Islamist - victory, with all that entails: genocide of Shiites, Alawites, Christians and Kurds, imposition of Taliban-style Sharia law etc. And strikes against Assad amount to aiding the rebels.
These black boys weren't, because SYG did not apply. It didn't apply in Zimmerman's case, either, by the way - he was acquitted based solely on regular self-defense laws which permit a person to use deadly force to defend themselves when there's no ability to retreat during an attack; SYG, or lack thereof, only applies when there is an ability to retreat after the attack is imminent.
Anyway, you want a black Zimmerman? You have him. A black guy saw a bunch of white kids vandalizing cars, went out and confronted them, and shot one of them when he tried to attack him (it should be noted that the kid in question didn't even manage to lay a finger on him - he was shot as he was advancing).
And guess what? He was acquitted (by a jury of 11 whites and 1 black, by the way). Because it was self-defense.
A fight does not have to involve a firearm to end up in a fatal injury or maiming.
On the other hand, if aggressors consistently end up being dead or maimed, one could reasonably believe that would be much fewer fights overall. Perhaps even so much fewer that the net balance of lives saved vs lives lost would be positive (though I personally don't consider the value of human life to be equal between the victim and the attacker).
Other people in this thread pointed out that SYG laws indeed WERE considered in this case: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4173251&cid=44779213
So I repeat, were these black boys left loose? Or were they arrested and are awaiting a trial, which will almost certainly find them guilty?
Oh, here's a real reverse Zimmerman case: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/16/the-reverse-travyon-martin-case-and-the-other-george-zimmerman.html - a man in a car shot another man whom he deemed to be threating.
Exactly this. It's just worth remembering that it also works the other way around - and it also works when two or more countries are involved (unless you can somehow account for all the other variables).
So we have one opinion of an apparently confused anonymous juror. On the other hand, the transcripts of the case are available to all, and the jury instructions are clear there. They did mention the lack of duty to retreat because that's what the standing Florida law is; but it was not a factor that played any role in the decision because Zimmerman did not have the ability to retreat at the point when violent confrontation began (and he had no obligation to retreat before that, unless Trayvon somehow indicated his aggressive intentions before initiating the attack).
The black boys were not left loose because they were not defending themselves, but rather trying to rob the guy (in case you aren't aware, SYG only applies in case of legitimate self-defense, and you don't get to claim such when you were committing a violent crime yourself). I don't even know why I have to explain this; it's something that's so obviously common sense that you have to be either an idiot or a troll to even ask that question.
I see that you don't offer any comments at all regard the case that I've linked to. Is it because it does not conform to your mental picture of the world, where hordes of gun-toting whites stalk poor black kids in hoodies to murder them in some kind of undercover RaHoWa?
As for the case that you've linked to. The guy shot and killed a person after being verbally insulted (not even threatened). He claims that there had been an attempt to attack him with "some pipe-like object", but the object was not found, he has no injuries from such an attack, and no witnesses to back his claims, so the obvious conclusion is that it's all bullshit. In contrast, in Martin/Zimmerman case, Zimmerman had injuries consistent with his story of having his head banged against the concrete; he had a close witness confirming that he was on the bottom; and nature of Martin's wound and the corresponding damage to his clothes can only be reasonably explained by him being on top.
Zimmerman had ability to retreat before the confrontation. He had no _duty_ to do it (that's SYG law). We might never know what happened, perhaps Zimmerman called Trayvon 'a fucking n...er' or threatened to shoot him on the spot.
Imagine that I walk into a bar and start a brawl with the biggest baddest meanie there, then I pull out my gun and shoot him. It appears to be totally legal under Florida's laws (well, I can be nicked for getting a weapon into a bar - that's a felony, btw). Should I be let go in this case? Now imagine that there is nobody in the bar at that time, so it's my word against corpse's. I'll even have bruises to prove that I was threatened!
That's why SYG laws are dumb and should be repealed. Civilians should certainly be able to use deadly force in self-defense (or in defense of other peoples' lives), or to protect their property ('castle doctrine') but that's it.
Zimmerman had ability to retreat before the confrontation. He had no _duty_ to do it (that's SYG law).
SYG (and self-defense law in general) does not enter into the equation until the confrontation actually begins. So no, he didn't have a duty to retreat even in the absence of SYG, since there was nothing to retreat from when he was following Martin - there was no confrontation (it is not illegal to follow someone, and it does not indicate imminent threat).
Imagine that I walk into a bar and start a brawl with the biggest baddest meanie there, then I pull out my gun and shoot him. It appears to be totally legal under Florida's laws
It's not, because starting a brawl means that you initiate a confrontation - in the circumstances, it would likely be treated as battery, and self-defense and SYG do not apply when you're attacked while in commission of a violent crime.
On the other hand, if you start a brawl but then attempt to escape or otherwise stop the violence by deescalating, and the other guy continues going at you, then at that point only it would become a legitimate self-defense situation for you.
Now imagine that there is nobody in the bar at that time, so it's my word against corpse's. I'll even have bruises to prove that I was threatened!
This can be the case whether SYG is involved or not. All you'd have to do is to claim that you were cornered and had no avenue of escape (well, and be convincing enough that the jury actually believes you).
Having said that, self-defense in general (and hence also SYG) is an affirmative defense. This means that the onus of proof is on you as a defendant (on the charge of manslaughter) to demonstrate that you were acting in self-defense.
To reiterate, the only thing that SYG changes is that, if you successfully argue self-defense, you then don't have to also prove that you had no way to retreat. That is all. And the reason for this law is that there were, indeed, cases where people were clearly defending themselves, but were convicted because they could not demonstrate that they couldn't have safely run away - which is what "duty to retreat" requires. It was considered unjust to the victims to have to prove themselves again in the circumstances, especially after having already demonstrated that the attacker was up to no good (so why would the law concern itself with his well-being?).
or to protect their property ('castle doctrine')
Castle doctrine is not about protection of property. It's also a no-duty-to-retreat concept, except that it applies in the more narrow circumstances where the person claiming self-defense is on their property or in place of abode. It still requires imminent threat of death or bodily harm to exercise, and mere property damage is not sufficient.
The only place that I'm aware of where you can actually protect your property with deadly force with no imminent threat to yourself or any other person is Texas.
Not once the woman entered their house locked the doors and was safe and secure. Of course most women, if being followed, would have the intelligence to stop talking to a friend on the phone and call the cops then wait for the cops at the house instead of going back out to confront the stalker.
You can drop the white and black too. I think about all women would do the same if the situation was as similar. Remember, Travon made it home and then left in pursuit of Zimmerman. This in known because of testimony given by Travon's friend whom he was talking to during the entire mess.
Why would you? Do the Stand Your Ground laws require you to be part of one to stand it? If they do, what is is the legal definition of "neighborhood watch" - could you form one? Remember, it's the law, it deals with such interesting questions as what the meaning of the word "is" is.
You're really unlucky, which is hardly beyond reasonable suspicion, especially in a bad neighborhood with muggers and all. If it is, at what specific point (how many corpses) does it go beyond reasonable doubt and why (legal reason, please)?
Do the Stand Your Ground laws require you to receive physical injury before standing it? The other guy came at you with fists swinging but you were quicker. Prove that wrong in a court.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
The exact same way.
Are you trying to start a race riot?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Gives me pause to reflect how far away from Powell's perspective and ideals Mr Putman as trustee has evolved ... I visited Powell last year (an amateur astronomer of sorts) and was impressed to learn it was private sector support that got the facility off the ground and private sector support that keeps it running ... not government largess.
Honoring a pot-smoking, violence-prone teenager? Seriously?
"Basically, you have reached a conclusion without actually knowing the facts of the case, and then reinterpreted the evidence to support your conclusion."
Isn't that precisely what "parallel construction" does to create "evidence" ?? Isn't that what slashdotters were roundly condemning just a couple weeks ago ??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Here we go...see, I'm only 34 but I feel 68 because this basic knowledge you stated...it *used* to be common knowledge...
Now, I just can't think of a clearer way to say it...men have gone soft...
That's what makes them 'lash out' and buy expensive assault rifles...nerd rage...
The real number of deadly street fights is easily below .00001%
By the current legal definition of 'assault'...and excluding domestic assault or robberty type stuff, there are thousands of bar scuffles in any given weekend in a college town.
I know, I've been in a few myself. It sucks and is stupid and childish.
Zimmerman and Trayvon had words, to be sure, but absolutely no evidence was presented as to *who hit first*...Zimmerman didn't even take the stand to testify to it!
Where this is going is *more*...more little bitch wannabe cops (like Zimmerman) trying to 'draw the foul' on anyone that intimidates them or presents as a target for their self-aggrandizing.
We'll see it play out slowly, but in 10 years the stats will be clear...we'll see it in a rise of shootings by working and middle class white people that get caught up in court...other states will start having Zimmerman type shootings get publicity...court battles...
That's my opinion anyway...
Thank you Dave Raggett
also, big lesson here...anyone who has ever been in fights has had their ass kicked...it sucks
i agree that the process of fighting hard and losing control, getting beat up...then waking up the next day and dealing with it...it just seems like that *used* to be a right of passage for all boys...like grade school or middle school
it lets you know what is at stake in a fight...and encourages you to make it the last resort...b/c people. could. get. killed.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Better go and read the guidelines. https://www.iau.org/public/themes/naming/
In particular,
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
They should evaluate the judgmental capability of the astronomer who suggested the name though. To make maters more ridiculous the UN has demanded all records of the case so they can evaluate our judicial system and tell us what to do..
Just who the fuck modded this +5 insightful?
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
27 year old black guy that is a neighborhood watch patrolman and had called in a suspicious character, and a dead 17 year old white kid dressed like a thug? Yeah, I don't think they would have had a problem with that.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Zimmerman followed Trayvon because he profiled him, partly based on race.
How could he tell he was black? My understanding is that he was wearing a hoodie. He could have been a gangsta wanna-be of any race.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Dershowitz said the second-degree murder case should never have gone to trial considering the flimsy evidence against Zimmerman. He also does not believe it was strong enough to be submitted to a jury for deliberation.
âoeIf the judge had any courage in applying the law, she never would have allowed the case to go to the jury,â Dershowitz told Newsmax. âoeShe should have entered a verdict based on reasonable doubt.â
Dershowitz singled out special prosecutor Angela Corey for âoedisciplinary action.â
He criticized the stateâ(TM)s probable-cause affidavit for not including evidence indicating Zimmerman could have been acting in self-defense, including graphic images of blood streaming from his scalp and nose.
âoeThe prosecutor had in her possession photographs that would definitely show a judge that this was not an appropriate case for second-degree murder,â the Harvard professor told Newsmax. âoeShe deliberately withheld and suppressed those photographs, refused to show them to the judge, got the judge to rule erroneously this was a second-degree murder case.
âoeThat violated a whole range of ethical, professional, and legal obligations that prosecutors have. Moreover, they withheld other evidence in the course of the pretrial and trial proceedings, as has been documented by the defense team,â he said.
Dershowitz described the prosecutionâ(TM)s attempt late in the case to add a third-degree murder charge by asserting the shooting constituted child abuse âoeso professionally irresponsible as to warrant sanctions and investigations.â
Dershowitz said various legal and bar association organizations could investigate how the state handled the prosecution. He added it could warrant a federal investigation as well.
âoeI think peopleâ(TM)s rights have been violated,â the famed attorney told Newsmax, âoebut it was the rights of the defendant and the defense team, by utterly unprofessional, irresponsible, and in my view criminal actions by the prosecutor,â he said.
I suppose you will also extend your analysis to the statement Gun ownership is Up, Violent crime is Up. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I suggest that you read John Lott, who goes to great lengths to look for more than just a rough correlation.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Look at NYC and especially Chicago, thugs do carry guns, I think Chicago gov has restricted them beyond legal use. (Need to further research) criminals thrive there however.
Unfortunately there's not much that can be done at the city, or even the state level to keep guns away from criminals since they can just buy them out of state. You need a controlled border that guns can't easily be carried across en mass.
I stole this Sig
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
This isn't in any way a request or order to not follow him. That is not what the word 'need' means. Saying "please do not follow him" would be a request, omit the word 'please' if you don't want to be polite. The dispatcher should do a communications course.
This was a single teenager, large, lean, muscular, with fighting experience. It's a tough fight, but it's one you can at least bring below the level of "life or death" for a little bit. Zimmerman was taking it in the ass the whole way; he had absolutely no chance other than shooting this kid fatally. As a boxer you'd get taken down easy by a minimally trained fighter; but take that experience to Muay Thai (more hard art, but damn) or Silat and you're going to quickly find yourself unphased by 2 or 3 "street hardened' kids who have no real formal training and no training to function in a group. 6 or 7 maybe. Firearms and other weapons are going to make this shitty real quick and you're going to find yourself in a place you don't want to be. Not the point; point is you can be better than "I'm just gonna get my ass beat."
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Oh come on, pedantry over colloquialisms adds no value to the discussion.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
But there were bystanders around who had called the police. They very well could have stepped in if the fight got out of hand.
Are you serious? Brian Stow suffered potentially fatal (instead, "just" lifetime brain damage) head wounds when he was jumped in the parking lot of Dodger Stadium after a Giants/Dodgers game. Lots of people being around didn't help him out, especially when it takes just one or two blows to cause enough head/brain trauma to kill someone. It's called The Bystander Effect, and it's worth a read.
And obviously stupidy non-sensical correlations are up. Wow.. talk about ridiculous. Libs want to ban guns because they are so dangerous.. the number of guns going up is actually a direct correlation according to DoJ and dozens of studies showing that the number 1 thing that causes a criminal to NOT commit a crime is the potential presence of a gun. Same reason that Crime is up in all but two small townships in the UK,.. and that the groundswell there is to re-legalize guns.. Number one argument?.. so that people can defend themselves. But that's okay... disregard the facts (as most libs do) and inject your semi-witty banter.
Ohh the humanity! Look at all that Crime in the UK!
Yes, instead of my witty banter lets rely on your unimpeachable data consisting of a cherry picked example that doesn't even seem to be right, unnamed "studies", and reports by a non-scientific government agency (I'll trust their stats, but not their analysis).
Here's the one quick bit of info I found that suggests that there's isn't much correlation either way. Which isn't surprising, in most cases I'd expect guns to be dwarfed by socio-economic factors when it comes to crime, and it's hard to remove confounders from the data. Still, there's a piece of actual data for the null hypothesis.
I stole this Sig
There was two or three people in this world who know approximately what happened in those few moments. One of them is dead, and the other is acquitted. None of them are the two of us, so any conversation about anything other than the material facts is pure speculation and mental masturbation. Did Zim take it in the shorts or did he just get ambushed? Who knows.
Not everyone can be goddamned $Hollywood_Martial_Artist, no fight is ever $Hollywood_Fight_movie, and even your formally trained fighters are capable of being unlucky. A firearm merely is a tool that allows more options for more people, in many circumstances. Like it or not. I for one, do not give a shit.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
I'd say being followed by someone suspicious (who in this case did have a gun) is justification for feeling threatened. It was dark, this guy was following him and it wasn't clear that he was going to get any help if he had yelled out for it (Zimmerman tried). Fight or flight takes hold. Once Zimmerman was being attacked it definitely ruled out the murder charge, but I think manslaughter is very appropriate.