THANK YOU! This is even closer to Reverse-Zimmerman than anything I've seen! I am saving this one.
THough I should point out, the main reason this didn't reach national level of clamour is because the guy was actually charged and tried, UNlike Zimmerman. Of course, it sounds like in this case, he never should have!
I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear: If you are forced to retreat to a corner, that is not stand your ground. I don't know what it's called, but it's basically the lowest of the 3 levels. Level 1 = you must be cornered, Level 2 (stand your ground) = you can stand your ground, Level 3 (Castle Doctrine) = you don't even have to wait for them to try to hurt you, if someone is in your house, it's your castle, you can shoot them, you don't even have to stand your ground, they could be unarmed, it doesn't matter, it's your castle and they shouldn't be in there. Castle Doctrine is more for real redneck states like Texas, level 2/stand your ground is for places like Florida and where I live, Virginia. I think the Level 1 where you must be cornered is in more liberal anti-gun states. I'm pretty liberal but I always opt for the option which grants the most freedom, so I'm quite pro-gun. I think there should maybe be a level 2.5 in there, something like the castle doctrine but with a BIT of sanity attached to it. Shooting a tresspasser in your yard is overkill, but not if they are in your bedroom.
There's no defamation here. It's the same thing as quoting someone using "..." where you omit part of the middle of the quote. Long-established journalism practice.
I said white kid. This kid was hispanic. It's okay (in the mind of racial bias) to not charge someone for killing a hispanic, but if the victim was white, I think we'd see the black guy charged. This is the closest example I've seen, but not quite a true Reverse-Zimmerman in my mind. Close. Very very very close.
People who live in gated communities are among the most paranoid in existence. The thing he, HE DID HAVE BUSINESS THERE, nor is it Zimmerman's place to be a gatekeeper. Hell, he wasn't even an official member of the neighborhood watch, and if he was, he would have been kicked out because the watch there has a no firearms policy. You don't have to live in a gated community to have business being there. It's called being a guest.
Exactly. That's why stand your ground is a good and sensible law. One step above that is Castle Doctrine, where you can basically shoot anyone trespassing without any warning. One step below that is having to retreat. Stand your ground is good. In the zimmmerman case, if he is innocent, it will either be a) judicial misapplication, b) the statute was enumerated incorrectly and needs to be rewritten with more specificity, or c) If Trayvon left the scene after he followed him, and then came back, at that point, Trayvon would be the initiator and stand your ground would once again apply (and maybe it shouldn't in this case, which would speak to (b)).
It got no coverage because the police arrested and charged them! There's not much to debate here, in the story you linked to, things are working as they should be. Things working as they should be are not as newsworthy as things not working as they should be. That's why we don't have a newspaper article every time an airplane successfully lands, or national-debate-level coverage every time someone who deserves to be arrested gets arrested. THe case you linked to is not a reverse-Zimmerman.
The guy who got the business end of justice probably didn't live in a stand your ground state. In those states, you can't just shoot a guy coming in your house to kill you. You have to actually keep retreating until you are in a corner, and then and only then can you legally defend yourself.
And, for the record, what Zimmerman did was not stand your ground, except by technicality if Trayvon left and then came back and attacked him after he left. I sort of think you should permanently lose stand your ground status once you initiate a confrontation -- even if the person goes away and comes back -- but the law in Florida may be judicially misapplied, and may have been enumerated incorrectly by the legislation as well. The system can break in oh-so-many places.
Unless you're talking about a black killer who killed a black person citing self defense, and then was not charged afterward, it's really not the same situation. X killing X under normal circumstances isn't as interesting news as X killing X under unique circumstances (or in the zimmerman-trayvon case, X killing Y under unique circumstances). That is part of it. But race is another component, for sure, too.
It's irrelevant to my narrative. The victim's race is what determines the police's concern, not the perpetrator's race.
If the victim is a minority, they aren't going to investigate the death as much. Doesn't matter if the person who killed them is minority or not. As I mentioned in my earlier comment, RE: Brandon Gotwalt - my county with a population over a million and less than 5 murders a year takes murder very seriously and did not charge this guy despite the fact that he was drinking alcohol, brought a gun and created an altercation, shot the guy, and hid evidence. You think you could do that to a white person?
At first I thought the "Find me a case where the races are reversed" argument was bogus -- until I wasted 30 minutes googling trying to find one. I found a case where a black guy shot a white kid and got away with it (and shouldn't have), buuuuuuuuuuuuuut: In that case, the police actually arrested and charged him, so it's not the same situation.
The ethnicity is absolutely relevant. As has been pointed out here - find a case of a black man doing this to a white kid *under equal circumstances*, where the black man was not arrested. I live in the county that had the lowest murder rate in the country in 2004, Fairfax County. I know a guy (not by choice) who did a similar thing - he was drunk, heard a ruckus outside, brought out a gun, shot a hispanic kid, left the scene, did not call 911, flushed his evidence down the toilet. He was white. The kid he shot was brown. The shooter claimed self defense was not charged. He sat with cops and joked during the wrongful death lawsuit (that he lost). He was never charged. His name was never released to the family, who had to sue in court for over a year just to find his name. His name is Brandon Gotwalt. Hopefully I'm retelling the story right, but there's plenty to google on this. Show me where this happens with races reversed. Race absolutely changes how the law is applied. This has been statistically proven over and over and over and over.
The real problem is people who want to control everything within eyesight of the property they own, as if buying property at location X gives you authority over everything within eyesite of location X. We can thank them for the zoning laws that make any family wanting to own its business have to rent (and drive to) a separate building to operate their business because OMG SOMEBODY MIGHT USE THE PARKING ON MY STREET (which you don't own).
I'm glad I don't give a fuck what's on my horizon and aren't contributing to making the world worse place with entitled assholeism.
Well, at least not that kind of entitled assholeism;)
Marc Randazza. When it comes to free speech, he's a champ. Couldn't agree with anyone more. When it comes to RIAA, he's one of the assholes who writes blogposts about how it's just fine to have huge judgments against bittorrent pirates. Ultimately he's a smarmy lawyer, but sometimes he's right. Like this time. He's dead right to defend his daughter over this. Crystal Cox should probably be sucking some cox.
And how does less history archived help future historians figure out what is important? In order to figure out if something is important, it has to be preserved in the first place. Oh, you mean you just want the history that the victors right, not the actual histyr.
I was the one who said that - you can't bring the ground with you. But if someone steals your shit, you DO FUCKING HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET IT BACK. You don't have the right to kill him for it, but guess what? In the course of using force to get it back, he may try to kill you, and your right to self defense does not disappear. THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS TRAYVON'S CASE, and you're being an asshole for using a dead kid to try to justify lies to pass your own personal agenda.
Wonder why you didn't link to the case you talked about?. Oh, right! In this case, the man had stolen radios from his truck. He was within the law to pursue the guy to get his stolen property back. At the point at which the thief -- already in the wrong -- assaults him, it is indeed self defense. This is not tracking down someone who 911 said not to pursue, who was an unarmed kid buying skittles. This was someone directly retrieving his stolen property.
Furthermore, the victim was not shot, but stabbed, and his name was "Pedro Roleta". In your grand failed game of equivocation, "stab a hispanic thief running away with your property" is the same as "shoot an unarmed black guy who has committed no crime". YOU LOSE.
I guess this quite adequately explains why Zimmerman was never cuffed and brought in... oh wait. It's just that. Hyperbole. Zimmerman was brought in and arrested. He was investigated, but they decided to not press charges. So why are you quoting applications of a law that did not happen in the case that we are talking about, again? To paint an inaccurate picture. So yes, when someone defends hyperbole with more hyperbole, they tend to get marked 'enemy' so their posts are permanently modded -1 from me, for I'm not really interested in hearing from someone a 2nd time if they are bullshitting me the first time. Quoting a law blog that engages in the same hyperbole doesn't make it valid in the face of what actually happened in the case. (He should have been charged, though.
But the thread here has now made the bold claims that a) what he did was stand your ground [with no mention of 'duty to flee'], and b) The law prevents police from investigating/arresting someone (despite the fact that both were done).
Slashdot Mirror
THough I should point out, the main reason this didn't reach national level of clamour is because the guy was actually charged and tried, UNlike Zimmerman. Of course, it sounds like in this case, he never should have!
I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear: If you are forced to retreat to a corner, that is not stand your ground. I don't know what it's called, but it's basically the lowest of the 3 levels. Level 1 = you must be cornered, Level 2 (stand your ground) = you can stand your ground, Level 3 (Castle Doctrine) = you don't even have to wait for them to try to hurt you, if someone is in your house, it's your castle, you can shoot them, you don't even have to stand your ground, they could be unarmed, it doesn't matter, it's your castle and they shouldn't be in there. Castle Doctrine is more for real redneck states like Texas, level 2 /stand your ground is for places like Florida and where I live, Virginia. I think the Level 1 where you must be cornered is in more liberal anti-gun states. I'm pretty liberal but I always opt for the option which grants the most freedom, so I'm quite pro-gun. I think there should maybe be a level 2.5 in there, something like the castle doctrine but with a BIT of sanity attached to it. Shooting a tresspasser in your yard is overkill, but not if they are in your bedroom.
There's no defamation here. It's the same thing as quoting someone using "..." where you omit part of the middle of the quote. Long-established journalism practice.
I said white kid. This kid was hispanic. It's okay (in the mind of racial bias) to not charge someone for killing a hispanic, but if the victim was white, I think we'd see the black guy charged. This is the closest example I've seen, but not quite a true Reverse-Zimmerman in my mind. Close. Very very very close.
People who live in gated communities are among the most paranoid in existence. The thing he, HE DID HAVE BUSINESS THERE, nor is it Zimmerman's place to be a gatekeeper. Hell, he wasn't even an official member of the neighborhood watch, and if he was, he would have been kicked out because the watch there has a no firearms policy. You don't have to live in a gated community to have business being there. It's called being a guest.
Exactly. That's why stand your ground is a good and sensible law. One step above that is Castle Doctrine, where you can basically shoot anyone trespassing without any warning. One step below that is having to retreat. Stand your ground is good. In the zimmmerman case, if he is innocent, it will either be a) judicial misapplication, b) the statute was enumerated incorrectly and needs to be rewritten with more specificity, or c) If Trayvon left the scene after he followed him, and then came back, at that point, Trayvon would be the initiator and stand your ground would once again apply (and maybe it shouldn't in this case, which would speak to (b)).
It got no coverage because the police arrested and charged them! There's not much to debate here, in the story you linked to, things are working as they should be. Things working as they should be are not as newsworthy as things not working as they should be. That's why we don't have a newspaper article every time an airplane successfully lands, or national-debate-level coverage every time someone who deserves to be arrested gets arrested. THe case you linked to is not a reverse-Zimmerman.
And, for the record, what Zimmerman did was not stand your ground, except by technicality if Trayvon left and then came back and attacked him after he left. I sort of think you should permanently lose stand your ground status once you initiate a confrontation -- even if the person goes away and comes back -- but the law in Florida may be judicially misapplied, and may have been enumerated incorrectly by the legislation as well. The system can break in oh-so-many places.
It's almost like you responded to my comment without actually reading it.
Unless you're talking about a black killer who killed a black person citing self defense, and then was not charged afterward, it's really not the same situation. X killing X under normal circumstances isn't as interesting news as X killing X under unique circumstances (or in the zimmerman-trayvon case, X killing Y under unique circumstances). That is part of it. But race is another component, for sure, too.
If the victim is a minority, they aren't going to investigate the death as much. Doesn't matter if the person who killed them is minority or not. As I mentioned in my earlier comment, RE: Brandon Gotwalt - my county with a population over a million and less than 5 murders a year takes murder very seriously and did not charge this guy despite the fact that he was drinking alcohol, brought a gun and created an altercation, shot the guy, and hid evidence. You think you could do that to a white person?
At first I thought the "Find me a case where the races are reversed" argument was bogus -- until I wasted 30 minutes googling trying to find one. I found a case where a black guy shot a white kid and got away with it (and shouldn't have), buuuuuuuuuuuuuut: In that case, the police actually arrested and charged him, so it's not the same situation.
The ethnicity is absolutely relevant. As has been pointed out here - find a case of a black man doing this to a white kid *under equal circumstances*, where the black man was not arrested. I live in the county that had the lowest murder rate in the country in 2004, Fairfax County. I know a guy (not by choice) who did a similar thing - he was drunk, heard a ruckus outside, brought out a gun, shot a hispanic kid, left the scene, did not call 911, flushed his evidence down the toilet. He was white. The kid he shot was brown. The shooter claimed self defense was not charged. He sat with cops and joked during the wrongful death lawsuit (that he lost). He was never charged. His name was never released to the family, who had to sue in court for over a year just to find his name. His name is Brandon Gotwalt. Hopefully I'm retelling the story right, but there's plenty to google on this. Show me where this happens with races reversed. Race absolutely changes how the law is applied. This has been statistically proven over and over and over and over.
I'm glad I don't give a fuck what's on my horizon and aren't contributing to making the world worse place with entitled assholeism.
Well, at least not that kind of entitled assholeism ;)
You are conflating and equivocating misapplication of the law with bad law.
Marc Randazza. When it comes to free speech, he's a champ. Couldn't agree with anyone more. When it comes to RIAA, he's one of the assholes who writes blogposts about how it's just fine to have huge judgments against bittorrent pirates. Ultimately he's a smarmy lawyer, but sometimes he's right. Like this time. He's dead right to defend his daughter over this. Crystal Cox should probably be sucking some cox.
Because if it was a bomb designed to blow up the plane, the plane would be blown up. They did this after it landed.
SO "Exactly what you want them to do" is fine a bomb AFTER the flight is over?
And how does less history archived help future historians figure out what is important? In order to figure out if something is important, it has to be preserved in the first place. Oh, you mean you just want the history that the victors right, not the actual histyr.
they really out-did themselves here, though; usually you can tell the difference between the fox news audience and the slashdot audience.
Wow. Buncha assholes here.
I was the one who said that - you can't bring the ground with you. But if someone steals your shit, you DO FUCKING HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET IT BACK. You don't have the right to kill him for it, but guess what? In the course of using force to get it back, he may try to kill you, and your right to self defense does not disappear. THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS TRAYVON'S CASE, and you're being an asshole for using a dead kid to try to justify lies to pass your own personal agenda.
Furthermore, the victim was not shot, but stabbed, and his name was "Pedro Roleta". In your grand failed game of equivocation, "stab a hispanic thief running away with your property" is the same as "shoot an unarmed black guy who has committed no crime". YOU LOSE.
crap, forgot to close my parenthesis: )))))))))))))))))))
But the thread here has now made the bold claims that a) what he did was stand your ground [with no mention of 'duty to flee'], and b) The law prevents police from investigating/arresting someone (despite the fact that both were done).
You've lost all credibility. Good bye.
You lost me when you made the laughable claim that police "can't investigate".