Zimmerman Trial

Use this forum to suggest topics, and to find others to debate with.

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Moreno » Mon Jul 29, 2013 5:28 am

Smears, I have to go with Stuart here.

Imagine telling a Child....
I don't need you to finish all the ice Cream Before dinner.

And see if this works as 'instructing the Child not to do this'.

The operator, by the way, has no real authority to tell the person not to do something. Which is probably why he or she did not make herself clearer. I am pretty sure a police officer would have told him not to follow the person - unless there was some reason a Citizen should be put at risk, like they know this guy has the trigger for a bomb or something and there are only minutes left Before....... But operators are not police.

And a police officer will not say things like

I don't need you keep running from me.
or
I don't need you to keep the ignition on.

A police officer will know, intuitively, that the person needs to be told what to do and what not to do in a command form, not about what the police officer does not need.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:40 am

Yeah but Zimmerman isn't a dumb impulsive kid. He's studied in some respect in being a neighborhood watchman. So he thinks of himself as a cop. I don't think a comparison between a grown man who's of stable enough mind to be carrying a gun and a kid who can't resist ice cream really makes a good case.

At best, you've got the neighborhood watchman out there with the discipline of a child.

Maybe that's what we need? A guy who's so excited about killing the next kid who looks like a "thug", that he can't even focus or control himself or even use any kind of judgment and just starts going after kids and shooting them and making excused afterward when we all find out there was no reason to follow the kid in the first place.

Zimmerman, as a wannabe cop, knew good and well that he shouldn't have followed the kid. He got out of his car ready to fight and maybe kill someone and that's what he did. If he's afraid there's a criminal walking down the street, arming yourself and getting out of the car to expose yourself to the danger is a pretty bold move. I think it takes a certain mind set to do that. I don't think you guys are giving that enough credit. This wasn't an innocent guy trying to stop a crime.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25945
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby statiktech » Mon Jul 29, 2013 1:38 pm

Smears wrote:Zimmerman, as a wannabe cop, knew good and well that he shouldn't have followed the kid. He got out of his car ready to fight and maybe kill someone and that's what he did.


Yeah, you don't know that.

This wasn't an innocent guy trying to stop a crime.


You don't know that either.

This sort of thing is pretty hypocritical coming from someone who accuses others of talking about the case as if they know what happened.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby statiktech » Mon Jul 29, 2013 1:47 pm

uglypeoplefucking wrote:Yes i've been wrong before. And how. But i don't think her opinion was at odds with the evidence at all. Legally, there may not have enough evidence to convict, but that's not the same thing. It's not as if there was evidence that someone besides Zimmerman shot Martin. The evidence there was pointed in a certain direction, but was legally insufficient, that is all. i didn't get the impression the juror doubted her own opinion was correct, only that she knew there was not enough evidence to prove it based on the law.


You assume she had access to information we don't?

He wasn't pursuing the kid relentlessly and he likely didn't intend to get into an altercation with him.


We don't know either of those things.

I mean, the fact that he didn't pull the gun immediately is telling.


We also don't know when he pulled his gun.


You're right, we don't know those things for sure. That's sloppy on my part.

Also, he didn't profile him in the sense the media would have you believe. What he suspected was Martin's behavior.


i don't think that's accurate. Do you honestly believe that if Martin had been a white kid in a polo shirt and khakis walking around the same neighborhood any of this would have happened?


I really don't know.

If it were as simple as you put it above, I have little doubt that he'd be in prison right now. The story is far more complicated.


Which complications are you referring to?


I mean I think there is way more to it than Zimmerman just hunting down and killing some innocent kid. The case clearly isn't that cut and dry.

If you really think he can not only legally, but also justifiably shoot someone to death because he was stupid and that's a good enough excuse, then i don't know what else i can say anyway. He had no right to kill anyone. If either person in the situation could justifiably kill the other, it was Martin. The irony is, had it gone down that way, we all know Martin would be in jail right now.


I think he was justified if his life was in danger. Again, you seem to be saying that, since he did something stupid, he should accept his own death rather than protect himself. Why?

In any case, i find it hard to comprehend exactly how Zimmerman managed to fire, only once, a single bullet through Martin's chest if he were struggling to keep the gun out of Martin's hands. There was only one gun, after all, and clearly Zimmerman had control over it when he fired the shot. What was the threat to his life in the moment he pulled the trigger?


It's pretty easy to imagine if you listen to Zimmerman's account. Martin was supposedly on top of him. All he had to do was draw and pull the trigger.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:15 pm

statiktech wrote:
Smears wrote:Zimmerman, as a wannabe cop, knew good and well that he shouldn't have followed the kid. He got out of his car ready to fight and maybe kill someone and that's what he did.


Yeah, you don't know that.

This wasn't an innocent guy trying to stop a crime.


You don't know that either.

This sort of thing is pretty hypocritical coming from someone who accuses others of talking about the case as if they know what happened.



What do you mean "know"? Are you doing philosophy at me?

I'm saying that he went from over-confident to scared for his life in a matter of minutes even though he was armed and 11 years older than the kid. I think that's a far fetched claim. I dunno what kinda place you grew up in, but people who are out looking for shit and carrying guns are usually confident and not afraid. I do in fact know that ZImmerman got out of his car and shot an unarmed kid because he'd profiled him and decided on a confrontation. He didn't wait for police to confront the kid did he?

Sometimes Stat, in life, we must make inferences. Google "best possible explanation". It's very technical stuff....I guess.

I mean...dude you're usually right on point and pretty well able to articulate your views, even if I'm opposed to them, but this time I feel like I'm talking to a guy who can't see his own underlying assumptions. Are you sure you're not a racist man? Are you just playing the devil's advocate here?

I know you live in the Atlanta area, and that the "problem" that plagued Zimmerman is probably standing in front of you all over your street corners, in front of your house all day blasting stereos, making noise, intimidating people and stealing your shit. But for real man you can't be mad at every one of them. I live in Birmingham where an african american commits a murder or a rape like every single fucking day and they've been doing it for decades or more. A small city, #4 for homicide, #1 for forced rape.

But that doesn't mean I can't see clearly that an unarmed kid, walking home, not committing a crime ought not be shot down because of profiling and race paranoia. Individuals are individuals, race is a thing we use to generalize over groups of individuals. It's one thing to profile someone improperly, another to kill them.

I've been robbed 3 times in my life, every time it was a pack of black guys vs me. I still don't think we should shoot black kids cause they look like they guys who robbed me.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25945
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby statiktech » Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:35 pm

Smears wrote:What do you mean "know"? Are you doing philosophy at me?


I mean to treat or understand as fact. In other words, you're making assumptions then treating them like facts.

I'm saying that he went from over-confident to scared for his life in a matter of minutes even though he was armed and 11 years older than the kid. I think that's a far fetched claim. I dunno what kinda place you grew up in, but people who are out looking for shit and carrying guns are usually confident and not afraid. I do in fact know that ZImmerman got out of his car and shot an unarmed kid because he'd profiled him and decided on a confrontation. He didn't wait for police to confront the kid did he?


How do you know he decided on a confrontation?

Sometimes Stat, in life, we must make inferences. Google "best possible explanation". It's very technical stuff....I guess.


I've done the same thing in this thread only to be criticized for it. At least I actually looked into the evidence rather than making a bunch of rash claims about Zimmerman's character and intentions.

I mean...dude you're usually right on point and pretty well able to articulate your views, even if I'm opposed to them, but this time I feel like I'm talking to a guy who can't see his own underlying assumptions. Are you sure you're not a racist man? Are you just playing the devil's advocate here?


Mostly devil's advocate, yes. I honestly don't think we have enough evidence to conclude that Zimmerman intended anyone harm. He's clearly not a racist if you look into him some.

What assumptions are you referring to specifically?

I know you live in the Atlanta area, and that the "problem" that plagued Zimmerman is probably standing in front of you all over your street corners, in front of your house all day blasting stereos, making noise, intimidating people and stealing your shit. But for real man you can't be mad at every one of them. I live in Birmingham where an african american commits a murder or a rape like every single fucking day and they've been doing it for decades or more. A small city, #4 for homicide, #1 for forced rape.


You're making this about race. I haven't said anything about it. Anyway, I think these sorts of things are cultural problems; not racial.

But that doesn't mean I can't see clearly that an unarmed kid, walking home, not committing a crime ought not be shot down because of profiling and race paranoia.


As far as we know, that's not why he shot him at all.

I've been robbed 3 times in my life, every time it was a pack of black guys vs me. I still don't think we should shoot black kids cause they look like they guys who robbed me.


I don't know how you feel comfortable saying some of this shit. It comes off pretty ignorant. The fact that you're willing to resort to the race card in a discussion here is telling.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:56 pm

Dude don't act like it's far fetched to "resort" to "the race card". Half the country agrees with me.

If I sneak after you and kill you in the dark, then all we have are inferences. You can't tell everyone that I shoved you and pulled a gun on you. And hell, no one will give a shit that I was inappropriately out of my car and coming after you. So I'll be fine right?

There's a difference between entertaining uncertainty in a thought experiment vs. doing so when it's clear that someone acted in a way that caused another person's death.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25945
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby statiktech » Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:02 pm

Smears wrote:Dude don't act like it's far fetched to "resort" to "the race card". Half the country agrees with me.


Yeah, the half that can't be bothered to do their own research.

I meant pulling the race card on me, not Zimmerman.

If I sneak after you and kill you in the dark, then all we have are inferences. You can't tell everyone that I shoved you and pulled a gun on you. And hell, no one will give a shit that I was inappropriately out of my car and coming after you. So I'll be fine right?


Explain why him being out of the car was inappropriate. Explain how you know he was "coming after" Martin.

There's a difference between entertaining uncertainty in a thought experiment vs. doing so when it's clear that someone acted in a way that caused another person's death.


That's exactly your problem. You're unwilling to accept that Martin may have played a role in his own death.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:11 pm

Bothered to do their own research? Dude that's a canned objections that means jack shit. What are you gonna accuse me of an ad hom next? I don't even remember how to respond to such worthless claims.

Him getting out of the car was inappropriate because he doesn't have the authority to arrest or detain the kid. It's also inappropriate because the 911 operator said she didn't need him to follow, which I believe most people would take as an instruction. You can argue all the intricacies of that if you want, but I think it's pretty plain as day. I'm taking that as evidence that he shouldn't have gotten out of his car. If someone is in my kitchen while I'm cooking chili, and they start throwing spices into my shit, and I say, "I don't need you to do that", then they keep on, they're fucking up my chili and it's because the dumbass failed to understand that I didn't need him to do that. How much clearer does it have to be? You wanna say it wasn't illegal for him to follow the kid? At the very least it was irresponsible, and I can tell you that if the cops weren't all so buddy buddy with him, they could have easily charged him with harassment, or menacing, or whatever they call it in Florida when a person does that.

How do I know he was coming after Martin? Because he said, "I'm sick of these guys always getting away", then the 911 operator stated something to the effect of "don't follow him", then he got out of his car and followed him anyway. I know he was coming after him because he said he didn't want him to get away and then he got out of his car and ended up in a fight with him. How much clearer can that be? How the fuck was he not coming after him???

Played a role in his own death?

I think it's just as plausible that Zimmerman tried to hold him at gunpoint till the cops got there, and that Zimmerman defended himself and got shot in doing so. I think that lines up with the idea that a kid walking down the street doesn't wanna be held up by some crazy fuck, and I think it goes along with Zimmerman's overzealous wannabe law enforcement mentality.

So why buy the crazy story that this kid went from running away, to hiding behind a bush and then jumping out and ambushing the guy?

You think Zimmerman went from bully to scared for his life, and you think Martin went from pursued to aggressor, but why do you think this? Why would both of them switch roles once no one else could see what was happening?
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25945
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby statiktech » Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:30 pm

Smears wrote:Bothered to do their own research? Dude that's a canned objections that means jack shit. What are you gonna accuse me of an ad hom next? I don't even remember how to respond to such worthless claims.


It means you haven't bothered to do any research, which is clear from what you write. I think you heard about the case then immediately jumped to conclusions without gathering any new information.

Him getting out of the car was inappropriate because he doesn't have the authority to arrest or detain the kid.


He probably wasn't trying to arrest or detain him.

It's also inappropriate because the 911 operator said she didn't need him to follow, which I believe most people would take as an instruction.


If anything, that means "don't follow", not "stay in your car".

You can argue all the intricacies of that if you want, but I think it's pretty plain as day. I'm taking that as evidence that he shouldn't have gotten out of his car.


That's because you probably don't know what you're talking about. Also, that's a pretty sad standard for evidence.

If someone is in my kitchen while I'm cooking chili, and they start throwing spices into my shit, and I say, "I don't need you to do that", then they keep on, they're fucking up my chili and it's because the dumbass failed to understand that I didn't need him to do that. How much clearer does it have to be? You wanna say it wasn't illegal for him to follow the kid? At the very least it was irresponsible, and I can tell you that if the cops weren't all so buddy buddy with him, they could have easily charged him with harassment, or menacing, or whatever they call it in Florida when a person does that.


So now you're an expert on the law as well as human behavior? Impressive, bro.

How do I know he was coming after Martin? Because he said, "I'm sick of these guys always getting away", then the 911 operator stated something to the effect of "don't follow him", then he got out of his car and followed him anyway. I know he was coming after him because he said he didn't want him to get away and then he got out of his car and ended up in a fight with him. How much clearer can that be? How the fuck was he not coming after him???


To say he was "coming after" Martin implies that he wanted to confront Martin, which is pure speculation. Nothing you've said supports that claim.

If you just meant that he was following, I'd hardly disagree.

Played a role in his own death?

I think it's just as plausible that Zimmerman tried to hold him at gunpoint till the cops got there, and that Zimmerman defended himself and got shot in doing so. I think that lines up with the idea that a kid walking down the street doesn't wanna be held up by some crazy fuck, and I think it goes along with Zimmerman's overzealous wannabe law enforcement mentality.


Lots of things seem plausible. That doesn't mean Martin didn't play a role.

So why buy the crazy story that this kid went from running away, to hiding behind a bush and then jumping out and ambushing the guy?


Maybe that's how it really happened. Life is crazy sometimes.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby uglypeoplefucking » Mon Jul 29, 2013 10:09 pm

statiktech wrote:You assume she had access to information we don't?


Yes of course. But keep in mind she said there was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman, not that any of the evidence exonerated him. She still thinks the guy is guilty.

Do you honestly believe that if Martin had been a white kid in a polo shirt and khakis walking around the same neighborhood any of this would have happened?


I really don't know.


i suppose i don't know for certain either, but i really, really doubt it. Zimmerman doesn't have to be a racist in order for this to be about race. Hell Zimmerman could be black and this would still be about race. We are taught by the media and culture that black people who dress a certain way are criminals. It's a little more subtle than that, but that's essentially what profiling is all about.

I mean I think there is way more to it than Zimmerman just hunting down and killing some innocent kid. The case clearly isn't that cut and dry.


No clearly it isn't that cut and dry. There are mitigating factors and there are things we just don't know. For instance, i'm pretty sure it wasn't premeditated. i don't think Zimmerman was planning to kill the kid, even as he was following him. He may have been prepared to kill him, but that's different. i think it's clear Zimmerman was looking for a confrontation of some sort, but i'm guessing that pulling the trigger was really a heat of the moment decision.

I think he was justified if his life was in danger. Again, you seem to be saying that, since he did something stupid, he should accept his own death rather than protect himself. Why?


i wouldn't expect him not to protect himself, but given that he essentially provoked the fight, and his opponent was unarmed, i don't think he was justified in fatally shooting him and claiming self-defense. That's simply not how things ought to work, otherwise people can just arm themselves, go around picking fights (or doing stupid shit that causes fights) and then blowing someone away anytime they start losing one of said fights.

In any case, i find it hard to comprehend exactly how Zimmerman managed to fire, only once, a single bullet through Martin's chest if he were struggling to keep the gun out of Martin's hands. There was only one gun, after all, and clearly Zimmerman had control over it when he fired the shot. What was the threat to his life in the moment he pulled the trigger?


It's pretty easy to imagine if you listen to Zimmerman's account. Martin was supposedly on top of him. All he had to do was draw and pull the trigger.


So we know Zimmerman had a free arm and enough room between him and Martin to draw, press the gun to Martin's chest and pull the trigger. We also know Martin was unarmed. Did he have Zimmerman by the throat or something? What in that scenario indicates that Zimmerman's life was realistically in danger? Zimmerman was the one with the gun in his hand.
i am brilliant, you are stupid. Therefore, you are wrong.
uglypeoplefucking
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4147
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:47 pm
Location: throughout

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Mon Jul 29, 2013 10:14 pm

Stat youre crazy man. You just keep saying im not citing facts, but ive said the same thing 3 times. You have no position. You wont say what you think happened. But you say it cant be the case that this or that happened. Commit to a best possible explanation where someone is at fault for this killing and lemme see what that looks like.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25945
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby statiktech » Tue Jul 30, 2013 12:03 am

.
Last edited by statiktech on Tue Jul 30, 2013 12:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby statiktech » Tue Jul 30, 2013 12:07 am

I think it happened mostly as Zimmerman said in his account to police here.

That's after they ran the story through a lie detector test with no evidence of deceit. Anyway, I don't know about the gun. Why it was on him to begin with and when, and how, it came into play. I don't think he is a racist and I don't think he "profiled" Martin the way you do. There had apparently been a bunch of burglaries in the neighborhood by young black males. Some were caught, some not. That's not racism mind you; it's a fact.

I just don't think what he did was murder. I think his actions deserve consequences, just not those suited for murderers.

Lastly, I think the media has played a rather contemptible role in all of this.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby uglypeoplefucking » Tue Jul 30, 2013 12:16 pm

statiktech wrote:I think it happened mostly as Zimmerman said in his account to police here.

That's after they ran the story through a lie detector test with no evidence of deceit. Anyway, I don't know about the gun. Why it was on him to begin with and when, and how, it came into play. I don't think he is a racist and I don't think he "profiled" Martin the way you do. There had apparently been a bunch of burglaries in the neighborhood by young black males. Some were caught, some not. That's not racism mind you; it's a fact.

I just don't think what he did was murder. I think his actions deserve consequences, just not those suited for murderers.

Lastly, I think the media has played a rather contemptible role in all of this.


i don't place much stock in Zimmerman's account - or at least i take it with a LOT of salt - he was trying to beat a murder charge, after all - and lie detectors work maybe half the time.

That said, i don't necessarily think it was murder either. Like you, i think it was at the very least foolhardy and stupid and deserves legal consequences (if only to deter others from similar actions). i also think America's gun culture and the idiot laws that it spawns (like "stand your ground") deserve a big part of the blame. The media is what it is - and it always makes a convenient scapegoat - but ultimately, it's the only source most people outside the courtroom have for what happened that night.

i do think he was profiled - but i suppose we can disagree on that.

Anyway, thanks for hashing things out with me Statik - always a pleasure to talk to you.
i am brilliant, you are stupid. Therefore, you are wrong.
uglypeoplefucking
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4147
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:47 pm
Location: throughout

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby statiktech » Tue Jul 30, 2013 1:49 pm

uglypeoplefucking wrote:Yes of course. But keep in mind she said there was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman, not that any of the evidence exonerated him. She still thinks the guy is guilty.


I suppose my question to her would be: Guilty of what?

i suppose i don't know for certain either, but i really, really doubt it. Zimmerman doesn't have to be a racist in order for this to be about race. Hell Zimmerman could be black and this would still be about race. We are taught by the media and culture that black people who dress a certain way are criminals. It's a little more subtle than that, but that's essentially what profiling is all about.


It's not about the portrayal of blacks in the media though. It's about groups of primarily black kids robbing people. The case is about race only insofar as race relates to the conditions that produce criminals, like poverty. Like I said, I think it's a cultural thing. And it's something that black people contribute to.

No clearly it isn't that cut and dry. There are mitigating factors and there are things we just don't know. For instance, i'm pretty sure it wasn't premeditated. i don't think Zimmerman was planning to kill the kid, even as he was following him. He may have been prepared to kill him, but that's different. i think it's clear Zimmerman was looking for a confrontation of some sort, but i'm guessing that pulling the trigger was really a heat of the moment decision.


But why do you think he was looking for a confrontation? I think it's more accurate to say he assumed the risk of confrontation.

i wouldn't expect him not to protect himself, but given that he essentially provoked the fight, and his opponent was unarmed, i don't think he was justified in fatally shooting him and claiming self-defense. That's simply not how things ought to work, otherwise people can just arm themselves, go around picking fights (or doing stupid shit that causes fights) and then blowing someone away anytime they start losing one of said fights.


I agree. I just don't think the shot was meant to be fatal, so I'm kind of left asking myself if he was justified in pulling the trigger. What happened after that seems incidental, but no less important.

So we know Zimmerman had a free arm and enough room between him and Martin to draw, press the gun to Martin's chest and pull the trigger. We also know Martin was unarmed. Did he have Zimmerman by the throat or something? What in that scenario indicates that Zimmerman's life was realistically in danger? Zimmerman was the one with the gun in his hand.


I don't think he pressed the gun to his chest. I think he basically drew the gun and fired straight in front of him while Martin was on top of him. Zimmerman claimed that Martin was on top of him and reached for the gun, telling Zimmerman "you're going to die tonight motherfucker". I guess he feared what would happen if Martin got that gun. That part is dubious to me.
Last edited by statiktech on Tue Jul 30, 2013 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby statiktech » Tue Jul 30, 2013 2:05 pm

uglypeoplefucking wrote:
statiktech wrote:I think it happened mostly as Zimmerman said in his account to police here.

That's after they ran the story through a lie detector test with no evidence of deceit. Anyway, I don't know about the gun. Why it was on him to begin with and when, and how, it came into play. I don't think he is a racist and I don't think he "profiled" Martin the way you do. There had apparently been a bunch of burglaries in the neighborhood by young black males. Some were caught, some not. That's not racism mind you; it's a fact.

I just don't think what he did was murder. I think his actions deserve consequences, just not those suited for murderers.

Lastly, I think the media has played a rather contemptible role in all of this.


i don't place much stock in Zimmerman's account - or at least i take it with a LOT of salt - he was trying to beat a murder charge, after all - and lie detectors work maybe half the time.

That said, i don't necessarily think it was murder either. Like you, i think it was at the very least foolhardy and stupid and deserves legal consequences (if only to deter others from similar actions). i also think America's gun culture and the idiot laws that it spawns (like "stand your ground") deserve a big part of the blame. The media is what it is - and it always makes a convenient scapegoat - but ultimately, it's the only source most people outside the courtroom have for what happened that night.

i do think he was profiled - but i suppose we can disagree on that.

Anyway, thanks for hashing things out with me Statik - always a pleasure to talk to you.


You too UPF. Thanks for keeping the conversation constructive.

I agree with everything you said above. But I think "profiled" can be a tricky word. I think Martin loosely fit the description of kids who had actually been committing crimes in the neighborhood. It's just an unfortunate fact that they happened to be black males dressed in certain ways. I think we ought to be asking ourselves why that is rather than focusing all our attention on why Zimmerman profiled Martin. So, yeah, I agree he was profiled, just not based solely on race. When I hear about profiling, I generally picture someone looking for an excuse to harass someone else. I don't think Zimmerman profiled Martin in that sense.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Tue Jul 30, 2013 5:00 pm

Polygraphs are inadmissible as evidence for a reason.

Guys trying to beat charges typically lie.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25945
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby statiktech » Tue Jul 30, 2013 5:05 pm

Fortunately I've said nothing to suggest otherwise.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby uglypeoplefucking » Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:33 pm

Statik, i was going to take a break from this particular discussion, but you raise some good points which i thought deserved response:

statiktech wrote:I suppose my question to her would be: Guilty of what?


A fair question. i wonder if she would even have an answer.

It's not about the portrayal of blacks in the media though. It's about groups of primarily black kids robbing people. The case is about race only insofar as race relates to the conditions that produce criminals, like poverty. Like I said, I think it's a cultural thing. And it's something that black people contribute to.


Oh, it's very much about the portrayal of blacks in the media. Groups of White guys in suits rob people all the time too, but they usually get off much easier, and we don't as a result automatically assume that every white guy in a suit is selling shoddy mortgage based securities, even though white guys in suits do have a recent history of doing stuff like that.

But you're right that black people do contribute to it - even profit off it - and it's self-defeating. But that doesn't mean it's fair or justified to react to someone who looks like Martin as though they are a burglar.

But why do you think he was looking for a confrontation? I think it's more accurate to say he assumed the risk of confrontation.


If he wasn't looking for a confrontation, he wouldn't have gotten out of the car and started following Martin, it's that simple. i don't believe he was just trying to keep Martin in sight - he was told he didn't need to do that. i think he was looking to catch Martin and be the hero when the cops arrived. And to do that, he would obviously have to confront him.

I just don't think the shot was meant to be fatal, so I'm kind of left asking myself if he was justified in pulling the trigger. What happened after that seems incidental, but no less important . . .

. . . I don't think he pressed the gun to his chest. I think he basically drew the gun and fired straight in front of him while Martin was on top of him. Zimmerman claimed that Martin was on top of him and reached for the gun, telling Zimmerman "you're going to die tonight motherfucker". I guess he feared what would happen if Martin got that gun. That part is dubious to me.


Dubious to me as well. i was under the impression that forensic evidence indicated that the gun was pressed to Martin's chest at the time the gun was fired - but perhaps i'm misinformed? i still find it difficult to imagine how he could draw the gun and fire straight in front of him if Martin was on top of him - especially if Martin was also reaching for the gun at the same time.
i am brilliant, you are stupid. Therefore, you are wrong.
uglypeoplefucking
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4147
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:47 pm
Location: throughout

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Moreno » Wed Jul 31, 2013 4:22 am

People want all guilty people to go to prison and all innocent people to get off. Fortunately the law recognizes that there is going to have to be a significant set of people who are acquitted who may in fact be guilty. The law is supposed to err on that side - it has often leaned the other way, for example dependent on the race of the accused. Zimmerman may be guilty of something criminal, but we don't know, so the judgement was probably a good one - given what I have heard. This does not mean he is innocent. And he was reckless. No way someone I thought was a criminal who I had seen from my car could have gotten me on the ground. Not because I am superhero, but because I would have been back in the car before he got within leaping range. This avoids having to shoot someone who might do more than punch me but might not. And that is working from Zimmerman's account. To my mind at best the guy is reckless and showed very poor judgment qualities that should preclude gun ownership.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Stuart » Fri Aug 02, 2013 5:44 am

Smears wrote:Stuart, when something good happens, you take credit for it. When something bad happens, you call it nature.


Then why criticize Zimmerman, isn't your issue with nature?
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Aug 02, 2013 7:24 am

Stuart, are going to call me a hypocrite if I don't present a unified ethical theory that's universalizable across all instances of human behavior?
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25945
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Stuart » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:57 am

But, your not even trying, just try harder!
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Aug 02, 2013 4:06 pm

It's like Kanye West says, "when you try hard, that's when you die hard".
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25945
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

PreviousNext

Return to Challenges



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users