|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Fucking Guns
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I remember much being made of Neil Armstrong's family's association with moon phases back in the past at some time close to the landings.
You mean some of his family were women?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Fair point, but I think at this point I am starting to wonder if we should pull our magazine-- adjunct asses together and brainstorm. This thread is a snake eating its tail. Why not try something else?
Maybe a Purgatory discussion, "what can we do to help reduce gun deaths?" Hell isn't really the place for that sort of brainstorming.
I know. Please show me where I said anything about having this discussion here.
[ 06. May 2016, 03:03: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
You didn't.
There seemed to be some opinions expressed (by others) that if all we did was rant on this thread then we weren't doing anything. When, in reality, all this thread is for is ranting about fucking guns - and sometimes a good rant is doing something, allowing those who are doing something more practical to let off steam so that their efforts might be more productive. This thread is serving it's purpose, and perhaps if some people wanted to see something more practical then they could start another thread.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So while you all (individually) have been bloviating and trying to tell me how I ought to express myself and policing my tone and educating me on the correct way to feel about 13000 largely preventable deaths by guns, another, what, 70 people have died?.... Maybe you've got so used to Hell-lite that what actual Hell looks like frightens you. Feel free never to visit here again, and you can take a razor blade to the Psalms while you're at it.
So the red herrings have been a random scattering of;
- Emotional blackmail with mother's friend as victim.
- Some kind of affinity with scripture
- Caring too much
- Framing the response as being told how to feel
- Delicate flowers can't take your tone.
I don't see anyone buying any of it. Although I guess deano and evensong haven't shown up yet.
Could it be that in fact you've been acting like a cunt? Sure it's hell, that means you don't get admin attention for it, it doesn't mean you get a free pass and no-one should call you on it. Isn't that what you people normally say in these situations?
Look at RooK's post. If you are going to take the provocative, hard-as-nails hellish approach at least own it and drop the pathetic flailing justifications.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Ok, I note the ire seems to be dying down, but that is the thing I haven't entirely gotten over yet, and while I more or less resolved to get off this thread, I'm gonna go ahead and express my bafflement again.
Doc: you people don't care, don't care, don't care?
A variety of people: the fuck? Of course we do. We have all kinds of reason to care.
Doc: problem not solved, so you don't care, don't care. Not like I do.
Doc : And don't you understand we European folk might have friends and family that might live in the US?
Me: the fuck? Since you opened that door, allow me to describe the year long hell that my family experienced due to one incident of gun violence. Because, if you need to have friends and family living here to care about gun violence, put your mind to rest about that whole "Americans don't care, don't care" thing.-- ALL of our friends and family live here. And a lot of us have shudder- worthy tales about how our friends and families-- again, the topic of which you brought up-- have been affected by gun violence. Weirdly enough. And when we lose people due to gun violence, it hurts us just as much as it would a British person, as unbelievable as that might seem.
Doc: Take that crybaby All Saints shit elsewhere. Oh but now I will share a personal story that you must respect. And stop telling me how to feel. But allow me to tell you what you feel, and don't argue with me. Otherwise stay out of Hell, you're too delicate.
Me: But YOU were the one who brought up-- Fuck it, I'm going to the pub.
I think one of the reasons I get so ungled about this subject is that I have been in childcare 30 years, and what I see kids doing on the playground freaks me out. The gun play has changed. Used to be you would walk onto playgrounds and occasionally see a kid point his finger and go pow pow, but in my current class there are three boys who truly can't seem to engage in any other kind of play except gunplay, and they don't point their fingers anymore, tney clench their fists and mimic automatic weapon fire. It seems to be a particular problem in lower income, urban programs, and these programs are particularly handcuffed by government curriculum and " assessment" requirements. ( Fucking testing-- there's a thread.) The kids who grow up in the areas where gun violence occurs are also the kids least likely to learn the kind of tools they need to transcend it.
Which is why it kind of makes me throttle people who crow, " Bang on more doors! Sign more petitions! Wave a wand and get those laws made!" Because that is not the frontline.
Pass a bunch of laws requiring a group gun recall in the current climate, and you'll just have a bunch of people hiding their guns. The battle is to change people's hearts. THAT is the frontline. If people are acclimated to a culture where the only version of " conflict" is " competative escalation followed by cathartic violence" all the fucking door pounding in the world will achieve precisely fuck- all.
Maybe seeing things from a teacher's perspective makes me make things all about school, but really-- the ideal place to empart conflict resolution, cooperation building, dealing with orher fucking people-- skills is public school, and the federal demands for teachers to quantify education through testing really castrates socialization. And it seems to getting worse and worse. Unsocialized primates of any species tend to autocannibalize. Get them close to guns and they can do it more expediently.
And that's part of the problem. In my darkest moments I believe the people who are used to running things would be quite happy if their version of " those people" offed each other, " those people" being the children of the migrant workers and labor class Latino people that I serve, my Tejano nephew and my in- laws, the largely black population of Hunter's Point, Pittsburg, CA, West Oakland.
Anyway, that's why I desperately cling the hope that my playground mediation and community building will do-- something. Have some sort of " trickle up" effect. Or at least fortify those particular kids.
[coding]
[ 06. May 2016, 07:35: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You didn't.
There seemed to be some opinions expressed (by others) that if all we did was rant on this thread then we weren't doing anything. When, in reality, all this thread is for is ranting about fucking guns - and sometimes a good rant is doing something, allowing those who are doing something more practical to let off steam so that their efforts might be more productive. This thread is serving it's purpose, and perhaps if some people wanted to see something more practical then they could start another thread.
But then again, one of the repeated themes is that People Aren't Doing Enough, so I guess you can view my comment as a mini rant about how something more than bitching needs to happen. Or, to expand, a mini-rant that some of the smartest, most creative folk I know are content to just rant and point fingers. Others have said similar things.
Again, probably a teacher thing. You want to see all that talent applied to something. Teacher Hell Rants are gonna come out... Teachery.
Which, given how teachers can be... I guess I can see how that would press buttons.
[ 06. May 2016, 04:26: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Sorry, Alan, I just realized I repeated everything you just said.
The school I have committed to working in till July is a real war zone. I guess it's brain addling.
[ 06. May 2016, 05:20: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I remember much being made of Neil Armstrong's family's association with moon phases back in the past at some time close to the landings.
You mean some of his family were women?
I mean that, being reivers, they kept a close watch on when the Moon would give enough light for them to carry out their business.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
"Zimmerman offers gun used to kill Martin on new auction site: report" (Yahoo).
George Zimmerman doesn't seem to have the sense to just shut up, and do his best to stay out of the limelight. The Feds recently gave back to him the gun with which he killed Trayvon Martin, and he's trying to auction it off, and use the money to fight Black Lives Matter and to support the police.
IMHO, ISTM that he's still got the situation roiling around inside him, and is driven to defend himself in the public eye.
(FYI: I think he was wrong to kill Trayvon.)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
(I wouldn't, but) I'd be tempted to buy the gun then turn up at his door and shoot him with it (before he has a chance to cash the cheque and give it to support the vile causes he's highlighted). If it's not illegal to use that gun to shoot a kid for walking while black, it can't be illegal to use it to shoot someone for the much graver offence of breathing while being an arsehole.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
First of all. Quotesfile.
Second of all, that fucking walking pissstain, Zimmerman. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Up on my FB feed I noticed another agonizing story about a toddler finding an unliscened firearm and shooting herself. A toddler. Jesus wept.
[ 12. May 2016, 23:03: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Why do toddlers shoot all the wrong people?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
(I wouldn't, but) I'd be tempted to buy the gun then turn up at his door and shoot him with it (before he has a chance to cash the cheque and give it to support the vile causes he's highlighted). If it's not illegal to use that gun to shoot a kid for walking while black, it can't be illegal to use it to shoot someone for the much graver offence of breathing while being an arsehole.
Just be sure he's armed with a box of Skittles so that you can claim it's in self-defense.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If it's not illegal to use that gun to shoot a kid for walking while black
What a pity for your narrative that an extensive legal process didn't accept that this is what happened.
What you're doing is taking a legal finding and ignoring the FACTUAL findings that went with it.
Because the law is actually pretty clear that it IS illegal to shoot a kid for walking while black. It's just that a jury wasn't satisfied that your narrative was the true one.
But then, "it's not illegal to shoot a black kid who is beating your head into the ground" doesn't have the same ring to it.
[ 13. May 2016, 05:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If it's not illegal to use that gun to shoot a kid for walking while black
What a pity for your narrative that an extensive legal process didn't accept that this is what happened.
What you're doing is taking a legal finding and ignoring the FACTUAL findings that went with it.
Factual is not actual, nor is it necessarily complete.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But then, "it's not illegal to shoot a black kid who is beating your head into the ground" doesn't have the same ring to it.
How about stalking an innocent person and forcing a confrontation?
If you wish to represent that the jury found for Zimmerman legally and within the bounds of their remit, then you are objectively correct. If you are making a statement that the situation was as Zimmerman purports, that race played no factor, then you are making as much an assumption as you are accusing Alan of doing.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Well, there were only two witnesses to what happened that night. One testified in his own defence in court, the other was in the morgue where his version can't be heard. The jury gave their verdict, but there's still something very odd about a kid walking home from the store ending up shot dead.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But then, "it's not illegal to shoot a black kid who is beating your head into the ground" doesn't have the same ring to it.
What whatshisface said, but also this:
That the legal system functioned in a way that was cautious about meting out punishment for something that was ultimately not completely provable is a good thing in my opinion. But that is a fucking looooong way from the idiotic conjecture that courts deal with pure facts, or the odious misconception that courts decisions are necessarily reflections of Truth™.
And you of all the fucking assholes on this board should know that.
That Zimmerman is seeking to cash in on his high-profile killing of another human makes him an asshole all by itself. His contribution to the situation that lead up to the killing (engaging threateningly with someone because they are walking while black) also makes him a first grade asshole. There is no part of Alan's sneer that you have refuted, rather just displaying a horrific zealotry to the discernment of courts.
Still, I get that it's fun to find facets from which to dissent.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
There were more witness accounts. However, the police handling makes at least one of these questionable.
Even with the best intentions, eyewitness testimony is fraught with problems. Interviewers need to be properly trained so not to influence witnesses or infer based on their own presuppositions.
The best that can be said of the police in this incident is that they were less than completely competent in their handling of the witnesses.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There were more witness accounts.
OK, maybe I should have said "eye-witnesses" and clarified that to include reference to the pertinent detail - why was a kid walking home from the store involved in an argument, why did that argument escalate to Zimmerman getting injured, and at what point was the gun produced and fired.
There were also the police dispatchers who told Zimmerman not to follow.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by whowasitagain?:
That the legal system functioned in a way that was cautious about meting out punishment for something that was ultimately not completely provable is a good thing in my opinion. But that is a fucking looooong way from the idiotic conjecture that courts deal with pure facts, or the odious misconception that courts decisions are necessarily reflections of Truth™.
I'm sure that orfeo knows this, intellectually. But he does tend to represent the courts as closer to objective and infallible than is demonstrably the reality.
quote:
That Zimmerman is seeking to cash in on his high-profile killing of another human makes him an asshole all by itself. His contribution to the situation that lead up to the killing (engaging threateningly with someone because they are walking while black) also makes him a first grade asshole. There is no part of Alan's sneer that you have refuted, rather just displaying a horrific zealotry to the discernment of courts.
A-the the fucking-men
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There were more witness accounts.
OK, maybe I should have said "eye-witnesses" and clarified that to include reference to the pertinent detail - why was a kid walking home from the store involved in an argument, why did that argument escalate to Zimmerman getting injured, and at what point was the gun produced and fired.
There were also the police dispatchers who told Zimmerman not to follow.
I'm sure as here not defending orfeo's POV on this. But he was bound to bring up the others and I was dealing with it first.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Wow. The inability of you all to get the point is truly spectacular.
I'm not arguing about what actually happened. Which means that every single thing you post about this or that other witness and what they said is of zero interest to me right now.
I'm challenging Alan's assertion about what the law says.
Okay? That's the issue here. Not what the true facts are, but Alan trying to suggest that the law looked at the facts as Alan sees the facts and said "hey, it's fine to kill a black kid in those circumstances".
That's just total bullshit. If the facts as Alan sees them were established, then the law would say that killing a black kid in those circumstances is not okay.
And forget all this crap about me thinking that whatever the facts are as found in a court case are the true facts. Nothing I said indicates that. But Alan is trying to make a claim about what the legal principle is, and his claim is utter bullshit because he's trying to fuse the legal conclusion based on one set of factual findings with a completely different set of factual findings, his own. You can't separate a legal conclusion with the facts that the legal conclusion was based on.
Whether those facts are true or not doesn't mean shit. Appeal courts decide cases on an assumed set of facts all the time. Okay? All the time they say given this set of facts, here's the legal outcome.
And that's why Alan's post is bullshit. Given the facts as Alan presented them, it is just completely wrong to assert that the law would say the killing was okay.
[ 13. May 2016, 08:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, there were only two witnesses to what happened that night. One testified in his own defence in court, the other was in the morgue where his version can't be heard. The jury gave their verdict, but there's still something very odd about a kid walking home from the store ending up shot dead.
There's something even more odd about a 2 year old shooting his mother dead - or someone meting out the same punishment to a person who was sitting in "their" pew at church.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Does it alter the fact that in this instance I think the law is completely and utterly insane?
It is insanity to allow untrained, self appointed, armed vigillantes to patrol a neighbourhood.
It is insanity to allow individuals with restraining orders for violence to own a gun, let alone carry it around the streets.
It is insanity to give people the automatic right to use lethal force when there are a vast number of alternatives to prevent harm to yourself (first and foremost backing away).
And, so a set of laws that are IMO total insanity mean that a jury has no choice but to decide that the law allowed an unarmed kid walking back from the shops to be shot dead.
So, ultimately a set of fucking insane laws have effectively created a situation where Zimmerman could shoot a kid dead for no other reason than walking while black.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Does it alter the fact that in this instance I think the law is completely and utterly insane?
Depends. Let's see...
quote:
It is insanity to allow untrained, self appointed, armed vigillantes to patrol a neighbourhood.
No argument from me there.
quote:
It is insanity to allow individuals with restraining orders for violence to own a gun, let alone carry it around the streets.
No argument from me there either.
quote:
It is insanity to give people the automatic right to use lethal force when there are a vast number of alternatives to prevent harm to yourself (first and foremost backing away).
I don't know that the law, even in America, gives you "the automatic right to use lethal force". Most self-defence laws require proportionality. I know that some American states have made the requirements easier in your own home. I'm not aware of any evidence that the requirements have been made easier in a public space.
quote:
And, so a set of laws that are IMO total insanity mean that a jury has no choice but to decide that the law allowed an unarmed kid walking back from the shops to be shot dead.
This does not remotely follow from your previous paragraphs, you idiot. JURIES DON'T DECIDE THE LAW.
You're using the kind of reasoning that suggests thinks that goal line technology in football changed the rules. The fact that you disagree with the referee in an individual game about whether or not the whole of the ball crossed the line has precisely NOTHING to do with the rule being that the whole of the ball must cross the line.
Laws are principles stated before the fact that state "if this happens, this is the outcome[/i]. You are so convinced that you know what happened that you are fusing legal principles with factual findings in ways that are total nonsense. No-one wrote a law about a black unarmed kid with Skittles in his pocket, and no-one asked a jury to decide what the law was.
Frankly, I am fuck to sicking death of people deciding that an unarmed kid walking home from the shops just can't possibly have been a threat to anyone else. I've said a number of times on this board that Zimmerman behaved like an idiot, but why are people so resistant to the proposition that Trayvon Martin behaved like an idiot as well? Being dead doesn't automatically make you the innocent blameless victim, and being alive doesn't automatically make you the perpetrator to have all the blame.
[ 13. May 2016, 09:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
You want to talk about unarmed kids being shot dead, pick another case. There are plenty of them. Why the fuck do people keep picking the case where the other guy had injuries? Why not pick the case where the kid playing with a toy gun was shot the second the police officer arrived? Why not pick a whole pile of other cases where there's no question but that the dead kid didn't do anything wrong?
No, let's just stick with the case where there's evidence that there were two idiots, both with too much bravado for the situation, because the one without the gun lost out. Let's stick with the case where it was impossible to exclude a genuine case of self-defence, because out of the pair of idiots it was the young black one who ended up dead and that makes us angry. Because the police didn't charge the other guy right away, and we know that all cases where an unarmed black kid gets shot are the same. Heck, we're so certain they're all the same, we could make it a law about unarmed black kids.
Which is exactly what you did, Alan. You made a law not about possession of guns, or about self-defence, but about the death of black kids. You want to make a law based purely and simply on how you feel about the one who died versus the one who lived.
Fuck that for an arbitrary crock of shit.
[ 13. May 2016, 09:43: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
We're picking this case for one simple reason. The guy that pulled the trigger has decided that the lethal weapon is an "American icon" and wants to sell it for a significant sum of money. And, Hell is the only place on the Ship for us to express our thoughts on that.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
And, so a set of laws that are IMO total insanity mean that a jury has no choice but to decide that the law allowed an unarmed kid walking back from the shops to be shot dead.
This does not remotely follow from your previous paragraphs, you idiot. JURIES DON'T DECIDE THE LAW.
Who said juries decide the law? I certainly didn't.
Juries are asked to decide whether the evidence presented supports the case that someone is guilty of breaking the law. I'm sure jury members would have their opinions about the law, but those are irrelevant because they have a judgement to make based on what the law is.
As far as I can tell from the media reporting the laws in Florida basically left them with no choice but to say "not guilty" - because the law allowed Zimmerman to appoint himself as a vigilante, the law allowed him to carry a gun, and the law allowed him to use a gun to defend himself against a kid using his fists. Even if Zimmerman provoked Martin, if Martin had been scared because this strange bloke was following him, if Martin attacked because a gun was drawn and thought he was going to be shot ... we will never know the sequence of events that lead up to that fatal bullet being fired. And, because we can't know the jury couldn't know either. So, given the law as it stood they had to acquit, because according to that law there was insufficient evidence to conclude he had done anything wrong.
As I said, the law left the jury with no choice but "not guilty".
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Wow. The inability of you all to get the point is truly spectacular.
If one person misunderstands you, it could be them. If everyone misunderstands you in exactly the same way, it might not be so clearly them.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
JURIES DON'T DECIDE THE LAW.
Then what the hell is precedent?
Courtrooms sure as hell interpret law. Part of the reason appeals courts exist is because of the potential for misinterpretation of law. Proportionality? The mere existence of a self-defence specific law will push interpretation towards the parties invoking it.
A link to the statute, but here is the salient bit quote:
A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary
What the jury interprets as a reasonable belief is very subjective. To opine that the jury had no better choice might be fair, but that it had no other valid choice is OTT.
IMO, part of the reason for the arguments that you get into here is that you often appear to present the law as much more balanced, objective and unbiased than it is anywhere I have observed it. Granted, I've not observed Australian legal proceeding, so perhaps you lot have transcended human nature and fallibility.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, ultimately a set of fucking insane laws have effectively created a situation where Zimmerman could shoot a kid dead for no other reason than walking while black.
That simply isn't true. Zimmerman shot someone for being on top of him banging his head against the concrete and allegedly reaching for Zimmerman's gun.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eigon
Shipmate
# 4917
|
Posted
So he says, anyway. There weren't exactly any witnesses, were there?
--------------------
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
Posts: 3710 | From: Hay-on-Wye, town of books | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, ultimately a set of fucking insane laws have effectively created a situation where Zimmerman could shoot a kid dead for no other reason than walking while black.
That simply isn't true. Zimmerman shot someone for being on top of him banging his head against the concrete and allegedly reaching for Zimmerman's gun.
Zimmerman says. Might be accurate, but we do not know the TRUTH
[ 13. May 2016, 17:46: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eigon
Shipmate
# 4917
|
Posted
Sorry - I've just scrolled back and read the stuff about witnesses - but none of the witnesses seem to have been entirely sure about what happened.
--------------------
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
Posts: 3710 | From: Hay-on-Wye, town of books | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
Sorry - I've just scrolled back and read the stuff about witnesses - but none of the witnesses seem to have been entirely sure about what happened.
Eyewitnesses are the boon of a weak case and the bane of justice. Not that they are wholly without value, but that the value is highly over-rated and over-used.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
So he says, anyway. There weren't exactly any witnesses, were there?
Well, there was one witness who saw the whole thing, but Zimmerman killed him.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
lilBuddha , a jury decision does not set a precedent. A decision by a judge - or in rare instances directions given by a judge to a jury - sets a precedent.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
lilBuddha , a jury decision does not set a precedent. A decision by a judge - or in rare instances directions given by a judge to a jury - sets a precedent.
Alright, my bad. The rest of the point still stands.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Update: Racist McShootface is kind of awesome.
First I learn that Satanists aren't all bad, now trolls are useful. Hell is a different place than I ever imagined.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
So he says, anyway. There weren't exactly any witnesses, were there?
So if there are no witnesses we just put people in jail because they can't prove their innocence? Guilty until proven innocent? Where are your witnesses who saw Zimmerman gunning down a man who was just walking down the street? At least there was some physical evidence that Zimmerman's story was true. Under your laws no one can ever defend himself unless there are witnesses around.
Zimmerman is just the sort of gun owner I can't stand. A wanna be policeman, who buys a gun and then starts looking for an opportunity to use it, who thinks he's one of the "good guys," and dreams fantasies of finding a bad guy and being a hero. He shouldn't have carried a gun on neighborhood watch. He shouldn't have left the car. He shouldn't have asked Trayvon what he was doing. But none of those things are against the law and being an asshole is not something that deserves the death penalty.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
So if there are no witnesses we just put people in jail because they can't prove their innocence? Guilty until proven innocent?
Cases are decided everyday with no eyewitnesses.
[quote][qb]
But none of those things are against the law and being an asshole is not something that deserves the death penalty.
It isn't only that he fouls the reputations of assholes, but that the most generous interpretations of his actions still leaves dead a person that didn't need to be.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
lilBuddha , a jury decision does not set a precedent. A decision by a judge - or in rare instances directions given by a judge to a jury - sets a precedent.
Alright, my bad. The rest of the point still stands.
So, you're out at a club and go to the ladies room. There's another club patron there, considerably larger and younger than you, and she's intent on your virtue. You clearly can't stop her otherwise, so as she puts her hands around your throat, you grab your hatpin and stab her. Because of the struggle, instead of plunging the pin into her arm, it goes into her throat and kills her. Your virtue still intact, you're charged with murder.
Do you not have a defence? If not, why not?
[ 13. May 2016, 23:25: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
But, that's not quite the analogy.
Closer would be, you're in a club and see a very much larger woman enter the rest room. You comment to others that this looks very suspicious, that there have been lots of incidents of people using the rest rooms and leaving without flushing, and you're going to check it out. Everyone tells you to stay out of it, inform the club management and get the bouncers to look into it. But, you march on in anyway, then come out a few minutes later claiming that she attacked you, she was all over you and you were forced to defend yourself with your handy hat pin.
The period between you going into the rest room and coming out is a black box with limited information beyond what you say. "She grabbed me as soon as I walked in the door" is a good story, but is it truth? Only you know whether you approached her saying "what the fuck are you doing in here?", maybe you gave her a shove first, or you pulled out your hat pin to intimidate her and all she did was push you to one side trying to get to the door to escape this pin-wielding madwoman.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
So he says, anyway. There weren't exactly any witnesses, were there?
Oh for fuck's sake. "So he says"? So you think that he just opened his mouth and said "he was hitting my head against the concrete" and people believed him despite him having no physical injuries?
I sometimes think people on the internet forget about the physical world. Here it's all just words. And people don't have heads so they don't think about things like physical injuries to heads.
There was physical evidence. That's why the police found Zimmerman's account sufficiently credible. Not because they just compared the skin tone of the two people involved.
[ 14. May 2016, 01:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
So what next, Alan? You aren't sure what happened in the restroom so you would charge the woman with murder and send her to prison? Twenty years for being a bossy bitch who confronts people about flushing?
That's what I keep hearing about Zimmerman, that he should have gone to prison for being a jerk.
Trayvon told his girlfriend on the phone that someone was following him and he wasn't going to stand for it ( or something like that.) He had a history of fighting, so it's not hard to believe that he jumped Zimmerman. Now I have no sympathy for Zimmerman getting beat up since he was where he shouldn't have been doing what he shouldn't have done, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have been legally entitled to use self-defense, even lethal self-defense, when having his head slammed against the ground.
Of course we don't have it on film and, as is usual in murder cases, the victim can't tell his side, but it seems to me like we have a reasonable doubt here before calling it murder.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
and the law allowed him to use a gun to defend himself against a kid using his fists.
I don't support wide carrying of guns any more than you do, but any kind of law that says whoever has the largest weapon is in the wrong...
If anyone ever jumps you and starts strangling you, would you like me to say that it's okay because your assailant is unarmed and has darker skin than you? That's basically the angle you've been pushing, and it is so ridiculously arbitrary.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, you march on in anyway, then come out a few minutes later claiming that she attacked you, she was all over you and you were forced to defend yourself with your handy hat pin.
And here's another one just completely ignoring any possibility of physical evidence and reducing it all down to words. If you're going to insist on accurate analogies, include observable injuries on the person who is claiming self-defence.
The amount of cherry-picking you all engage in to ensure that a dislikable person is guilty is on the nose.
[ 14. May 2016, 01:03: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
and the law allowed him to use a gun to defend himself against a kid using his fists.
I don't support wide carrying of guns any more than you do, but any kind of law that says whoever has the largest weapon is in the wrong...
If anyone ever jumps you and starts strangling you, would you like me to say that it's okay because your assailant is unarmed and has darker skin than you? That's basically the angle you've been pushing, and it is so ridiculously arbitrary.
It's equally arbitrary to say that if Zimmerman came up behind Martin with hos gun already drawn that Martin wasn't within his rights to throw a punch knocking Zimmerman onto the ground where his head hit the concrete. And, since no one else saw the sequence of events prior to the two wrestling on the ground that's as plausible an explanation of events as any.
It seems to me that Florida has laws that allows a self-appointed vigilante to confront someone they consider to be acting suspiciously (in this case it appears to be walking while black), and a law that allows someone to stand their ground and use lethal force in self defence. It doesn't seem to me necessary that those laws should be applied separately, if you initiate a confrontation that escalates to the point where you feel physically threatened do you still have the right to use lethal force in self-defence. Obviously either that argument wasn't presented to the jury, or they weren't convinced by it, or they were advised that the law keeps those separate and so the events leading up to the point where self-defence comes into effect are irrelevant to the question of whether the use of lethal force was justified, or (probably most likely) as the jury had no more idea of what lead to the wrestling on the ground than the rest of us that they couldn't come to a verdict that required that information.
I still don't see how it's possible to take that one fraction of a second where the trigger is squeezed in isolation. There was evidence presented that not only did Zimmerman follow Martin, but that Martin noticed he was being followed and that made him very nervous. Clearly Zimmerman contributed to the escalation of the situation from an innocent kid walking home, to that kid getting nervous enough to decide that getting home faster was a good idea, to at some point a physical confrontation happening ... and finally to that shot being fired. Well, it's clear to me that the situation escalated in part due to the actions of Zimmerman, some of which the police dispatcher advised against. And, yet Zimmerman walked free without facing any consequences for escalating the situation.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, you march on in anyway, then come out a few minutes later claiming that she attacked you, she was all over you and you were forced to defend yourself with your handy hat pin.
And here's another one just completely ignoring any possibility of physical evidence and reducing it all down to words. If you're going to insist on accurate analogies, include observable injuries on the person who is claiming self-defence.
I thought my analogy included a physical element. OK, a physical confrontation including physical injuries. Now, how to tell whether those were caused by being attacked as you walked through the door, or because you were standing in the doorway (the only way out) and got shoved as the other person tried to get out of an enclosed space with someone armed and dangerous. That is the difficulty, because both scenarios could have resulted in the same injuries - but in one they are the result of an attack you are defending against, in the other they are the result of the other person defending themselves against you.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And here's another one just completely ignoring any possibility of physical evidence and reducing it all down to words. If you're going to insist on accurate analogies, include observable injuries on the person who is claiming self-defence.
Given the evidence, it is at least as reasonable to posit that Martin was standing his ground against an attacker with the only weapons he had, his fists.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, you march on in anyway, then come out a few minutes later claiming that she attacked you, she was all over you and you were forced to defend yourself with your handy hat pin.
And here's another one just completely ignoring any possibility of physical evidence and reducing it all down to words. If you're going to insist on accurate analogies, include observable injuries on the person who is claiming self-defence.
I thought my analogy included a physical element. OK, a physical confrontation including physical injuries. Now, how to tell whether those were caused by being attacked as you walked through the door, or because you were standing in the doorway (the only way out) and got shoved as the other person tried to get out of an enclosed space with someone armed and dangerous. That is the difficulty, because both scenarios could have resulted in the same injuries - but in one they are the result of an attack you are defending against, in the other they are the result of the other person defending themselves against you.
Yes, that is the difficulty. At least you're now wrestling with the difficulty instead of completely ignoring it.
I don't claim to have certain knowledge of what happened, and I don't think the court case involves certain findings of what happened (being a jury case rather than having a judge set out factual findings, you don't get that level of information from them).
But what I can't stand is some sort of glib statement that it's an open and shut case of wrongful killing and that the law allows a killing that you consider wrong.
It's just rubbish. For starters, no law is written in such a specific way. That's been my point from the get-go of my little tirade. Individual cases such as this one don't set any kind of legal precedent, so quit trying to use it as one.
The law says that you are entitled to defend yourself. And yes, there are American states that most definitely extend that entitlement farther than you or I would like, but it's still a law of general principle that doesn't go into an exhaustive list of which means you can defend yourself with.
I personally knew the mother of a man who was on trial for murder after killing 2 other men with a shotgun. Here, in Australia where people generally don't go around carrying guns. He had a shotgun because his job required it. Are you going to tell him that, in fear of his life, he has to drop the shotgun and find something else more suitable?
The law also says that the onus is on the prosecution. And that includes proving beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defence, when there is evidence that it was. And focusing on what Zimmerman said is just sliding past the evidence. Of course his mere words aren't any kind of evidence that he was being assaulted. But that's why we don't rely on his mere words. Physical evidence, other witnesses such as they are, the person who was speaking to Zimmerman when he went to investigate Martin, the person who was speaking to Martin when he went to investigate Zimmerman.
The reason Zimmerman was acquitted is not simply because he verbally claimed self-defence. The reason he was acquitted was because there was enough evidence surrounding that claim to make it credible. The reason the son of the woman I knew was acquitted of murder was because there was enough evidence to make it credible that he was scared for his life when he used a shotgun.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
