|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Fucking Guns
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
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.
Sure. Now learn about onus of proof and you'll understand why I really don't give a shit what it is reasonable to posit in THAT direction. Taking the case against Zimmerman at its highest is not how this works.
[ 14. May 2016, 02:11: 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
The onus of proof worked for Zimmerman because he is the only one that survived the encounter. And that is a major problem with "Stand Your Ground" laws.
--------------------
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 orfeo:
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.
I thought I'd initially put it the another way around with my list of what I considered to be the idiocy of the relevant laws. The law allowed Zimmerman to be legally in a position where the killing could take place - those laws allowed him to act as a self-appointed vigilante, to carry a gun, to follow and confront a kid who was walking while black. That resulted in a death that should not have happened. Even if at the precise moment the trigger was pulled there was a credible case for it being self defence, and therefore "not wrong", the circumstances that lead to that point contained a lot of things that I would consider to be wrong.
quote:
Individual cases such as this one don't set any kind of legal precedent, so quit trying to use it as one.
I'm not trying to set any legal precedent. That would be the job of the courts, the appeal courts in particular.
What an individual case can do is highlight where the law is in some way imperfect. When a large portion of the population considers that the law has produced "the wrong result" (in this case, the wrong result being a dead kid) that should trigger an examination of the relevant laws to see if they can be clarified or improved in some way. Of course, that examination can always come back and say "no change needed". In the UK and Australia that has been the response of our governments in many shooting cases - and, in the light of those enquiries we have often significantly changed our laws. In the US, by contrast, there seems to be a deep reluctance to hold such enquiries. In the Zimmerman case, has anyone asked questions about whether neighbourhood watch groups need more regulation, whether they need more closely defined lists of what they should or shouldn't do in particular circumstances (eg: if they see something suspicious from their home or car, should they venture outside to investigate?), whether members of such groups should satisfy some suitability test especially if they are expected to be armed?
quote:
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, as I said before, the jury gave the only verdict that seemed possible within the law. Which is that they didn't have any evidence about the events immediately prior to the tussle on the ground, and therefore could not conclude whether or not it was self defence. The prosecution couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt it wasn't self-defence, therefore the jury had to give a not-guilty verdict.
But, my point about the law directing them that way was simply that under different laws they may have had different options. Zimmerman was not acting illegally by setting himself up as an armed defender of the neighbourhood, nor was he acting illegally by following Martin. It's quite possible to have laws which say that the police are the defenders of the neighbourhood, and citizens are only entitled to carry arms to protect themselves and their own property - in which case, the jury could have drawn the conclusion that Zimmerman was acting illegally in following and confronting Martin and thus ask the question of whether self-defence is a valid defence if you're acting criminally. I doubt an armed robber has successfully made a self-defence case against a charge of murdering a security guard, what jury would consider a "well the guard pulled a gun on me, I was only defending myself" case reasonable?
But, even though Zimmerman was acting stupidly (he got a crack on the head for his troubles, if Martin had been armed, or got the gun off Zimmerman, he could have been the one in the morgue) and against the advice of the police, he was not acting against the law. So, that line of argument wasn't available to the prosecution nor could it be considered by the jury. As I said, the law constrained the verdict the jury could give. If the law was less idiotic (ie: it didn't allow someone with a history of violence to set themselves up as an armed vigilante) then the jury may have produced a different verdict.
--------------------
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 lilBuddha:
The onus of proof worked for Zimmerman because he is the only one that survived the encounter. And that is a major problem with "Stand Your Ground" laws.
Oh my God, no.
Stop trying to make this into a contest as to whether Zimmerman or Martin is the better person. The case is not Martin v Zimmerman. The case is the State v Zimmerman.
Being the only one that survived the encounter is why Zimmerman is the one who got put on trial..
--------------------
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:
I'm not trying to set any legal precedent.
We are having this conversation because of this:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
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.
Okay? The last page of me frothing at the mouth is precisely because you fucking well tried to throw around statements about legal precedent.
[ 14. May 2016, 03:42: 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
That's what got you going? Try reading it again, just the first two characters will do.
If
That's important. Because quite clearly it is illegal to shoot someone for walking while being black.
The rest of the conversation seems to have mostly been about under what circumstances it might be legal to shoot someone who is swinging a punch at you. And, having that discussion in the context of a legal system neither of us operate under.
--------------------
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:
Stop trying to make this into a contest as to whether Zimmerman or Martin is the better person.
I'm not. And haven't in this or previous threads regarding this case.
quote:
The case is not Martin v Zimmerman. The case is the State v Zimmerman.
Not in practice. In practice questioning the character of the victim is part of defence strategy.
quote:
Being the only one that survived the encounter is why Zimmerman is the one who got put on trial..
It is true that if he were dead, he would not be on trial.
--------------------
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:
That's what got you going? Try reading it again, just the first two characters will do.
If
That's important. Because quite clearly it is illegal to shoot someone for walking while being black.
Funny. That's exactly what I said to you. You didn't seem happy with that answer.
You seriously expect me to believe that when you said "if", you didn't believe in your anger against Zimmerman that the if was true? What exactly is the point of that or any of your other responses up until now if you didn't believe the "if"?
If you knew that Zimmerman was not found to have shot someone while they were walking while being black, your entire conversation doesn't make one ounce of sense. EVEN THAT POST doesn't make an ounce of sense.
What the fuck is the point of that if...then statement if you think the if isn't true?
Right now it's hard to avoid the conclusion that with a cooler head you realise what you said was a pile of rubbish, and you're disingenuously trying to back out of it and pretend that you just were throwing up an "if" proposition in a purely theoretical way.
[ 14. May 2016, 05:29: 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
It's called a rhetorical device (there's probably some fancy name for it). It was intended to make a humourous statement (I'll leave it to others to judge the quality of the humour) while expressing ongoing angst about the culture surrounding guns within parts of the population of the US. It was contrasting being black with being an arsehole, with the implication that if either was grounds for shooting someone then it would be the latter.
Oh look, there's another one of those if .. then statements - I'm not actually implying it's right to shoot anyone. But, we use 'if' statements all the time, there are several in your own posts.
If I wanted a serious discussion on the issues of gun violence, culture and gun control I'd start that thread in Purgatory. But, this is Hell. I wasn't expecting to have to take a statement that Zimmerman is an arsehole and defend all the different forms of arsehole he is.
--------------------
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:
Right now it's hard to avoid the conclusion that with a cooler head you realise what you said was a pile of rubbish, and you're disingenuously trying to back out of it and pretend that you just were throwing up an "if" proposition in a purely theoretical way.
You edited that in while I was typing.
I'm willing to accept that I may be wrong in the finer points of what the law in Florida actually says regarding the various aspects relevant to the Zimmerman case. I'm also willing to accept that what I've read in the media is a fraction of the evidence presented in court, and there may be factors the jury had to consider that I'm not aware of. I'm even willing to accept that what I posted last night was written under the influence of several glasses of whisky.
But, I'm going to stand by my view that Zimmerman was in the wrong when he shot Martin - even if what he did was not declared illegal. That is because, regardless of what the law may say, I believe that it is always wrong to shoot someone else. I'll concede that in a very few circumstances where the alternative is to let someone shoot other people it may be less wrong than not shooting someone. In the case of Zimmerman that's not relevant, because no one has ever claimed he thought Martin was heading to the local school armed to the teeth, all Zimmerman was concerned with was that Martin might be casing up the neighbourhood with the view of breaking into some of the houses and stealing stuff. IMO, use of lethal force to protect property is always disproportionate and therefore wrong, without any of the "less wrong than the alternative" caveat.
But, those are my views. The view of a sizable proportion of the US population is different. The view of the US legal system is different, and all I can do about that is to express my opinion that the law is insane and offer moral support to US citizens who seek to make the law a bit less insane.
--------------------
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
I have no problem with any moral position that says Zimmerman was not in a morally good place.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not in practice. In practice questioning the character of the victim is part of defence strategy.
Not sure exactly what you mean by that, nor what evidence there is behind it. But a criminal case is one between the government and the accused (with a very few minor exceptions). It flows from the duty of the sovereign to maintain internal peace. You appear to have no understanding of basic criminal process.
Nor have you yet even attempted to answer my self-defence question.
[ 14. May 2016, 08:52: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
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, it can't be illegal to use it to shoot someone for the much graver offence of breathing while being an arsehole.
Okay?
Would it improve Alan Cresswell's case if he replaced 'if it's not illegal to X' to 'if any law making it illegal to X will not be enforced' (through inability to make the charges stick beyond reasonable doubt, for example)?
As with O.J.Simpson of course the fact that the evidence against Zimmerman doesn't meet the standard required to go beyond reasonable doubt, does not preclude the possibility of thinking the evidence does meet lesser standards.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
walking while black
Since it's been said about fifteen times here I have to point out that Martin was neither followed nor shot for walking while black. He was followed for loitering in the rain outside a building that had recently been burglarized and he was shot for trying to beat someone up.
"Walking while black," is a good descriptive phrase to use regarding police profiling, with their habit of questioning black men who are out walking in largely white residential neighborhoods. It's very wrong and it has, thankfully, become against police policy, but it doesn't apply here.
I agree with Alan that it is almost always morally wrong to shoot someone and certainly wrong to shoot someone to protect property. Neighborhood watch groups did have talks about whether or not they should continue to exist after this incident and I think it was always against their policy to carry a gun while on watch.
Then again, I think it's morally wrong to punch someone in the face for asking you what you're doing. I think that night was a perfect storm of two hot headed males who had both seen too many action movies and both had completely messed up ideas of what it meant to be a man. It's particularly sad that one was very young and might have had time to change and the other has become so defensive he's now ten times the asshole he was when this all started.
[ 14. May 2016, 11:26: Message edited by: Twilight ]
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Since it's been said about fifteen times here I have to point out that Martin was neither followed nor shot for walking while black. He was followed for loitering in the rain outside a building that had recently been burglarized and he was shot for trying to beat someone up.
OK, maybe I should say that according to the reports I read, Zimmerman called the police to say he had seen someone walking through the neighbourhood, apparently looking at the houses. None of the reports I read saw said anything about him stopping outside any of the houses, let along loitering. I suppose he probably stopped to check traffic before crossing roads, if that counts as loitering. And, what's wrong with looking around as you walk? I do it all the time, it passes the time to see a garden with some nice plants, or a house with some unusual feature.
All the reports I read have basically said that Zimmerman started following Martin because he thought he was acting suspiciously. And, that what Martin was doing was walking in the rain, and he was black and young. Since even in America people walk short distances rather than drive everywhere, and you can't control the weather, walking in the rain would be quite common. So, young and black would seem to be the defining characteristic.
Maybe you can point me in the direction of the reports of loitering. Since it's a feature of the story that wasn't universally reported.
And, we've covered the fight already. Yes, there was a fight but we know nothing about who escalated the confrontation to that point, or what was said and done to cause the fight. The evidence is consistent with what Zimmerman said, it's also consistent with a variety of alternative scenarios.
--------------------
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
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Zimmerman's first 911 call said a young man was "acting suspiciously," "walking in circles," standing in front of the houses, looking at the houses, "and it's raining." It was the fact that he was stopping to look at houses in the rain that seemed suspicious to Zimmerman. He didn't mention his color at first, but when the 911 operator asked him to name a race, he said, "He looks black," sounding unsure, so that didn't seem to be a big factor to Zimmerman. If Trayvon had been walking purposely from one point to another, as most people do when it's raining, I doubt if Zimmerman would have been suspicious.
Trayvon was 5'11 to Zimmerman's 5'7" and much more muscular and fit looking so it's not surprising Zimmerman was losing the fight. Here's a picture I ran into while looking for the 911 call. In the police car.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Zimmerman's first 911 call said a young man was "acting suspiciously," "walking in circles," standing in front of the houses, looking at the houses, "and it's raining." It was the fact that he was stopping to look at houses in the rain that seemed suspicious to Zimmerman.
Interestingly the copy of the transcript that Wikipedia directed me to says something different. Just walking in the rain, looking around. No mention of walking in circles or standing in front of any houses. Of course, there could have been another call to the police dispatcher which says something different ...
quote:
Trayvon was 5'11 to Zimmerman's 5'7" and much more muscular and fit looking so it's not surprising Zimmerman was losing the fight. Here's a picture I ran into while looking for the 911 call. In the police car.
And, once again, that there was a fight and Zimmerman got his head bashes on the concrete is not in dispute by anyone. It's the events that lead upto the fight which are unknown to anyone (except Zimmerman and Martin, who can't tell us his version).
--------------------
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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
This renewed discussion was sparked by Zimmerman trying to auction off the gun he used to shoot Martin. The gun is Zimmerman's property, and he wasn't convicted of a crime involving it. I don't think there's any question that he has the legal right to sell his property via any legal means, including auction.
But morally? Let's assume for the moment that Zimmerman's version of events is accurate, that he used his gun to defend himself, and was acquitted in a heavily publicized trial. In those circumstances, can anyone defend the morality of trying to auction off the gun for many times its face value?
Because I can't. You could turn this into the most clear-cut righteous self-defense shooting imaginable, and I still couldn't justify making money off it.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It certainly demonstrates an, errmm, interesting view of life.
I hope I'm never in the position of having killed, or even significantly harmed anyone. But, I would hope that one of the feelings I would have would be remorse, that my actions had contributed to someone being killed. Even if I believed in the right to bear arms, and use a gun in self defence (and, to be clear I believe in neither) and had used a gun to kill someone else who was armed and intent on harm to others I'd like to believe that having taken a life, even in those circumstances, would be a deeply traumatic experience.
To turn the death of an unarmed innocent kid into a cause, to want to have anything to do with the weapon and seek to make money from the incident just doesn't seem to be something a rational human being would do. It's like Zimmerman isn't in contact with reality. And, the reality is that he was mistaken in thinking Martin was planning to rob the houses in the neighbourhood, mistaken that Martin was doing anything other than walking home from the store. The courts acquitted him of any criminal charge, a judgement that effectively says that the mistake was one that anyone could make. That doesn't alter the fact that he was mistaken. Yet, Zimmerman is acting as though he was a hero protecting the homes of his neighbours, and seems to have no remorse over the mistake he made, nor even any willingness to accept he was mistaken.
It's all just damn odd.
--------------------
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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
... If Trayvon had been walking purposely from one point to another, as most people do when it's raining, I doubt if Zimmerman would have been suspicious. ...
Oh, FFS. Twilight, are you buying or selling this crap? Both? You really believe that "He looks black" means Zimmerman didn't know or care about his victim's race? What fucking planet were you born on? Alpha Gullibulus?
Mr. Martin was talking on his cellphone. Ever seen a teenager walk while using a cell phone? A colleague has a great story about a student using a cell phone who literally walked into the front end of her PARKED truck, even after she had honked the horn several times.
Zimmerman is a racist, sexist, violent, cowardly piece of human garbage who harassed an innocent, unarmed BLACK man, disobeyed police instructions, provoked a confrontation, and then killed that innocent, unarmed BLACK man because he "felt threated". And now we can add obscenely greedy and cruel to his list of talents.
--------------------
"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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not in practice. In practice questioning the character of the victim is part of defence strategy.
Not sure exactly what you mean by that, nor what evidence there is behind it. But a criminal case is one between the government and the accused (with a very few minor exceptions).
There will often be a victim(s) of the crime. The character of the victim will sometime be used to mitigate the acts of the person on trial.
quote:
It flows from the duty of the sovereign to maintain internal peace.
Don't speak to me of principals, in principal the Soviet system was a utopia. Our legal systems have, in their descriptions just and noble language. However, in their practice, not so clearly.
quote:
You appear to have no understanding of basic criminal process.
That is probably true. But you've done nothing to highlight this.
quote:
Nor have you yet even attempted to answer my self-defence question.
Alan answered your flawed example quite well so I did not feel the need. You wish a direct answer?
What Alan said.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Trayvon was 5'11 to Zimmerman's 5'7" and much more muscular and fit looking so it's not surprising Zimmerman was losing the fight.[/URL]
Zimmerman was between 185 lb and 200 lb, Martin was 158 lb.
--------------------
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
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Just as well that 'walking around, looking at buildings' and 'in the rain' are not considered suspicious circumstances here in the sunny British Isles! The place would be a desolate waste of gunned down corpses!
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
Oh, I don't know. I paused outside the police station on Donegal Pass in about 1990 to marvel at its heavily-fortified frontage. It may have been raining, and I think I had a camera. A guy came out with a machine gun and rapidly established 'you're not from round here, are you?!'
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
selling this crap? Both? You really believe that "He looks black" means Zimmerman didn't know or care about his victim's race? What fucking planet were you born on? Alpha Gullibulus?
Mr. Martin was talking on his cellphone. Ever seen a teenager walk while using a cell phone? A colleague has a great story about a student using a cell phone who literally walked into the front end of her PARKED truck, even after she had honked the horn several times.
Zimmerman is a racist, sexist, violent, cowardly piece of human garbage who harassed an innocent, unarmed BLACK man, disobeyed police instructions, provoked a confrontation, and then killed that innocent, unarmed BLACK man because he "felt threated". And now we can add obscenely greedy and cruel to his list of talents.
I find this thread rather frightening.
Just because most of us know that teenagers tend to wander around in circles while talking on their cells, you just assume that this rather stupid man who is out purposely looking for the person who has been burglarizing the houses, is supposed to look at the figure of a man in the rain and think "teenager talking," and not, "the bad guy I'm looking for and hoping to find."
When I said that if Martin had been walking he probably wouldn't have caused Zimmerman to be suspicious, I was guessing about how Zimmerman was probably thinking not saying that his conclusions were correct. Mostly I was pointing out to Alan that Martin was not killed because he was "walking while black," because he wasn't doing that much walking. But putting yourself in Zimmerman's head for a minute is something you are unwilling to do except to make up things like "He said the word, "black," he's a racist!"
Zimmerman answers the the 911 operator's question, "What race is he?" with "He looks black." and so you're sure he's a racist. Do you think he should have lied and said he looked white?
Zimmerman may well be a coward. I tend to think there's an element of that in many people who don't feel safe without a gun. He has proved himself violent. But I don't see the evidence of racist and sexist in this event.
A few days ago I watched ESPN's "30-30" documentary "Fantastic Lies." It's about the year of misery the Duke Lacrosse team went through because a woman accused three of them of rape. The accusations led to their coach being fired, the boys being suspended and arrested, jail time, their parent's lives put on hold, all in spite of the fact that there was no evidence against them and quite a bit of evidence that they couldn't possibly have committed the crime.
Yet everyone from Nancy Grace and Joy Behar, to the entire population of the town was calling for their blood, columnists in major newspapers across America demanded that they confess and other people at the party "come forward," against them even though they had nothing to tell.
There were marches and protests and signs waved day after day raving with hatred toward the boys. Why? Because the falsely accused we're male, rich and white and the "victim" was female, poor and as you would say, BLACK.
I'm sure, even now and for the rest of their lives there will be people like you convinced that they are guilty because the "victim" was black and little things like evidence don't count. I found the whole thing chilling while it was happening and I still do. To me an ugly lynch mob is an ugly lynch mob no matter what anyone's color is.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
lilBuddha , I notice that you're already backing away from your original post. What was In practice questioning the character of the victim is part of defence strategy has now turned into The character of the victim will sometime be used to mitigate the acts of the person on trial, a clear indication that you are unable to produce the evidence I asked for.
But then, that's not surprising. Your knowledge of political theory is as bad as your spelling.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The other side of all the racial stuff, of course, is that Zimmerman would not have been labelled WHITE, right up until when he killed a BLACK man.
That to me was one of the most mystifying things about the case. Zimmerman is, in normal American parlance, Hispanic. You can bet your bottom dollar if he'd had any kind of interaction with a person of Northern European heritage, he would've been Hispanic.
--------------------
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 Leorning Cniht:
This renewed discussion was sparked by Zimmerman trying to auction off the gun he used to shoot Martin. The gun is Zimmerman's property, and he wasn't convicted of a crime involving it. I don't think there's any question that he has the legal right to sell his property via any legal means, including auction.
But morally? Let's assume for the moment that Zimmerman's version of events is accurate, that he used his gun to defend himself, and was acquitted in a heavily publicized trial. In those circumstances, can anyone defend the morality of trying to auction off the gun for many times its face value?
Because I can't. You could turn this into the most clear-cut righteous self-defense shooting imaginable, and I still couldn't justify making money off it.
I can't either. I think it's a dumb move.
The only thing I can say in his favour about it is that his choice of cause to support... it comes across as him being upset and angry that Trayvon Martin became the poster-boy for Black Lives Matter, and I think that anger is pretty understandable from his point of view. If you spend your life hearing how the person who banged your head into the concrete was a sweet innocent victim, you'd be upset.
But it's still a dumb move.
--------------------
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 lilBuddha:
There will often be a victim(s) of the crime. The character of the victim will sometime be used to mitigate the acts of the person on trial.
And often there won't be one person who was wearing a white hat and one who was wearing a black hat. Do you always think the person who died was the victim? Do you think that's necessarily an appropriate label?
The character of the victim... there are just so many problems inherent in that phrase. The Zimmerman case is more about the actions of your "victim", not his character. As are the two cases I've mentioned more than once on this forum (one of them in this thread recently) where people I've had moderately close connections to have been acquitted of murder, on self-defence grounds.
Let me wheel out the second, because it ended up with an agreed set of facts. And that agreed set of facts involved the man who's now dead attacking the other guy. The other guy fought back, got him in a headlock, squeezed too hard and killed his attacker.
Which one are you going to label the victim?
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'm not sure it makes any sense to call someone a "victim" without saying what they are a victim of. Someone is a victim of rape, or murder, or mistaken identity, or cancer, but not just a victim simpliciter. So in your scenario, the one person was a victim of battery, and the other a victim of manslaughter. There is no need to choose just one of them to be the victim. That's meaningless oversimplification and perhaps one could say a category error.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure it makes any sense to call someone a "victim" without saying what they are a victim of. Someone is a victim of rape, or murder, or mistaken identity, or cancer, but not just a victim simpliciter. So in your scenario, the one person was a victim of battery, and the other a victim of manslaughter. There is no need to choose just one of them to be the victim. That's meaningless oversimplification and perhaps one could say a category error.
But in orfeo's example, surely there's no manslaughter? There's an assault, and there's a lawful killing in self-defense. And if there's no crime, there isn't anything to be a victim of.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure it makes any sense to call someone a "victim" without saying what they are a victim of. Someone is a victim of rape, or murder, or mistaken identity, or cancer, but not just a victim simpliciter. So in your scenario, the one person was a victim of battery, and the other a victim of manslaughter. There is no need to choose just one of them to be the victim. That's meaningless oversimplification and perhaps one could say a category error.
But in orfeo's example, surely there's no manslaughter? There's an assault, and there's a lawful killing in self-defense. And if there's no crime, there isn't anything to be a victim of.
Someone died. Even if the killer was acting in self-defense, someone died. So maybe the attacker wasn't victim of manslaughter, if self-defense rules out manslaughter, but he was still a victim of a killing. As I listed above, you can be a victim of cancer (which is not a crime) or a victim of mistaken identity (which is not a crime) so your claim that if there is no crime there is no victim is refuted.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Someone died. Even if the killer was acting in self-defense, someone died. So maybe the attacker wasn't victim of manslaughter, if self-defense rules out manslaughter, but he was still a victim of a killing. As I listed above, you can be a victim of cancer (which is not a crime) or a victim of mistaken identity (which is not a crime) so your claim that if there is no crime there is no victim is refuted.
I take your point about being able to have crimeless victims, but I think that the word "victim" carries an implication of innocence that isn't really appropriate when used to describe an assailant that was killed in self-defence.
We don't usually describe soldiers killed in battle as "victims" unless you're trying to make a point about the immorality of war. If two boxers get in the ring to fight, and one gets knocked out, we call him the "loser" but not a "victim". Even if he dies, he doesn't become a victim (unless, like the war case, you're making a point about injuries in contact sports).
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
lilBuddha , I notice that you're already backing away from your original post. What was In practice questioning the character of the victim is part of defence strategy has now turned into The character of the victim will sometime be used to mitigate the acts of the person on trial,
The only way one of these "turned" is to assume the first statement was meant as an always. And you know what they say about when you assume: It makes an ass out of you.
quote:
a clear indication that you are unable to produce the evidence I asked for.
It was actually me assuming more intelligence on your part than is obviously warranted. My apologies for the undue burden I have placed on your inadequate mental resources.
An example.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The other side of all the racial stuff, of course, is that Zimmerman would not have been labelled WHITE, right up until when he killed a BLACK man.
That to me was one of the most mystifying things about the case. Zimmerman is, in normal American parlance, Hispanic. You can bet your bottom dollar if he'd had any kind of interaction with a person of Northern European heritage, he would've been Hispanic.
First, Hispanic is anything from black skin, black hair and black eyes to white skin white hair and blue yes. It does not denote any specific, physical characteristics.
Second, yes, race relationships are contextual everywhere,* especially in America.
*Everywhere I have encountered.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And often there won't be one person who was wearing a white hat and one who was wearing a black hat.
Of course.
quote:
The character of the victim... there are just so many problems inherent in that phrase. The Zimmerman case is more about the actions of your "victim", not his character.
No, it is about one interpretation of the interaction between Zimmerman and Martin.
quote:
Let me wheel out the second, because it ended up with an agreed set of facts. And that agreed set of facts involved the man who's now dead attacking the other guy. The other guy fought back, got him in a headlock, squeezed too hard and killed his attacker.
Which one are you going to label the victim?
The dead guy is the victim. They both share the blame for the death. Though there could be debate on whether or not the blame is equal.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I take your point about being able to have crimeless victims, but I think that the word "victim" carries an implication of innocence that isn't really appropriate when used to describe an assailant that was killed in self-defence.
You can of course think whatever you want, and I would be the last person to take that from you. Or orfeo, much as I begrudge him anything. But the question is, how do the majority of people in this particular language community use the word?
Let's say somebody stupfs somebody else's wife, and the aggrieved husband kills the adulterous third wheel. He wasn't innocent by any stretch. But he still was a victim.
I could spin out these stories all day of course.
"Victim" and "innocent" are not coterminous. Otherwise "innocent victim" as a phrase wouldn't exist, or would be universally recognized as a redundancy.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure it makes any sense to call someone a "victim" without saying what they are a victim of. Someone is a victim of rape, or murder, or mistaken identity, or cancer, but not just a victim simpliciter. So in your scenario, the one person was a victim of battery, and the other a victim of manslaughter. There is no need to choose just one of them to be the victim. That's meaningless oversimplification and perhaps one could say a category error.
But in orfeo's example, surely there's no manslaughter? There's an assault, and there's a lawful killing in self-defense. And if there's no crime, there isn't anything to be a victim of.
Someone died. Even if the killer was acting in self-defense, someone died. So maybe the attacker wasn't victim of manslaughter, if self-defense rules out manslaughter, but he was still a victim of a killing. As I listed above, you can be a victim of cancer (which is not a crime) or a victim of mistaken identity (which is not a crime) so your claim that if there is no crime there is no victim is refuted.
He in fact offered a guilty plea to manslaughter and two judges refused to accept it, and entered an acquittal instead.
Both the trial judge, and then an appeal judge, said that it wasn't manslaughter because on the agreed facts it was self-defence. James' profound subjective sense of guilt notwithstanding.
You are right that someone died. The problem is that many people take that bare fact and leap to conclusions about what that implies.
And while I want to emphasise that you are not jumping to conclusions in that way, I still find it not all that satisfactory to describe the guy who attacked the other guy a "victim". He was killed. I'm not sure that makes him a "victim of a killing" unless we reduce all unfortunate events to things that people are "victims" of regardless of the cause of their misfortune.
[ 15. May 2016, 03:01: 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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Let's say somebody stupfs somebody else's wife, and the aggrieved husband kills the adulterous third wheel. He wasn't innocent by any stretch. But he still was a victim.
Sure - but the adultery and the revenge of the cuckolded husband are separate actions. The logic of a self-defence claim is that the self-defence is not separate from the attack it's defending against, but is a necessary consequence of it.
Mr. Cuckold didn't need to kill his wife's lover. If it was in the heat of the moment, he'd probably manage to be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. He could have chosen to walk away and file for divorce.
The logic of self-defence (at least in a rational jurisdiction) is that the victim of the initial assault is left with no other reasonable options. In order to prevent his further injury or death, he is forced to use reasonable force to protect himself, and there's some probability that the outcome of that reasonable force is the death of his attacker.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm not sure that makes him a "victim of a killing" unless we reduce all unfortunate events to things that people are "victims" of regardless of the cause of their misfortune.
It's really a question of whether you describe someone as a victim when he is the cause of his own misfortune. If you go out drinking, drive home, wrap your car around a lamppost and die, are you "a victim of drink-driving"? If you're mugging someone at knife-point, slip, and impale yourself on your own weapon, are you "a victim of knife crime"?
If you tell your buddy "here, hold my beer" and shoot a vehicle full of explosives at close range, are you a victim of anything other than your own stupidity?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Let's say somebody stupfs somebody else's wife, and the aggrieved husband kills the adulterous third wheel. He wasn't innocent by any stretch. But he still was a victim.
Sure - but the adultery and the revenge of the cuckolded husband are separate actions. The logic of a self-defence claim is that the self-defence is not separate from the attack it's defending against, but is a necessary consequence of it.
For something to be a consequence of something else, they must be separable. You can't have it both ways.
quote:
The logic of self-defence (at least in a rational jurisdiction) is that the victim of the initial assault is left with no other reasonable options.
That it is the only reasonable option doesn't mean it's not an option, i.e. it wasn't opted for. He could have chosen to die, however unreasonable that may be. It's what martyrs do. As such they are separable events with separable motivations and agents.
quote:
In order to prevent his further injury or death, he is forced to use reasonable force to protect himself, and there's some probability that the outcome of that reasonable force is the death of his attacker.
Yep. But HE used the reasonable force. His assailant did not. I think you're eliding two very different things: blame, and agency.
[ 15. May 2016, 03:32: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Well, a quick google gives this definition of victim: "a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action."
If someone shoots me and I die, I have died as the result of an event or action. Whether or not it's my fault doesn't enter into the definition.
So, yeah, the definition you mock, orfeo, seems to be what the word means.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I don't believe I was mocking anything. Far from it. You're causing me to wrestle with the meaning of the word.
That you can find a dictionary definition where fault doesn't enter it does not convince me that in general usage, fault or (lack of fault) isn't a factor. You're right that we have the phrase "innocent victim", but when's the last time you ever heard someone talk about a "guilty victim"? If the word "victim" is neutral we should hear about "guilty victims" as well.
[ 15. May 2016, 03:44: 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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
lilBuddha , I notice that you're already backing away from your original post. What was In practice questioning the character of the victim is part of defence strategy has now turned into The character of the victim will sometime be used to mitigate the acts of the person on trial,
The only way one of these "turned" is to assume the first statement was meant as an always. And you know what they say about when you assume: It makes an ass out of you.
quote:
a clear indication that you are unable to produce the evidence I asked for.
It was actually me assuming more intelligence on your part than is obviously warranted. My apologies for the undue burden I have placed on your inadequate mental resources.
An example.
The first of your statements is clearly on an "always" basis. You then backed away from that, and still the only evidence that you can come up with is one example.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That you can find a dictionary definition where fault doesn't enter it does not convince me that in general usage, fault or (lack of fault) isn't a factor.
What do you think dictionaries do? They record usage of words. I doubt very much the definitions built into Google are prescriptive.
Anyway I've given my evidence. Let's hear yours. Put up or shut up.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The first of your statements is clearly on an "always" basis. You then backed away from that, and still the only evidence that you can come up with is one example.
Are you really this stupid or is your candy-arse sore because I suggest that the legal profession doesn't always act with justice or perfection?
--------------------
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
On another incident, Holy Hell!
--------------------
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 mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That you can find a dictionary definition where fault doesn't enter it does not convince me that in general usage, fault or (lack of fault) isn't a factor.
What do you think dictionaries do? They record usage of words. I doubt very much the definitions built into Google are prescriptive.
Anyway I've given my evidence. Let's hear yours. Put up or shut up.
My primary piece of evidence is the lack of guilty victims.
Failing that, I'll go with the Merriam-Webster full definition which refers to " one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent". Emphasis on acted on. A couple of other definitions also emphasised the passivity element of being a victim. It's something that happens to you, not something that you cause.
[ 15. May 2016, 05:05: 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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
On another incident, Holy Hell!
2 instances! Wow, real proof of your statement.
Learnt to spell yet?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
On another incident, Holy Hell!
This being the Sabbath, may we all join together in hating this guy.
It's so bad that leaving the child with a loaded gun wasn't even the worst part. Leaving her alone in the desert without water may have been even worse. Did he think she was going to shoot rattlers? Then he was having a cheeseburger before telling anyone where she was. Why are demented, moronic grandparents so often left in charge of children? We need free day care on the same bill as new gun laws.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It's so bad that leaving the child with a loaded gun wasn't even the worst part.
There is no good part to his behaviour. That such people exist is no longer surprising, it is just depressing.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
2 instances! Wow, real proof of your statement.
Learnt to spell yet?
I considered explaining why this post has naught to do with the other, but you quite obviously do not have the mental faculty to process the explanation. I wish I believed in the power of prayer, because it is quite clear your clients need all they can get. I fervently hope your current mental state is a recent development, otherwise it is a harsh indictment of the ABA and the Australian legal system entire.
--------------------
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
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Why are demented, moronic grandparents so often left in charge of children?
For the same reason they're allowed to have guns.
If the news media really wanted to serve the public good, they would cease all talk about Trump and devote their coverage to all incidents of gun violence, every day. There would easily be enough material to fill their air time.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Oh, I don't know. I paused outside the police station on Donegal Pass in about 1990 to marvel at its heavily-fortified frontage. It may have been raining, and I think I had a camera. A guy came out with a machine gun and rapidly established 'you're not from round here, are you?!'
Hehe! Well, I suppose Norn Irn is, or was then, a bit of an exception! At least you got the 'friendly', albeit heavily armed, approach from the security forces.
Sad reflection, I spent a lot of time in Donegall Pass during the 80's and I don't even recall what the police station looked like, so used to the fortifications across town I must've become. Even now I have to remind myself I live in the part of the UK that uses armed police and it's completely normal!
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
