|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Shot for being suspiciously black
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't what you contend is going on here (executive and judicial officials misconstruing the intent of the legislature), exactly the kind of problem the American constitutional system intends to be handled with a legislative solution (i.e. the legislature revising or clarifying its position)?
Yes, it is- after careful deliberation. The American constitutional system is designed such that the laws are slow to be changed, and this isn't an accident; it allows time for careful study before making drastic changes that can have unintended consequences. Whether or not it does this well is another topic. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
For the record, I never said the law in question shouldn't be changed- I said the legislature ought to let the courts (via the cases before them) finish interpreting the current one before changing it mid-stream.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't what you contend is going on here (executive and judicial officials misconstruing the intent of the legislature), exactly the kind of problem the American constitutional system intends to be handled with a legislative solution (i.e. the legislature revising or clarifying its position)?
Yes, it is- after careful deliberation. The American constitutional system is designed such that the laws are slow to be changed, and this isn't an accident; it allows time for careful study before making drastic changes that can have unintended consequences. Whether or not it does this well is another topic.
For the record, I never said the law in question shouldn't be changed- I said the legislature ought to let the courts (via the cases before them) finish interpreting the current one before changing it mid-stream.
And to return to yet another (similarly unanswered) question, how does that work in a case like Mr. Zimmerman's, where the police have (apparently) interpreted the law in such a way that precludes its consideration by any court?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
I agree with the DA- this seems to be a perversion of the "self-defense" justification; if you can chase him down, you could be avoiding the fight instead.
I agree with this as well as most everything else jbohn has said here. I seriously doubt that this man, a member of a minority himself, will turn out to be a rabid racist who shoots people for being black. I think his real problem was probably too much self-awarded power and too many Clint Eastwood movies. I imagine he was enjoying bullying Trayvon until, all of a sudden the teen became angry himself and the man fired out of fear. Bullies are often cowards.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
It should also be asked that if seven years of case law since the "stand your ground" law was enacted are insufficient for the legislature to get a sense of how the courts are applying the law, how much time would you consider enough?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
I agree with the DA- this seems to be a perversion of the "self-defense" justification; if you can chase him down, you could be avoiding the fight instead.
I agree with this as well as most everything else jbohn has said here. I seriously doubt that this man, a member of a minority himself, will turn out to be a rabid racist who shoots people for being black. I think his real problem was probably too much self-awarded power and too many Clint Eastwood movies. I imagine he was enjoying bullying Trayvon until, all of a sudden the teen became angry himself and the man fired out of fear. Bullies are often cowards.
I'm pretty sure jbohn made that particular comment in regard to the Garcia case I mentioned earlier, which featured a similar application of the "stand your ground law".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
... Don't get me wrong- this is a tragedy. But it's no more tragic than any number of similar stories, none of which make the national news. So why this one? I'm a bit cynical. Sounds like a local law-enforcement issue to me. ...
OK, if there are many similar stories (regardless of whether they make the news or not), how can it be a local issue? How many different places does something have to happen before it's no longer just local? OliviaG
PS Thanks for the props. I wasn't trying to be glib - I really do find it inconceivable that Zimmermann didn't recognize a kid from his own neighbourhood. I may not know everyone's name or where they live, but I know the faces I see regularly.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
It is still wrong for the public to have a say in whether a person is arrested - that's how a lot of this crap started.
Since policing is essentially (unless you live in a police state) by the consent of the people, it's in everybody's interest including the police's that no one gets a free pass when it comes to obeying the law.
If the public see that their law-enforcing representatives are favouring one sector of the community over another, then they've every right - and in fact a duty - to demand equality before the law.
They have the right to their opinion, but their opinion should not weigh in at all whether or not a person is arrested. That's how a lot of blacks ended up wrongfully convicted and 2 wrongs don't make a right. Public pressure has served to ensure a proper investigation on local, state and Federal levels. It's time for the public to back off for a bit. I've read to today of walkouts and other things that will occur if Zimmerman is not arrested. Another form of vigilante justice. Let the investigation happen now that it is in process.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
All the rallies (and why one in New York, anyway?) and calls for Mr. Zimmerman to be locked up without an investigation (to say nothing of the police to be put in the stocks) smell of lynch mob law, to my mind.
So you're all for vigilante shootings of unarmed people, but have a problem with lynch mobs? Your moral distinctions are a bit too subtle for me to grasp, I'm afraid.
--Tom Clune
Original posted answered much beetter (and nicer) than I could.
[ 23. March 2012, 21:42: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
And no one can agree a slur was used on the 911 call.
There is definitely a slur - the debate is whether it is racist or not. Either he says "fucking coons" or "fucking punks". I've heard the unedited recording and to me it sounds like the former.
"Fucking punks" is not a racial slur - it's generally used for youths of all races. The shooter has black family members and they and friends of Zimmerman say he's not racist. I'd go for paranoid with a hero complex. He's also a wanna be cop as he's been through police training.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
They have the right to their opinion, but their opinion should not weigh in at all whether or not a person is arrested. That's how a lot of blacks ended up wrongfully convicted and 2 wrongs don't make a right.
There is a major distinction between being arrested and being convicted (wrongfully or not). An arrest is just that--an arrest. The person is a suspect and might be released later after investigation or might be taken to trial after investigation. Heck, innocent people are arrested on practically every episode of "Law & Order"--it is not that unusual. But you arrest because you have reason to think that person committed a crime. As I understand the situation in this case, the police had a dead person shot, and the person who shot him. That person said "trust me, it was self-defense." How does that not lead to at least an arrest while further investigation is done? You have a person with a gun in hand, a person shot dead and the person with the gun admits to having done the shooting. That is at least a basis to suspect that there might be a crime here at least worthy of further investigation and, hey, maybe the suspected perp should be arrested while that investigation is done.
I agree with you that nobody should rush to conviction and the public and pundits need to back off, but what I cannot grasp is how that fact suituation did not result in at least an arrest--even if he was released on bail later. Why would any police officer accept the shooter's unsupported word as sufficient reason NOT to arrest in that situation?
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
They have the right to their opinion, but their opinion should not weigh in at all whether or not a person is arrested. That's how a lot of blacks ended up wrongfully convicted and 2 wrongs don't make a right.
There is a major distinction between being arrested and being convicted (wrongfully or not). An arrest is just that--an arrest. The person is a suspect and might be released later after investigation or might be taken to trial after investigation. Heck, innocent people are arrested on practically every episode of "Law & Order"--it is not that unusual. But you arrest because you have reason to think that person committed a crime. As I understand the situation in this case, the police had a dead person shot, and the person who shot him. That person said "trust me, it was self-defense." How does that not lead to at least an arrest while further investigation is done? You have a person with a gun in hand, a person shot dead and the person with the gun admits to having done the shooting. That is at least a basis to suspect that there might be a crime here at least worthy of further investigation and, hey, maybe the suspected perp should be arrested while that investigation is done.
I agree with you that nobody should rush to conviction and the public and pundits need to back off, but what I cannot grasp is how that fact suituation did not result in at least an arrest--even if he was released on bail later. Why would any police officer accept the shooter's unsupported word as sufficient reason NOT to arrest in that situation?
In this case Zimmerman claimed self defense and under Florida law he has the right to chase someone who he feels is a threat to him or others. One should have probable cause backed up by evidence and should be sufficient to lead to a conviction. The public has speculation on the 911 call, but there needs to voice evaluation to determine who was crying for help. Even the neighbors are divided. There were no eye witnesses or video of the event. The girlfriend's testimony isn't sufficient and may be undercut by other witnesses. They are there but haven't been mentioned much on this thread. There is also the issue of whether this case can be successfully prosecuted with the current version of Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law" which has allowed people to chase and execute others and get away with it since the law was put in place. Even one of the original authors admits that it's being used to get away with murder. Public opinion/outrage can put pressure on legislatures to change the law, but that won't affect this case.
IMO, Zimmerman's story stinks, but I want an arrest based on solid police work, which, with independent State and Federal oversight can now take place. Public protests got that - now they need to back off for a bit, not make threats if there isn't an immediate arrest. I'd be very afraid to live in a country where popular opinion carries more weight than a solid police investigation.
In short, in Florida you almost have to have video tape of the murder or several eye witnesses who all say the same thing. And even then they may go free because of this idiotic law. There isn't that evidence in this case.
[ 23. March 2012, 22:12: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
In this case Zimmerman claimed self defense and under Florida law he has the right to chase someone who he feels is a threat to him or others. One should have probable cause backed up by evidence and should be sufficient to lead to a conviction. The public has speculation on the 911 call, but there needs to voice evaluation to determine who was crying for help. Even the neighbors are divided. There were no eye witnesses or video of the event. The girlfriend's testimony isn't sufficient and may be undercut by other witnesses. They are there but haven't been mentioned much on this thread. There is also the issue of whether this case can be successfully prosecuted with the current version of Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law" which has allowed people to chase and execute others and get away with it since the law was put in place.
"Probable cause backed up by evidence": Gun fired in Person A's hand. Bullet from gun in Person B's body. That is probable cause with evidence that A shot B and sufficient for arrest and possibly conviction. The allegation of self-defense is not evidence. It is a claim or allegation. If believed, it can be a defense against conviction, but it is not "evidence" in itself and the burden of proving it rests on the person making the allegation (Person A). That can be tested in a court but it is not a bar to arrest.
The rest of what you mentioned has come out after further investigation (or merits further investigation). Like I said, after arrest and further investigation, Person A might be released because the police determine that there is not enough evidence to go to trial--but that does not mean that there was insufficent evidence to justify an arrest when the event happened. Again, don't conflate what is needed for arrest with what is needed for prosecution or conviction.
And we remain in agreement that the public and pundits need to back off now and allow a proper investigation to be done. Recognizing that does not change the fact that--regardless of the result of that investigation--there are serious questions that need to be asked as to why he was not arrested at the time. There was sufficient physical evidence (i.e., evidence that does not require questions of a person's credibility) to justify making an arrest, even if that arrest did not lead to prosecution.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
As I understand the situation in this case, the police had a dead person shot, and the person who shot him. That person said "trust me, it was self-defense." How does that not lead to at least an arrest while further investigation is done? You have a person with a gun in hand, a person shot dead and the person with the gun admits to having done the shooting. That is at least a basis to suspect that there might be a crime here at least worthy of further investigation and, hey, maybe the suspected perp should be arrested while that investigation is done.
I agree with you that nobody should rush to conviction and the public and pundits need to back off, but what I cannot grasp is how that fact suituation did not result in at least an arrest--even if he was released on bail later. Why would any police officer accept the shooter's unsupported word as sufficient reason NOT to arrest in that situation?
Damn right. They'd need to check for witnesses and corroborating evidence before letting the person go. I'm glad it's being looked into by higher authorities.
If he's still got nothing against him under the law as it stands, then ok. But the law obviously needs reviewing with better guidance for the police on how to apply it.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
In this case Zimmerman claimed self defense and under Florida law he has the right to chase someone who he feels is a threat to him or others. One should have probable cause backed up by evidence and should be sufficient to lead to a conviction. The public has speculation on the 911 call, but there needs to voice evaluation to determine who was crying for help. Even the neighbors are divided. There were no eye witnesses or video of the event. The girlfriend's testimony isn't sufficient and may be undercut by other witnesses. They are there but haven't been mentioned much on this thread. There is also the issue of whether this case can be successfully prosecuted with the current version of Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law" which has allowed people to chase and execute others and get away with it since the law was put in place.
"Probable cause backed up by evidence": Gun fired in Person A's hand. Bullet from gun in Person B's body. That is probable cause with evidence that A shot B and sufficient for arrest and possibly conviction. The allegation of self-defense is not evidence. It is a claim or allegation. If believed, it can be a defense against conviction, but it is not "evidence" in itself and the burden of proving it rests on the person making the allegation (Person A). That can be tested in a court but it is not a bar to arrest.
The rest of what you mentioned has come out after further investigation (or merits further investigation). Like I said, after arrest and further investigation, Person A might be released because the police determine that there is not enough evidence to go to trial--but that does not mean that there was insufficent evidence to justify an arrest when the event happened. Again, don't conflate what is needed for arrest with what is needed for prosecution or conviction.
And we remain in agreement that the public and pundits need to back off now and allow a proper investigation to be done. Recognizing that does not change the fact that--regardless of the result of that investigation--there are serious questions that need to be asked as to why he was not arrested at the time. There was sufficient physical evidence (i.e., evidence that does not require questions of a person's credibility) to justify making an arrest, even if that arrest did not lead to prosecution.
This is Florida where you need a hell of a lot more than in any other state to make an arrest and get a conviction. As posted before the law lets anyone shoot another if they feel the person is a threat to themselves, others or to property. It is so ridiculously worded that others who have chased people and then killed them have literally gotten away with murder. What is probable cause in any other state matters not in Florida. Even the author of the law says that the law is and has been used to literally get away with murder and needs adjusting. When the law is so broadly written you practically need a video and multiple eye witnesses. There is conflicting testimony in this case, conflicting witnesses who differ in what they heard, their descriptions of the "watch volunteer. Our opinions of what "probable cause" should be matter not in Florida.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
And no one can agree a slur was used on the 911 call.
There is definitely a slur - the debate is whether it is racist or not. Either he says "fucking coons" or "fucking punks". I've heard the unedited recording and to me it sounds like the former.
"Fucking punks" is not a racial slur - it's generally used for youths of all races. The shooter has black family members and they and friends of Zimmerman say he's not racist. I'd go for paranoid with a hero complex. He's also a wanna be cop as he's been through police training.
Note that Jonathan said precisely that-- it is a slur, whether or not it is a racial slur is what's unclear. If not racial, it is ageist. Indeed, I suspect the derogatory & demeaning stereotyping of young men may be as potentially dangerous as those of black men.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
And no one can agree a slur was used on the 911 call.
There is definitely a slur - the debate is whether it is racist or not. Either he says "fucking coons" or "fucking punks". I've heard the unedited recording and to me it sounds like the former.
"Fucking punks" is not a racial slur - it's generally used for youths of all races. The shooter has black family members and they and friends of Zimmerman say he's not racist. I'd go for paranoid with a hero complex. He's also a wanna be cop as he's been through police training.
Note that Jonathan said precisely that-- it is a slur, whether or not it is a racial slur is what's unclear. If not racial, it is ageist. Indeed, I suspect the derogatory & demeaning stereotyping of young men may be as potentially dangerous as those of black men.
Perhaps, but most who use it refer to criminal youth, not as a general slur. If Zimmerman truly believed Martin had criminal intent that would be the context. Should he have let the police handle it? Yep, but more and more people are taking matters into their own hands and Florida gives them the right to literally chase people down and kill them. We'll see if that changes.
[ 24. March 2012, 00:17: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
Have to add, the more I read about Florida's law and how many people have been able to get away with what would have got them convicted of murder in most other states, I am astounded that such insanity exists legally. I also have to agree with tclune(?) that walking around with a gun does make some people more aggressive. They may have a hero complex or just plain don't take "disrespect" from anyone, including love ones. Take a look at the news - there isn't a day that goes by these days without gun violence be it in a place of business or a school or a home. Today's example is a shooting rampage in a NC tire store.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
The shooter has black family members and they and friends of Zimmerman say he's not racist.
So, no one with gay family members could be homophobic? Faulty logic.
I know multiracial family groups which have members who are prejudiced, even if they do not express this to other family members.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Without the " media-manufactured frenzy" the "folks" you're referring to wouldn't have known about the case in order to complain. The "media-manufactured frenzy" is precisely why we're having a second look. Which, as you said, is " how the system is supposed to work."
The family would have known. The neighbors would have known. Locals (assuming it made the *local* news) would have known. I'll grant you that Al Sharpton probably wouldn't have known- not that that's necessarily a bad thing.
They knew a month ago. And I'm quite sure they were squawking loudly. But that got them nowhere, obviously, until their squawking hit the ears of the media. Again, it was only after the "media-manufactured frenzy" that the "system worked" and an investigation was begun.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
The shooter has black family members and they and friends of Zimmerman say he's not racist.
So, no one with gay family members could be homophobic? Faulty logic.
I know multiracial family groups which have members who are prejudiced, even if they do not express this to other family members.
You have a valid point. Remember, though, Zimmerman is himself a minority: Latino. I'm not buying him as a racist, just a paranoid guy with a hero complex and wannabe cop.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
There is some irony in the fact that if Zimmerman had been walking through some neighborhoods at night, he could have been the victim (if he was an actor, he'd be typecast as a low-level Mexican drug dealer).
But he was going against all the rules of Neighborhood Watch--it's pretty clear that he's one of those guys who gets a hard-on pretending to be Dirty Harry.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Common mistake among white people is that there should be no prejudice between different groups of colour. IIRC, there is a major problem in parts of the US between Latino and Black populations.
Latino/Hispanic varies from pale as paper redhead to dark as can be black. And racism is rampant in the Latin American world.
I will concede though, Zimmerman's primary motivation would seem to be as you describe.
ETA: Response to Nightowl2
[ 24. March 2012, 03:31: 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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Filming an amateur rap video. Where's the outrage over this?
I've said before, in another thread I started, how tiresome I find this method of argument. The idea that people aren't allowed to have feelings about one issue unless they promise to have feelings about another issue, or that they have to spend time explaining the differences between the original situation and whatever other vaguely similar case someone feels like dredging up, is just profoundly irritating.
Why? Because it's a demand to fulfil an impossible task. There are 6 or 7 billion people on this planet. I can't monitor what every single one of them is doing and pronounce my opinion on every single action. And neither can any other human being. And even if I COULD, I couldn't then SIMULTANEOUSLY pronounce my opinion on every single one of them, in a single post, so that you could see I'd considered each case on its merits all at once before pronouncing on any of them.
The idea that a view on case A isn't valid or thought through because an opinion hasn't also been expressed on cases B through to ZZZ at the same time is just nonsense. People can only express opinions on what comes to their attention. "Where's the outrage" expects me to already know about a case to begin with, so that I even HAVE an opportunity to have already expressed outrage about it.
--------------------
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 Niteowl2:
In this case Zimmerman claimed self defense and under Florida law he has the right to chase someone who he feels is a threat to him or others.
Hmm. Perhaps I need to look at the text of the law super carefully, but is that really what it says? Chase?
I'm not at all sure that it extends that far. It certainly says you don't have to back or retreat, but that's in the context of someone having come into your property.
A major part of what is bugging me here is the notion that the law has been interpreted so widely as to enable active chasing of someone who hasn't DONE anything, other than look like a thug in a hoodie.
(And I think the other thing that bugs me is the idea that police 'corrected' witnesses.)
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
They have the right to their opinion, but their opinion should not weigh in at all whether or not a person is arrested. That's how a lot of blacks ended up wrongfully convicted and 2 wrongs don't make a right. Public pressure has served to ensure a proper investigation on local, state and Federal levels. It's time for the public to back off for a bit.
So the authorities can sweep it under the rug. Nothing would have been done at all if it weren't for the public not backing off a bit. Your "it's time to stop" plea is not supported by the evidence to date. If our elected officials and professional law enforcement officers are not doing their job, then it is our job to stay on their case until they do. So far, as far as I know, Zimmerman has not been charged with anything. That's not good enough. A court needs to determine his innocence or guilt, not the good ol' boys in the police department.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Filming an amateur rap video. Where's the outrage over this?
I've said before, in another thread I started, how tiresome I find this method of argument. The idea that people aren't allowed to have feelings about one issue unless they promise to have feelings about another issue, or that they have to spend time explaining the differences between the original situation and whatever other vaguely similar case someone feels like dredging up, is just profoundly irritating.
I think it's much simpler than that. It's a case of, "Oh my God! The Liberals are saying something! I must attack it!"
--------------------
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
In fact, one of the things that the Florida statue says is that the justifiable defense line of argument is NOT available if you provoke the use of force against yourself.
There are massive, massive problems here with the notion that Trayvon was either (a) committing a criminal act which strongly helps create a presumption that force is okay, or (b) a genuine threat to Zimmermann. I keep trying to take the case for Zimmermann at its highest and I still run into serious difficulties that a bigger, armed man is in any kind of fear for his life on in fear of SERIOUS injury from a smaller man who is hitting him.
I'm not an American lawyer, but I write laws for a living and I have a hard time seeing how the police could treat it in such a way as to conclude "we don't have probable cause to arrest him". That only makes sense if it's clearly a case of self-defence, with evidence that would be good enough to raise the defence in a court. Instead we've got a story that, no matter how WELL you take it, still looks like it involves an unobjectively unreasonable action where there was no legitimate reason for Zimmermann to think either that Trayvon was a crook or a threat.
--------------------
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 mousethief:
I think it's much simpler than that. It's a case of, "Oh my God! The Liberals are saying something! I must attack it!"
I agree, it's a thoroughly Pavlovian response. Doesn't make it any less annoying. I don't like it regardless of who's doing it.
Earlier this year you might remember I talked about a friendship being ruined. Apparently I wasn't allowed to be upset about the problem of being flat out lied to, because other people had bigger problems: kids were starving in Africa and my 'friend' pulled the trump card of a genetic condition that might render him blind in a couple of decades.
It's just a really weak arguing approach. Darn. I can't think of a way to refute your actual point, so I'll score a cheap point on some other topic we weren't actually talking about.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's just a really weak arguing approach. Darn. I can't think of a way to refute your actual point, so I'll score a cheap point on some other topic we weren't actually talking about.
I believe the name of that particular fallacy is harena in oculos.
(or, "Oh yeah? Well what about...")
[ 24. March 2012, 04:30: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
New Yorker's linked article states irritation with speculative reporting then proceeds to do the same.
Credible? Perhaps not.
It's a pretty vile article. Here's an example of the innuendo;
"The media also characterizes Trayvon as a "model student." In fact, he under a five day suspension when the shooting took place. That is why he was staying at a house so far from his school on a school night. A laywer for Trayvon's family has blocked access to his school records. However, you have to do something pretty bad to get suspended for five days."
Well I don't know what you have to do, so I went a googling. Here's one example the something pretty bad you have to do to get suspended for five days from school and justifies gunning you down.
disruption of school
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
They have the right to their opinion, but their opinion should not weigh in at all whether or not a person is arrested. That's how a lot of blacks ended up wrongfully convicted and 2 wrongs don't make a right. Public pressure has served to ensure a proper investigation on local, state and Federal levels. It's time for the public to back off for a bit.
So the authorities can sweep it under the rug. Nothing would have been done at all if it weren't for the public not backing off a bit. Your "it's time to stop" plea is not supported by the evidence to date. If our elected officials and professional law enforcement officers are not doing their job, then it is our job to stay on their case until they do. So far, as far as I know, Zimmerman has not been charged with anything. That's not good enough. A court needs to determine his innocence or guilt, not the good ol' boys in the police department.
If you had bothered to read my posts you would have discovered that I agreed public pressure got the State and Feds involved. It's now time to wait for a full investigation and NOT make threats if this guy isn't arrested immediately. There are some conflicting witness statements and a rotten state law that pretty much makes murder legal in many instances, which may mean this guy goes scot free. Is it right? No. But now that the State and Feds are involved the public needs to let the investigation proceed. The day public opinion is the standard for arrests is the day I leave this country. Public opinion and high pressure has in the past lead to too many wrongful convictions.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
In this case Zimmerman claimed self defense and under Florida law he has the right to chase someone who he feels is a threat to him or others.
Hmm. Perhaps I need to look at the text of the law super carefully, but is that really what it says? Chase?
I'm not at all sure that it extends that far. It certainly says you don't have to back or retreat, but that's in the context of someone having come into your property.
A major part of what is bugging me here is the notion that the law has been interpreted so widely as to enable active chasing of someone who hasn't DONE anything, other than look like a thug in a hoodie.
(And I think the other thing that bugs me is the idea that police 'corrected' witnesses.)
That isn't what it says literally, but that is the way the Florida courts have handled it and there are several cases, some of which have been posted in this thread where people did just that and walked away scot free. The author of the law also has said that it needs to be adjusted as the way the law is now and the judicial interpretation, people have been getting away with murder. Perhaps the best thing about the scrutiny this case has received is that the law is being scrutinized. No other victim of one these vigilante shootings has gotten this much attention.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Okay riddle me this.
Scene: Guy with a gun. Dead guy.
Cops: "What happened here?"
Gunslinger: "It was self-defense."
Cops: "Oh, okay. Run along then."
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? A person who just killed another person is a de facto suspect for at least homicide if not murder. DUUUHHHH.
--------------------
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 Niteowl2:
Orfeo: this analysis by CNN may help: Florida Law Lets Killers Go Free?
Thank you. Much appreciated. The CNN analysis corresponds a great deal with my own. Which is nice.
It does actually remind me quite a bit of the problems with rape cases. Where a person accused of rape too often would be able say, "but I thought she consented" and it then it becomes difficult to prove that no, he didn't actually think any such thing.
Again, I'm not an expert in American law specifically, but it seems to me there's often a confusion (which police and even the courts can fall into) between the evidence that someone said something and the evidence that what they said is in fact true. Even in cases where what's in question is a SUBJECTIVE belief, that doesn't mean that all someone has to do is open their mouth and go 'oh, yeah, that's right, now that you mention it, that's what I believed'. Because a person's actions can be shown to be quite inconsistent with the claimed subjective belief. Not easy, but it can be done.
As the CNN analysis says, the question here is, did Zimmermann reasonably feel threatened? Of course he says he did, but millions of people aren't buying it at the moment, precisely because it doesn't gel with the information WE have to hand at this point. Starting with the inequality in size and weaponry.
--------------------
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
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Okay riddle me this.
Scene: Guy with a gun. Dead guy.
Cops: "What happened here?"
Gunslinger: "It was self-defense."
Cops: "Oh, okay. Run along then."
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? A person who just killed another person is a de facto suspect for at least homicide if not murder. DUUUHHHH.
Florid State law. How many times does this need pointing out? Plus it now appears Zimmerman had a he'd injury on the night in question muddying the waters more.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
Posting from a tablet with acruddy keyboard. Last post should have read ZImmermwn had a head injury on the night in question.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
The new law even allows a disproportionate response; if someone comes at you with a fist, you can reply with a gun.
That's just another thing wrong with Florida's law. Self-defense used to require "equal force." He uses a fist, you can use a fist, he uses a stick, you can use a vase, etc. Under the old laws, if Trayvon hit Zimmerman in the head with his phone then Zimmerman should have used his own phone.
Unfortunately, I don't think Florida stands alone with these lax self-defense laws. Mary Winkler, the pastor's wife who served seven months for shooting her husband in the back, one morning while he slept, lives in Tennessee. Mary says he abused her, although there were no witnesses to that, and the worst thing she could come up with in court was that he once requested that she wear high heels for sex. There weren't any million husband marches, though. White men have been fair game for women for some time now.
I'm just fed up with this. People are shooting people for cutting them off in traffic. I don't care how nasty your husband is or if Trayvon turns out to be a drug dealer, or how scared you are of the guy following you down the street, you shouldn't be allowed to shoot him!
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm just fed up with this. People are shooting people for cutting them off in traffic. I don't care how nasty your husband is or if Trayvon turns out to be a drug dealer, or how scared you are of the guy following you down the street, you shouldn't be allowed to shoot him!
It goes without saying that if you were not allowed to carry a gun you wouldn't be able to shoot him.
Let people carry weapons and these kind of shootings are 100s of times more likely.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Plus it now appears Zimmerman had a [head] injury on the night in question muddying the waters more.
Isn't the fact that it now appears Zimmerman was injured one of the controversial aspects of the case?
quote:
Initial police reports never mentioned that Zimmerman had a bloody nose or a wet shirt that showed evidence of a struggle. Attorneys for the dead teen’s family believe the information was added in a second report to justify the lack of an arrest.
There may be an honest reason for this later revision of the report, but I can also think of some not-so-honest ones as well. Hopefully the special prosecutor will turn some attention to this matter.
[ 24. March 2012, 13:54: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
And it does not fucking matter! Even if Martin attacked him, Zimmerman created the situation. No stupidity on Zimmerman's part, no dead boy. This should be enough, even with Florida's asinine law.
--------------------
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 Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm just fed up with this. People are shooting people for cutting them off in traffic. I don't care how nasty your husband is or if Trayvon turns out to be a drug dealer, or how scared you are of the guy following you down the street, you shouldn't be allowed to shoot him!
It goes without saying that if you were not allowed to carry a gun you wouldn't be able to shoot him.
Let people carry weapons and these kind of shootings are 100s of times more likely.
The rate has, in fact, gone up.
From night owls link
quote:
In light of the shift in the law, it's not surprising that since the law went into effect, reports of justifiable homicides have tripled, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
People will put themselves into situations, or allow situations to escalate, if they have a gun that they would have walked away from otherwise. Everyone, no. But how many needless deaths are too many?
--------------------
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 Niteowl2:
Florids State law. How many times does this need pointing out? Plus it now appears Zimmerman had a he'd injury on the night in question muddying the waters more.
How the fuck do they arrest ANYBODY?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And it does not fucking matter! Even if Martin attacked him, Zimmerman created the situation. No stupidity on Zimmerman's part, no dead boy. This should be enough, even with Florida's asinine law.
This.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
People will put themselves into situations, or allow situations to escalate, if they have a gun that they would have walked away from otherwise.
Especially if they have good reason to believe that they will suffer no consequences for having the gun and using it.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Heard a brief mention on the news this morning that Jeb Bush (still governor of Florida?) says that the "stand your ground" law doesn't apply in this case.
--------------------
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
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Heard a brief mention on the news this morning that Jeb Bush (still governor of Florida?) says that the "stand your ground" law doesn't apply in this case.
Jeb Bush signed it into law, but the current governor of FLA is Rick Scott (-R).
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And to return to yet another (similarly unanswered) question, how does that work in a case like Mr. Zimmerman's, where the police have (apparently) interpreted the law in such a way that precludes its consideration by any court?
You have more questions than I have answers- but that's what makes this discussion interesting...
In this specific case, it may or may not. As there are similar cases before the courts, it will get hashed out. But it may take some time. (And I'm well aware, for personal reasons I won't get into here, that saying that doesn't do a damned thing for a grieving family looking for answers NOW.)
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should also be asked that if seven years of case law since the "stand your ground" law was enacted are insufficient for the legislature to get a sense of how the courts are applying the law, how much time would you consider enough?
Depends. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) The issue isn't how many years of law, but how many decisions, and of what sort. I couldn't tell you, offhand, how often this law's been tested in court- but that's the factor that really matters here, not how long the law has been on the books.
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
OK, if there are many similar stories (regardless of whether they make the news or not), how can it be a local issue? How many different places does something have to happen before it's no longer just local?
Legally speaking, at least in this country, they're all local- murder is a state-level crime, not a Federal one (with exceptions for military offenses and crimes committed on Federal land- and even those are often handed over to the states).
Morally speaking, I don't have a good answer to that.
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
PS Thanks for the props. I wasn't trying to be glib - I really do find it inconceivable that Zimmermann didn't recognize a kid from his own neighbourhood. I may not know everyone's name or where they live, but I know the faces I see regularly.
It certainly didn't come off as glib to me, just true. I find it a bit odd, myself- it doesn't sound as if this is a neighborhood with a particularly transient or high-turnover population.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
If Zimmermann had a bloody nose or any other injuries when police arrived on the scene, they should have called an ambulance. The EMTs would have a record of his injuries. And they certainly shouldn't have let him go home if he was injured without any sort of treatment (especially if, as some reports said, he had an injury on the back of his head as well). So once again, either crappy police work or a cover-up. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The5thMary
Shipmate
# 12953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The entire police department should be locked in stocks outdoors in the rain for 72 hours and forced to watch a continual loop of In the heat of the night...
Dude. Don't become what you hate.
Although it DID make me laugh!
--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.
Posts: 3451 | From: Tacoma, WA USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
