Balta1701

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 02:53 PM) I've argued this law doesn't apply in this situation. I'm not falling for the medias faux outrage because a "white" person killed an innocent, law-abiding, Christ-loving black kid. "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE! GET RID OF THE LAW, THERE'S A FACTUAL SCENARIO THAT DOESN'T FIT IT PERFECTLY! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" Why do you think this incident resonates so much with the African american community? It's because this is a community that is already sick of being looked upon as guilty for whatever happened. And yes, it's a factual "scenario" which actually occurred and left a kid in the ground. Nice way to minimize the fact that a kid is dead.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 02:20 PM) I think this is a terrible law. Even police dont have the authority to shoot someone for a "potential" crime. If Martin was stealing a car, or breaking into a house, or attacking a kid, or doing anything criminal, then there is an argument that maybe a bystander should be able to intervene. But as it turns out, Martin had every right to be where he was. He wasnt even trespassing. If you let people walk around, thinking that they are cops and that they can handle these type of situations, these are the results (imo). It would have been just as bad if Martin had gotten the gun from Zimmerman and shot Zimmerman, or if Zimmerman had missed Martin and killed an innocent bystander. There are consequences for these type of laws. There's another layer here as well to why you don't want any random person being able to do what Zimmerman did. If a police officer had approached this area and started following the kid, the kid wouldn't have a right to run if the officer said not to. If there had been an officer who started chasing the kid and he had still run, the officer would have had vastly many more options. Did Zimmerman even have a flashlight? Compare the situations: An officer begins chasing someone. He is in some level of physical condition because it's required by his position, so he's less likely to be overpowered by a 17 year old. He also would be better able to flee if that became necessary. He also has a radio and can know exactly where his backup is if the situation escalates. He then also would have numerous non-lethal options available in the event that the person he is chasing became hostile...whether it is a baton, possibly/probably a taser, the means to restrain the suspect (handcuffs). Zimmerman might not have even had a flashlight (someoen tell me if I'm wrong). Once he got out of the car, there were basically 3 options. Either he never found the kid, he found the kid and the kid chose to comply with all of the instructions of a strange person who had been chasing him down the street, and the final one. If the kid chose to escalate the situation at all, and Zimmerman wasn't physically strong enough to overpower him, the only option was the gun being shown or used. That's why the vigilante part of this is one of the big problems. Every other bit of training or every other in-between option has been removed.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 02:36 PM) I still think you guys are blowing this whole thing out of proportion. I'd like a Florida attorney or law student to actually look through the history of all the cases using this statute and find out how the courts have interpreted it. I don't see a broad, open ended right granted by this thing to start shooting people that look at you funny. I see it as I high hurdle of "reasonably necessary" such that people are given the authority to protect themselves in dire situations. In 40 pages not a single person has answered my question about why it's better to give criminals an extra layer of protection over innocent people. The incredibly rare instance where some vigilante gets away with murder based on the statute (if that could ever happen) is not more important than the right of people to protect themselves. How people think it's appropriate to second guess what someone feels is appropriate in a life or death situation is beyond me. Moreover, the statute doesn't create some new right, it just codified existing law. Is the wording perfect? No, but I don't think any law is. Funny, because the unarmed kid here is dead and the guy who started following him is not. Somewhere along the line, the unarmed kid definitely needed another layer of protection.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 11:32 AM) That's an interesting thing as well...don't you think it's a bit naive or foolish to dismiss what your biologically-evolved instincts tell you in an effort to be more politically correct? Honestly though...your biologically-evolved instincts aren't always right, or even right the majority of the time. Since it's a baseball board...how many "gut instinct" managerial decisions or things that have always been done a certain way have been challenged once the real statistics people got in and looked at how effective those moves were?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 11:03 AM) I don't get it. He's not very good. If he ends up being a good reliever I'll be happy. Well, i differ on this from you. The best case I can give is that "he's not very good" is what you probably should expect from most guys when they make the jump from AA to the bigs in their 2nd full year as a starter, and I think there's more buried in his arm from some of the stuff I saw from him last year. I think his biggest weakness actually was in getting legit sink on his sinker, and that's something that I think a sinkerballer will develop more with time. I think he has the offspeed stuff to go with it, but getting the 2 seamer down was what I thought was his biggest issue last yera.

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 10:51 AM) I agree with this in theory, but if the best thing for the major league club is to have Stewart being able to give 3-4 innings of relief at a time, what are they going to do? Then you have to ask the question what the goal is for this season and what the downside is. If you think there's a 95% chance Stewart is going to wind up in the bullpen anyway, then you just put him there. Personally I don't, but that's because I have always really liked the idea of putting guys with 2 seamers on the mound in the Cell as a way to get outs and eat up innings, and I really thought Stewart showcased some good off-speed stuff in his outings last year. If you think it's 50/50 on whether or not Stewart would remain a starter, then you have to ask what your goal is for this year. If the team is "All in" at the major league level, you put him in the bullpen if you think he'll help you win 1 game. If instead, you have lost some of your older talent, cut back on salary, and are trying to develop kids, then you might well go with the lesser prospect in your bullpen in order to keep Stewart as a starter, and risk having it cost you a game or two early in the season. Personally, I think we're in the latter scenario this year, which is why I would prefer Stewart starting at AAA and either Stults or Axelrod in the pen, and deciding from there based on how things go...but that's why I'm not the GM.

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 10:43 AM) Truthfully, I don't care who they pick. That's what they have minor league options for. The reason why I care is that I think Stewart, as a sinkerballer, can be a solid asset as a starter long-term for this team, and because he was converted from relieving to starting, he doesn't have a whole lot of innings on his arm yet. So, if you put him in the bullpen, he'll basically be staying there.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 10:33 AM) And as I said, he could ignore him and keep walking. But legally, he doesn't have to. Martin also has no legal duty to step back from a confrontation and try to get away. And frankly, as for example he thought someone was going to try to mug him/steal his phone, you can come up with lots of scenarios where "keeping walking" would be a mistake that would put him at greater risk.

QUOTE (BigEdWalsh @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 10:27 AM) I know what you mean Balta but I'll be at the game and I don't want to see that. I saw enough of that kind of pitching the first couple of weeks of spring training. On a non-related note, Konerko with 16 hits in his last 35 at bats. Man, is he hot! Yet he still hasn't homered this spring. I get you, i just want stewart starting at AAA rather than in the big league bullpen, and I think the latter might well happen if he has 2 more good outings.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 10:27 AM) The opposite also holds true. This is all assumptions. Yes, and my post there was in response to a similar assumption.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 10:24 AM) We disagree 1000% on the bolded. Wrong, wrong, wrong. This law is JUST AS BAD as laws that say you are legally mandate to flee. Now that's my point. If his life were genuinely in danger, then it can be left to the discretion of prosecutors to determine that the shooter had no other choice, and then could drop the charges based on the entire circumstance. I know we went through how "Fleeing" can raise the jeopardy for the party that does the fleeing earlier in this thread and I understand that...but think about the natural end result of any conflict if neither party has a duty to flee. Both parties have a legitimate right to escalate any situation if neither side has a legally required duty to flee. That is a simply untenable scenario, and we've got a case study right here. Neither side had a duty to flee.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 10:24 AM) He sure does, but he doesn't have the authority to tell him to go f*** himself, push/punch him down, and then proceed to beat him further. Actually, it's certainly plausible that he does have that authority depending on what Zimmerman's actions leading up to that moment were. If Zimmerman approached him and made physical contact with him or tried to grab him, responding with that level of force is justified. Hell, at that point, anything he did other than shooting him would have been justified.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 10:18 AM) Not denying that, which is why he followed him. This Zimmerman seems to be the exact type of personality that would follow him...legally I might add. Did that escalate the situation? Seems like it. But was it illegal for him to follow? Nope, sure isn't. Which is why my answer here is that the laws are wrong. First of all he shouldn't have been able to legally carry a gun, because then he'd never have gotten out of the car to confront the kid in the first place, and second, even after the confrontation started, his legally mandated response should have been to flee. In my view, this is exactly the kind of situation you expect when you give everyone who wants one a gun with little to no training and then start making it more and more legal to use them. If people are willing to tolerate kids getting gunned down in conflicts that shouldn't have ever started as a consequence of the other great things gun liberalization is supposed to do, then that's a case they can make.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 10:11 AM) Just seems reasonable to me that if Zimmerman was looking for a confrontation, he never calls 911. The part that makes this statement suspect is his own statement "These assholes, they always get away" which is in the transcript of his 911 call.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 10:11 AM) No, Zimmerman's story and the girl's story are contradictory. Zimmerman claims he was returning to his truck and was attacked from behind. The girl claims that, through what Martin was saying, that Zimmerman approached Martin and Martin yelled at him. There's no "truth is in the middle" for those two stories. But you know darn well that eyewitness testimony and memories, especially in a panicked circumstance, are completely unreliable. She probably thought she heard one thing on the phone and I'll guarantee you if you had a videotape, what she thought she heard would not exactly match the actual statements, and what Zimmerman thought he experienced would not match the actual events. That is how eyewitness accounts go. They are always completely one-sided, and their accuracy is hugely suspect.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 10:07 AM) That's a whole mess load of assumptions you're just deciding to believe, versus Zimmerman's story which says the opposite. His word against hers...and you're just deciding, on a whim, that he's the liar, and shes telling the truth... And she may be. But...so may he be...or he may be she he be. And let's note...neither of them may be lying. It's a classic case of multiple eyewitnesses each with their own version of the story, and overwhelming evidence shows that every one of them will probably believe their statements and the truth is somewhere in-between. Both of them were probably in something of a panicked state at the time, and that's plenty of reason to expect their stories to come out muddled. The one big difference here is that the other eye-witness is dead.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 10:04 AM) Right, regardless of who made the first physical contact, the situation is entirely the creation of Zimmerman. There's no one disputing that. Even if Zimmerman didn't violate any Florida laws, either because Florida laws are f***ed or because he really was jumped from behind while returning to his car, it still feels like an injustice. Even assuming the worst, this kid didn't do a single thing wrong until Zimmerman started stalking him. And even if Zimmerman's instincts had been right and the kid had been suspicious and up to no good...Zimmerman took the correct steps in contacting the authorities. That is the right step, bring in people who are both trained to deal with that situation and who have legal authority to stop people on the street and ask questions/compel answers.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:59 AM) Some neighborhood watches are more active than others. My neighborhood has a gang problem (most just punk kids who are more scared of you than you are of them). A lot of people around here preach that simply walking by these guys and making your presence known is enough to disperse them. Would you chase one of them down the street? Get out of your car? Do so after calling 911?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:58 AM) I think what's happening here is Milkman and I are the only two defending Zimmerman's right to be innocent here... It just seems, on the surface, that most of you not only want to exonerate this kid, but you really hope that Zimmerman ends up being guilty. I don't know who is innocent or guilty, I just want the truth to come out, regardless of who it ends up being. Just seems tainted to me...seems like you all really really want it to be Zimmerman at fault. My problem is...by his own admission...he is at fault. He created this circumstance. Without his actions and his decisions, none of this happens, and the kid gets to where he's walking to alive. He refused to allow the normal path of calling 911 on a suspicious person play itself out, and a kid wound up dead. Whatever happened in-between, he made the initial decision to escalate things, and a kid wound up dead.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:51 AM) I want to start off by saying that the state provided Zimmerman with the ability to carry a weapon, not his affiliation with the neighborhood watch. I believe it's much more likely that Zimmerman is always armed, not just when he's "on duty". I make no arguments that he wasn't overzealous. But I also do not believe that it is out of the question for him to attempt to catch up to the unknown person in order to talk to him, nor do I believe it is illegal. I can see why it would cause Martin to get nervous, but I also don't think it entitles him to attack Zimmerman. People seem to either think Zimmerman came after him openly brandishing his gun (I find that hard to believe, as Martin clearly had the upper hand at one point and did not go for the gun) or that Zimmerman approached him to ask him what his business was there. It's not something Martin had to answer, but Zimmerman can ask. And you're right on all of these issues. There's not necessarily one obvious step in this sequence which is illegal under Florida law. That includes Martin striking back at a strange guy who followed him down the street for a fair distance. You get followed home by a person for a long distance, try to lose them only to get caught by them again, then approached by them and they start yelling, you're probably going to think this guy is going to try to mug you and you better get them first. Every step here from the moment he decided to chase down the suspicious looking kid himself can be reasonably explained, and the end result is a kid is dead who should not be. That tells me there is something fundamentally wrong with the laws that allow such a situation to occur. Either that or you have to tell me this is just acceptable collateral damage.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:49 AM) Well then neither do Sox fans, considering how many b****ed about the Ventura hire and wanted a bigger name. I'm not gonna root for Groce to fail by any means, but it doesn't mean I have to applaud the hire. Let me be clear though...a "bigger name" wasn't what I was after...it was the "experience" at stabilizing a locker room and dealing with the youngsters the Sox needed to develop that I was interested in. I could have been content with a surprise name if it met those standards.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:47 AM) How did you determine Martin has a phone with this technology? Link Sounds like a Bluetooth device to me?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:44 AM) But unlike you people, I'm not just assuming this kid was innocent and Zimmerman is guilty...which is exactly what you're all doing. No, if you'll note...I've made zero assumptions about the innocence of the kid. The kid might darn well have crossed several lines in how he responded to the guy stalking him down the street. That does not justify the guy following him down the street, and that should not justify having the kid be killed. Even if he believed his life was genuinely in danger, he should have been required by the law to withdraw. And it would have been darn nice if he didn't have the gun in the first place, because that'd make it awfully hard for him to have decided to provoke the situation.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:41 AM) Why do you want this guy convicted of something so badly when he may, in fact, be completely f***ing innocent? He arranged a hostile situation where there should not have been one and the end result was a dead kid. If I provoke a fight, the other person fights back harder, and then I kill them, I'm still the one who provoked the incident. The simple fact is that a kid is dead unnecessarily because of an unnecessary set of aggressive actions made by this guy. The state of Florida has deemed that particular set of actions to be legal, and I judge that to be a mistake, because a kid is dead unnecessarily.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:39 AM) just because you really really want him to be. Haven't I pretty much said repeatedly and had you agree that I think he's innocent of violating every law currently on Florida's books? He ought to be guilty of something. He shot a kid after provoking an unnecessary confrontation and putting himself in a situation by choice where he did not belong. But the state of the law in Florida allows that.