StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:56 AM) Is that a crime? When it results in shooting the person you were chasing to death with your gun, it sure as f*** should be.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:55 AM) Nice to see all the people on here who would just do nothing if they noticed a strange person walking around their neighborhood in the dark rain for 20 minutes or more, when the whole neighborhood is only about 3 blocks long. Don't look twice at him, that might be profiling, and certainly don't call the police, if he happens to be black that's racist. I wouldn't do anything because I saw a black kid walking down the sidewalk talking on his phone in some light rain. You're pretty paranoid and dumb if you freak out and call the police over it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:55 AM) I still come back to the example of the subway robber. Your s*** is stolen by a mob of teens, you go after them, they end up jumping you and beating you until the brink of death and you shoot and kill on of them (unarmed) in self defense. Yeah, see, Trayvon was walking down the street minding his own damn business. This is not remotely similar.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:45 AM) Because I don't believe having a gun and walking down a street means you intend to shoot someone. He's legally allowed to carry that gun and he's legally allowed to use that gun to defend himself if he feels like he's about to die. You can't punish him for not agreeing with that law. Now you're excluding context. He wasn't simply walking down the street. He was following somebody for several minutes, including chasing after them on foot once the person began to flee.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:34 AM) I don't think there is any evidence of an actual confrontation. Zimmerman's story is he went after him and then got attacked. Best-case scenario for Zimmerman, he stalked this innocent teenager around the neighborhood while carrying a deadly weapon and then Martin physically confronted him, leading to a fight and then to Zimmerman shooting Martin to death. Look at your own phrasing, "he went after him" while carrying a loaded gun. Why shouldn't that immediately disqualify any claims of self-defense?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:32 AM) Keeping an eye on Martin until the cops showed up? I believe he told the cops the only reason he got out of his car was Zimmerman went around a corner and he lost sight of him. When he went after him on foot he was attacked. He told them multiple reasons. Zimmerman's story isn't entirely consistent and includes some ridiculous bulls***, like Trayvon supposedly shouting "You got me!" after being shot in the chest.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:25 AM) Zimmerman's initial statements to the cops, and the cops testimony that he believed Zimmerman (which I get is self-serving, but you have testimony backing up the credibility of that the night of the shooting). I believe one of the witnesses also testified that he heard them shouting (but didn't see the start) and then when they looked seconds afterwards they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. It wouldn't make sense that Zimmerman punched Martin and then immediately got thrown to the ground given their respective sizes. I mean all this is context based. I get that. And it's Zimmerman's burden to show that he didn't initiate the fight. I think through the prosecution's witnesses he was able to paint a picture of acting reasonably and justifiable before the fight, even if it was stupid. There was a reason for it. He wasn't just walking around hoping to pick a fight with someone in order to shoot them. Ok, so basically just Zimmerman's own statements about what happened, I wasn't sure if there was something incontrovertibly showing that Martin attacked him unprovoked. I disagree that his actions before the fight were reasonable and justifiable. Why should someone be able to stalk someone on foot while carrying a deadly weapon and, if they decide to physically confront this strange person following them around, shoot them in self-defense and walk away a free man?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:21 AM) I agree....I disagree with Jenks that Zimmerman's actions didn't rise to the level of a genuine and imminent threat to Martin. I don't think you should be allowed to exhibit all kinds of threatening behavior, meanwhile you're carrying a gun, and then when your behavior puts your own life in peril, you just fire off your trump card and get to walk off into the sunset unscathed. That seems like bs to me. Zimmerman exhibited threatening behavior (and indeed was carrying a gun). I can't wrap my mind around the fact that someone stalking me in a vehicle and on foot can then shoot me dead when I panic and gain the upper hand in the ensuing altercation. Is Martin dead here because he was younger and a better fighter than Zimmerman? Should he be faulted (and now dead) for that? Self-defense usually revolves around who started the altercation and whether the person in peril had a realistic alternative course of action (rather than using deadly force). I'm not sure, given our current society and the technology and weaponry available to basically any citizen, that we can say that he started this altercation. Martin was a Good Guy who should have been carrying a gun.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:20 AM) The context matters there though, you have to still prove that you acted in self-defense. You can't initiate an altercation and still argue self-defense. I didn't say I'd initiate physical contact. I'm just going to follow people around for blocks until one of them physically confronts me first, then I will shoot them in self-defense. At best, this is what Zimmerman did.

my favorite thing I've seen so far was the testimony from Zimmerman's martial arts/boxing trainer: Dude trained for about a year, losing 50-80 pounds in the process and was still completely inept in a fight. No wonder he felt he had to carry a deadly weapon.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:09 AM) the evidence during the trial is that he flat out attacked Zimmerman. btw I haven't been following the actual trial very closely, what is the concrete evidence that Martin initiated the physical confrontation?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:09 AM) I get that you've already decided this is true, but the evidence during the trial is that he flat out attacked Zimmerman. You can argue whether that was warranted based on being chased (I still argue no, especially given his reaction to his friend on the phone), but it's not as simple as "racist guy chases after black teen, loses a fight and is allowed to kill in self defense." I used "gets into an altercation" neutrally there as we don't know who started it. Whether Trayvon stopped and decided to stand his ground against this creep who was following him or whether Zimmerman caught up to him and started the altercation is immaterial to my claim that Zimmerman's course of actions should not be legal. What is to stop me from arming myself, stalking people around until I provoke a physical response and then shooting them in "self defense?"

It's still a pretty f***ed up society where it's okay to arm yourself and chase after an innocent teen, wind up getting into an altercation and shooting them to death and you can walk away a free man.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 10:49 AM) ...and that's the problem. Since he was never charged with manslaughter, he'll appeal it. And now he can't be retried for murder. I don't know all the details, and I'm no expert, but it's looking to me like the judge botched this case from what I have pieced together. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 11, 2013 -> 11:10 AM) According to Florida Code of Criminal Procedure: RULE 3.490. DETERMINATION OF DEGREE OF OFFENSE If the indictment or information charges an offense divided into degrees, the jury may find the defendant guilty of the offense charged or any lesser degree supported by the evidence. The judge shall not instruct on any degree as to which there is no evidence. So you can go downstream but not upstream. I read this as saying that in Florida, the lesser charges are included implicitly and do not have to be formally listed out. They're there by default, which would explain why they didn't include them in the first place.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 10:43 AM) The government, whether it was republican or democrat, relied too much on the Auto industry in that area. Once that fell, the city had nothing to fall back on. I'm sure the same would happen if the federal government moved out of DC. That didn't just happen to Detroit and the auto industry, though. The Rust Belt was driven by manufacturing and the whole area is still suffering from the effects of globalization and the decline of domestic manufacturing. Whether or not globalization is a net-positive for society is a different discussion from the effects that it has had on a given area, though. If you have three generations of people getting good careers with good pay and benefits, why should you be faulted for pursuing that path? The entire sector collapsed, and I don't think that's something you could expect a random 18 year old with generational ties to a plant to predict. If it had just been automotive manufacturing decline, they would still have had lots of manufacturing and line-work experience. They had good, marketable skills, but suddenly there was no market for them. This is happening more and more these days even with college degrees, except those come with the lovely bonus of crushing student loan debt for many.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 09:22 AM) Detroit's first black major blames the '67 riots which caused massive white flight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Detroit Crazy stat: Yeah, white flight and the impoverization of urban areas that resulted in a critical factor.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 09:24 AM) It's a great example of having too many people depend on a government propping them up. Is Detroit the way it is because too many people 'depend on a government propping them up' or do too many people have to depend on government assistance because of the way Detroit is? e.g. there's a lot of metro areas in Virginia that wouldn't exist if not for government contracts

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 09:15 AM) yeah, you're right. Detroit is such a shining example of Democratic policies and ideas in action that it should stand as a model for the rest of the country to emulate. It's pretty silly to try to boil everything about Detroit down to "Democratic policies!" without looking at the broader economic changes, both globally and locally, that occurred over the past 50 years or so.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 08:29 AM) Are you f***ing trolling?!?!?! Please tell me you're f***ing trolling. Had nothing to do with the decline of domestic manufacturing and the stable, well-paying careers it provided. Why's Detroit called "motor city" anyway???

I really need to find a new job.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 11, 2013 -> 11:15 AM) He can still use the same self-defense argument though. If the jury buys that it doesn't matter what they charge him with. lesser burden of proof, no?

that's what he looks like (really the brown's just on his head right now, my phone camera makes everything brownish) but he's a mutt from a rescue so who knows. He was pushing 17 pounds at about 10 weeks old so he's going to be a big boy.

ugh Babel was so awful

got a new puppy about two and a half weeks ago

it's my standard go-to