iamshack

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 08:04 AM) From what we know, this isn't a bad assumption. But, it ignores the fact that Zimmerman actually has the right to check out what this kid was up too...should he have? That's not up to us to determine...but that doesn't mean he doesn't have the right. I heard some stuff a few weeks back down my alley, some kids were messing around...and I went down there to check it out. Call it curiosity...of course, I didn't shoot any of them...but that doesn't mean much...the fact that I have every right to make sure nothing bad is happening isn't something I need permission to check on, not from you, and not from some 911 operator. There are all kinds of things that we have the legal right to do, but that common sense tells us will exponentially increase the odds of hurting ourselves or others. As far as we know, Zimmerman is just guilty of engaging in stupidity. However, the more times you engage in stupidity, especially when it involves guns and killing others, the more likely you are to end up in prison as well.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 08:00 AM) You're the ones differentiating between "black" kid and kid "I know doesn't live here". It's not as simple as that. It's not just a kid I know doesn't live here, it's a person that might be up to mischief because he resembles other kids I have seen that have been up to mischief. And there's nothing wrong with Zimmerman, at least IMHO, for feeling that way. The problem is that Zimmerman isn't trained with how to deal with a situation such as this and that is probably a large part of why this ended the way it did.

Let me just say that because a black kid walking through his neighborhood aroused his suspicions does not make Zimmerman racist, and I never meant to imply that. Most of the time, we are a culmination of our experiences and observations. It does not make one racist if he becomes suspicious of an African American person or a Hispanic person walking through his neighborhood, if that suspicion is based on experiences whereas most of the crime in his neighborhood is perpetrated by African Americans or Hispanics. It does not make a person racist if he becomes suspicious of Asians in his neighborhood if it is a statistical fact that Asians perpetrate the most crimes in his neighborhood. It may be profiling, but it is not racism. My point in Zimmerman's case was that IMO he was basing his suspicions partially on the fact that Martin was black. At no point did I accuse him of racism. My apologies if I implied that Zimmerman was racist, and I can see how it could have been interpreted as such. What I should have made more clear is the point that Martin's ethnicity or race gives Zimmerman no more legal justification to follow him with a concealed weapon.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 07:19 AM) Thanks, and same here. And another point with the gated community. Seeing as it was a gated community and this guy is a neighborhood watch leader, wouldn't have a pretty fair idea of who lives there? This kid and his father were staying at a friend's house or something to that effect, correct? So seeing a kid in a hooded sweatshirt walking around that you know isn't a resident, wouldn't that make you even the slightest bit suspicious? Of course not, as nobody here has even the slightest racist bone in their bodies. Was this the middle of the day, as well? Yeah, he was visiting his father's fiancee. I understand Zimmerman wanting to know who this character walking through his community was. And yes, while hooded sweatshirts have been very popular in recent years, they still happen to be an item of clothing that is capable of concealing your appearance quite a bit, so I understand if Zimmerman thought that might be something that should draw his attention. That being the case, however, I don't believe the purpose of Neighborhood Watch programs is to enable vigilante justice or to authorize civilians to carry concealed weapons and stalk shady characters. As I understand them, NW programs encourage residents to be aware of what is occurring in their neighborhoods and to report suspicious activity to the proper authorities. Being "aware" means if you see something while you are in your yard or getting your mail, report it. Not set out on your own in an armed fashion and playing police. Bottom line is Zimmerman made several critical mistakes here because he was overzealous in his role as NW "captain," and because of it, Martin is dead. I make no judgment as to Martin, because I simply don't know his role in this. Either way, the path Zimmerman took increased the odds exponentially of something ugly happening, and in this case it did. And unless Martin attacked him unprovoked, which is hard for me to believe given just the actions Zimmerman admitted to taking, Zimmerman had no legal right to apply deadly force.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 10:19 PM) Since he was in a neighborhood he's unfamiliar with, perhaps Martin assumed he was being stalked by a rival gang. That, plus the weed, would make anyone scared. It's fun making assumptions based on what I want to believe. I can see why everyone is doing it. I can appreciate the point you are trying to make here, and I think it's a good one, Milk. We honestly have no idea what happened, but obviously it is beginning to appear as though Martin wasn't the helpless victim he was originally presumed to be. Regardless, the application of the law doesn't change, nor does the fact that Zimmerman was still stalking people while armed with a concealed weapon, merely for the fact that Martin was a black kid walking through a gated community. As more and more facts reveal themselves, I wouldn't be shocked if it becomes apparent they were both complete fools.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 07:43 PM) How do you know they have a gun?! Most people wandering the streets don't have guns...and I don't assume they have guns...so it's more reasonable to assume people arent armed with guns all the time than it is to assume they are. Yeah, but he supposedly called his girlfriend and was fearful that this guy was following him...if you think some sinister character is following you enough to actually tell someone that you are frightened, I think you are certainly considering they might be armed. Again, he may not have known for sure, but apparently Zimmerman was doing enough to frighten him that he told his girlfriend (supposedly).

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 07:16 PM) It really doesnt matter, Martin is also protected by stand your ground law (or self defense). If an armed individual is following me, and I believe my life is being threatened, dont I, under Florida law, have the right to try and disarm the person following me? The problem for Zimmerman still is escalation of force. It is reasonable to hit someone who has a gun to protect yourself, is it reasonable to shoot someone who is unarmed? Most people knew these facts to start, it really changes nothing. This is my question...how far can you go to defend yourself if someone is following you with a gun? What if he verbally threatens you? Do you have to wait for him to actually attack you? Is your only legal right at that point just to try and flee?

I know if I was on the jury and you told me that Zimmerman, an armed man who was basically stalking an unarmed citizen, for the sole purpose that he seemed suspicious (of walking while black) an altercation then ensued, and then Zimmerman shot the unarmed citizen in "self defense," there would have to be some pretty darn good evidence for me to believe that the unarmed man was the person who initiated the altercation...much better than what we have here so far. I understand you don't want to convict innocent men who were merely acting in self-defense, but those same men shouldn't be carrying a concealed weapon and stalking unarmed men around the neighborhood merely because they appear "suspicious." It would be a shame if I were to be falsely convicted of attempted bank robbery, but then I also don't make it a habit of approaching bank tellers with notes while carrying a gun. None of this would have happened if this idiot would have just let it go at contacting the police and allowing them to do their jobs.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 02:31 PM) Here's one of my key legal points. Even if Martin's actions were self-defense...that does not mean that Zimmerman's response wasn't self-defense as well. Whatever happened wound up injuring Zimmerman. Zimmerman was thus in a position where he had every rational, legal reason to believe that he was in more jeopardy if he didn't take the shot. He had no duty to withdraw...and as others have noted in this thread, once a confrontation was initiated...if he were to withdraw, that could have put him in greater jeopardy by the fact that he'd be turning his back. Even if Martin were also trying to withdraw...if Zimmerman attempted to let him flee he could have plenty of reason to think that would put him in further jeopardy because he could have attempted to obtain another weapon, whether it was just a rock to throw or more. The only things that could plausibly be a crime here are the purported racial slur or the actual initiation of the physical confrontation. And if Martin threw the first punch at the guy stalking him, or escalated the situation in any way other than by basically lying on the ground the moment Zimmerman first approached him...without a duty to retreat, Zimmerman is justified in escalating in response. I don't understand your rationale here. The law does not extend to illegal acts. If Zimmerman initiated something that in the eyes of the law is an illegal act, he has no justification for escalating anything. Maybe I am misinterpreting you, but you seem to be arguing that someone can kill people if he has any right to believe his life is in danger. That is simply not true. One can not hold up a gas station and shoot the clerk if he attempts to defend himself with a weapon of some sort. The stand your ground law only applies if you are in a place you have a legal right to be and you're not committing a crime...Where things get really difficult is if Martin just became frightened and decided to attack Zimmerman without provocation. Jenks, do you think if Zimmerman verbally threatened Martin as the initiating act in the sequence that he would still be able to utilize the SYG provision, or is he already engaged in an illegal act at that point?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 12:14 PM) How does everyone else on Earth know that it was the opposite? Absolutely. I'm just arguing the application of the law we've been discussing. Balta seemed to imply that if Zimmerman was injured, he therefore had the right to shoot Martin because presumably he was acting in some form of self-defense. I don't pretend to know what happened and I certainly have made no statements as to what I believe should happen to Zimmerman. I'm just debating the law as it would theoretically be applied.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 10:39 AM) And the simple, undeniable fact is that Zimmerman was injured in that confrontation. Thus, by the laws of that state, he was fully legally allowed to pull the trigger in self defense. The only thing you could get him on is a vague concept of starting the confrontation by following the kid. Is it a crime to follow a kid down the street and harass him because you don't want him in that area? I sincerely doubt it. How do you know his injuries weren't caused by Martin's self-defense actions? Maybe Martin tried to defend himself, and in doing so, Zimmerman was injured? That does not give him the right to then shoot Martin. By that logic, I could create a situation by which I was legally allowed to shoot almost anyone merely by engaging them in some attack and sustaining injuries myself. Jeesh, all they have to do is call Dexter. He'd figure it out in 3 minutes based on the blood spatter analysis.

Does he realize that it's a bit difficult to take anything he says seriously when he tweets things like that?

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Mar 25, 2012 -> 02:06 PM) Baylor is wearing black, and Kentucky at one point hit 11 straight shots. It was a joke, and Kentucky is getting a ton of shots inside 6 feet and an awful lot of dunks. Either way, hey are clearly the better team today. I'd like to see Baylor at least make a run here to keep Kentucky from taking the air out of the ball.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 25, 2012 -> 11:38 AM) UNC is the better team at full health, without Marshall who knows. I wouldnt touch the game, unless I was getting UNC and at least 5. Yeah, but I live in Vegas and need something to do on a Sunday... Hit on Louisville and OSU last night so looking to have a little fun...

I like over 148 today, although I fear Kentucky will be a bit less efficient on offense and perhaps be blinded by Baylor's unis

Who do we like today fellas? I expect UNC to learn a bit from their game Friday and for Barnes to bounce back a bit.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 07:14 PM) We've also got TNC highlighting some recent rulings in Florida that seem completely ridiculous applications of SYG: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archiv...justice/254900/ To me, it seems that if the law keeps resulting in ridiculous circumstances, it's a bad law. Ok, in the first scenario, the judge just seems to be nuts...and you get judges who make wrong decisions all the time. The second one I really don't understand why you put there...these idiots approached his vehicle aggressively, so he pepper sprayed them. One of them reached inside his car and punched him. Now I'm not saying that shooting one of them at that point was the optimal solution, but I don't think that guy is getting a manslaughter charge or anything if not for the stand your ground law....

QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 09:03 PM) Ohio U. couldn't have played worse in the first half and in overtime. Henson's block on Cooper's layup won UNC that game. And UNC probably should have outscored them 12-0 in the OT if not for that horrible Harrison Barnes inbounds pass. I had UNC -11 and under 142.5 there and could have very easily pulled off the miracle cover if not for that pass (I literally needed UNC to win the OT 12-0 or 13-1 or 14-2 or something) to hit the parlay.

Stillman White has played fine. Why he keeps putting Watts in there is anyone's guess...

Roy Williams is coaching a horrendous game.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:49 PM) And I'm totally cool with that woman doing that. It seems like you guys think I'm arguing against the concept of a justifiable homicide in self defense. I'm not. I, for one, have enjoyed the debate. I just have a hard time believing there is that much downside to codifying that there is no longer a duty to retreat when faced with someone committing a forcible felony against you.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:42 PM) I'm pretty sure someone threatening you with a knife is engaged in an unlawful activity and poses a threat to your life. You guys are refusing to consider any scenario that wouldn't immediately preclude an ability to completely safely retreat. Ok, fair enough...I wasn't clear exactly what the legal definition of brandishing was. You are correct in that that instance they are performing an illegal act. However, I guess my point was that if someone shoots that person, minus some situation where you live in some super rural area and there are very few ways to get help, the odds that you are someone that doesn't do illegal acts all the time are pretty low....that situation just really isn't going to occur anywhere near the amount of times where a woman is getting raped and wants to be able to kill her attacker in order to stop the illegal act.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:30 PM) Duty to retreat doesn't apply only to hand-to-hand combat. In fact it'd be pretty clear that, at such close range, you could not completely safely retreat. Here's a hypothetical I googled up similar to my ax-wielding murderer scenario: That is just a foolish hypothetical. The men brandishing knives are not yet engaged in an unlawful activity, are they? Secondly, if you just shoot them because of that, I cannot imagine there won't be other facts present which make it clear you were not using self-defense, such as, for instance, you are a bounty hunter or a sniper in Iraq or something.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 12:14 PM) It's just as obscure as the statue you're arguing against here. The Connecticut version talks about a duty to retreat only when it's safe to do so. Well, what's that supposed to mean? How do we know in a given situation what an unpredictable criminal will do? Maybe him taping the gun on the glass is intimidation. Maybe as soon as I turn my head and put the car in gear he'll shoot me for fear of having to go to jail. We have no idea. So at the end of the day (just like in this case) we give evidence one way or the other and let a jury decide. I asked the same questions...besides, do people really think of this when these situations occur, anyways? Well, the law says I have a duty to retreat here...so I'd better try and figure a way out of this...No, people are going to do what comes instinctively in order to survive. What the law is obviously designed for, is to protect those who killed in order to avoid being raped or brutally attacked from having a manslaughter charge levied against them. Unfortunately, good criminal defense attorneys have probably found applications for it that were not fully contemplated by the legislators who drafted it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 11:50 AM) Well, I gave you the carjacking scenario. But you didn't elaborate...the aggressor could still shoot you...he could shoot out your tires...he could shoot at you and hit other vehicles which might then crash into you and/or others... I don't think you could expect someone to retreat in that situation under the way the language is written.