Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 09:35 AM) Would it be possible to legislate additional responsibility upon people who do choose to carry a concealed weapon? Basically, in the case of an armed person, raise the standard for what is a "Self defense shooting" significantly? Make this type of person actually have legal consequences if they don't stop and size up the situation before taking the shot. I really have no idea how this could work, but if you won't give me "Get the gun out of his hands in the first place" as an option, then weakening his authority to shoot (the opposite of what SYG laws are doing) is about all I have left. Why should someone with training on a gun be given less rights to defend themselves? Gun training is about the weapons, not analyzing how much your life is in danger. You don't learn how long you have to wait or how badly you have to be hurt before you can shoot. It's a judgment call. It's context-based. Which is why it should be left to your peers to decide if you acted properly or not.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 09:32 AM) So now let's say that Trayvon was 18 not 17, and he was carrying an actual gun and not just pictures of ones in his phone (it's funny to me that the pro-Zimmerman crowd had a problem with THAT, it's ok for some people to have guns and not others, kinda says it all but anyway). Then let's say he was being followed and then confronted (which he feels is threatening), so at what point does he get to claim he was acting in his own defense? Leaving aside exactly what happened because we don't know and and whether he was right or wrong to escalate because it's irrelevant, if he kills Zimmerman and goes to trial - definitely would happen despite the alternate reality Zimmerman's lawyer seems to live in where Zimmerman wouldn't even be arrested if he was black - is a jury going to come to the same conclusion and find him not guilty because the state couldn't prove its case completely? I have very little confidence in that kind of outcome. Black men get put on death row on less. If there was overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman was pummeling Martin's head into the curb, and he was forced to shoot in self defense, he absolutely should walk. If you're being tailed and never physically touched, I don't think you could ever convince a jury that you feel imminent death/great bodily harm.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 09:29 AM) No, 911 operators shouldn't get that kind of responsibility. They're people to, a 911 operator shouldn't be in a position of having to give legal advice where if something is heard improperly they could face legal liability. You'd pretty rapidly shut down 911 services if the operators had to go through legal training and faced legal repercussions for their statements. Like I said, you've hit the nail on the head. This is a case of a wannabe vigilante with a gun. People are allowed to imagine themselves being batman. People are allowed to do stupid, aggressive things, like chasing after people unwisely. That might border on illegal but it's hard to see how following a person should be illegal. The only thing that makes this case a tragedy is the presence of a gun. You can't legislate away a person fantasizing about being a hero. You can't legislate a guy's right to walk down the street, you can't legislate away the kid's right to defend himself if a guy is actually following him. This kid is collateral damage from our gun culture, just like the hundreds of other kids accidentally killed by guns every year in this country. So, again, the murder and self defense laws are just fine, you just don't like people having guns. This, despite the fact that every state has concealed carry laws now, there are hundreds of thousands of people walking around with a gun right now, and practically none of them are vigilante wannabes that shoot people.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 09:17 AM) http://www.forwardprogressives.com/voting-...publican-voter/ lol, clearly the parents should have been provided a government sponsored abortion. Problem solved.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 09:18 AM) Clearly we did not have the laws on paper to make this act illegal. What would the law say? Instigating fights negates self-defense, that's already law. I know in your dream world concealed carry wouldn't be legal, but that's not happening so there's no change there. So what, if you disobey 911 operators you lose your self-defense rights? Really? Is that where we want to go?

I don't think the answer here is more statutory law. We have enough words written on paper to address the situation adequately. What we didn't have here was evidence sufficient to support a murder charge.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 14, 2013 -> 10:01 PM) There was no strategy here. According to FL basic criminal law, there was never a case. The lack of a conviction isn't the problem. It is the law. Fixed. Not sure why people keep making this about Florida. The same law applies just about everywhere.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 01:28 PM) Exactly. Then we have a situation where everyone feels they need to arm themselves, and all hell breaks lose. Every state has concealed carry laws. And all hell hasn't broken loose!

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 12:09 PM) Yeah, this never happened. Parker couldn't do a thing outside of throwing up long, contested jumpers when LeBron was on him. Or passing it to open teammates. By game 5 and 6 the Heat finally gave up on Lebron guarding Parker because it wasn't as effective as they thought and it was tiring Lebron out. Not sure what Finals you were watching. Edit: I didn't mean that Parker literally had his way with Lebron and got to the hoop whenever he wanted. I meant that Lebron being on Parker didn't stop Parker from doing what he wanted to get the Spurs offense rolling, be it a kick-out to a shooter or a pick and roll. It wasn't the show stopper like Lebron on Rose.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 12:30 PM) I guess I feel like we have police officers for a reason. When you try to assume the role of the police, and you are not trained to do so, bad things happen. If enough people were to do this, it sort of encourages more people to feel as though they need to be carrying guns because it just isn't safe anymore. Then all the sudden everyone is walking around with guns and these sort of misunderstandings begin occurring exponentially more frequently. Ask the people of Detroit how waiting for the cops works out (an old clip but still good): I get your general sentiment, but police departments and cops aren't good all the time. They're slow. They're ineffective. I have no problem with people taking the initiative to clean up their neighborhood. With limits, obviously.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 12:27 PM) I never said Id prefer Murder 1 charges. I have said manslaughter from the beginning. Your now basically arguing that no one should ever go to jail over a bad decision, because its just more tragedy. Got a dui and killed someone, why should your family have to suffer because of a dumb decision? Id say most people who go to jail would say that they made a "dumb decision", the point is to prevent people from making said dumb decision. You were referring to you acting as Martin. My mistake. And stop with your overreacting to everything I say. Jesus f***ing Christ. I'm not saying no one should go to jail. I'm saying if you're wrong in your assessment of the facts, and Zimmerman did what Mr. Genius laid out, then he could potentially be in jail for the rest of his life for not being patient enough to wait for the cops. That too, is sad and shouldn't be forgotten.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 12:20 PM) This point is lost on some people and always will be lost on some people. They do not see themselves in Martin, they see themselves as Zimmermans, and so they empathize and create a story where a man can shoot a teenager and we can all sit around and say: "Well lets just chalk this up to bad things happening" "Just another unfortunate case of mistaken identity" I don't think that's lost on most people. But why make two tragedies by putting a guy in jail for life (since you would have preferred murder 1 charges) over a dumb decision?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 12:11 PM) In what world is Zimmerman a "cracker". And you pay for the consequences of your actions. If you are not willing to live with them, dont do them. Simple advice to live by. Right, so Martin should have thought twice about ambushing a guy. He might have a gun. And he might shoot you if you start bashing his head into a curb.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:57 AM) Nope not at all. In this scenario the TEEN STOLE MY s***. WHERE DID MARTIN STEAL ANYTHING FROM ZIMMERMAN????? Jesus this is absurdly bad, which is why I have to make jokes, because im seriously saddened. If Zimmerman stole Martins wallet... But he didnt... Then stop talking in absolutes if you admit context matters. It's not as simple as: man had a gun, unarmed teen dead, give him the chair!

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:53 AM) I dont either. I believe walking down the street and following after being told explicitly not to creates a dangerous situation that you need to take responsibility for if it turns sideways. Plenty of people walk down the street with guns in Florida every day, Id say 99% of them do not fail to follow a 911 operators instructions. But lets just keep pretending that in this world the facts are: George Zimmerman was walking down the street, minding his own business. Out of nowhere a large teenage boy attacked him knocking him to the ground. George screamed for help as the teenager bashed his skull into the pavement, fearing for his life. After no one responded to his pleas, George asked the teenager to stop hurting him and the teenager replied "I am going to kill you sucker", then George, with no other option, pulled his gun and warned the teen again. At that point the teen turned into a zombie so George did the only thing he could, he shot the zombie teen and saved Florida from a zombie apocalypse. lol What's funny is that they homeowners association guy testified that the cops advised them that tailing someone was perfectly acceptable. And I believe one of the cops testified that although he would prefer people wait for the cops, there's nothing wrong with going after someone to see what they're doing. I don't get why you think the 911 operator saying stay where you are really means that much.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:52 AM) 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. Is that a crime?

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. Based on your guys' logic, the mere fact that you stepped foot in their direction to recover your phone means you lose all arguments of self-defense. Based on SB's ridiculous logic, the only facts that matter is that you went after them and an unarmed teen was shot. Case closed. Go to jail for 30 years. f*** that. I have no problem if you want to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter. If you don't buy his story, that's fine, I think that's reasonable. But it's BS to say that you lose your self defense rights just for doing something that's not advisable. Tailing someone and keeping track of what someone is doing is not provoking a confrontation. Its' further BS to ignore context and claim that shooting an unarmed teen means you have no defense whatsoever.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:36 AM) 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? 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.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:33 AM) Jenks, Once again, I do not believe following innocent people around with guns and acting in aggressive fashion is "reasonable". If I was walking home and some random guy started following me in a car and then on foot, I cant defend myself? Its funny, you keep acting like Zimmerman is the victim because he got beat up. I say, dont act like a tough guy unless you are a tough guy. If someone follows me and Im scared, I think I should have the right to try and defend myself with my fists. I do not believe that guy then should have the right to shoot me, because hes the dick who started it in the first place. Here is a fact that no one can deny: But for Zimmerman, no one dies that night. Martin wasnt going to hurt anyone, he wasnt trying to hurt anyone, he was walking down the goddamn street going home. But for Zimmerman, none of this happens. You want to applaud this type of behavior that is your call, but the law absolutely favors my argument and Zimmerman should be thanking whatever god he believes in that Martin wasnt me, because hed likely be facing murder 1. -in the world where Zimmerman kills the white suburban upper middle class teenager- It was premeditated, Zimmerman was told by the police to stop following the nice white suburban boy through the gated community that the teenager was visiting, but Zimmerman would not listen. He followed the white teenager as the teenager tried to escape to his house. Out of fear the teen tried to attack Zimmerman so he could run away, but Zimmerman, who had previously been arrested for assault in another case, shot the teenager in the chest killing him instantly. Justice for all. lol, k. I never want you as a juror. Jesus.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:29 AM) 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? I don't think there is any evidence of an actual confrontation. Zimmerman's story is he went after him and then got attacked.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:27 AM) I'd argue he was looking to do something of the sort. If he wasn't, what was he doing? 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.

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. But you're ignoring the testimony of the friend who gave you the best indication of whether Martin was really scared or not. He was calm. He was collected. He was actually angry or annoyed more than fearful. And again, you're putting facts not in evidence by saying "gain the upperhand." The evidence at the trial, even if self-serving, is that he was flat out attacked. It wasn't they screamed at each other for 5 minutes and then started to wrestle. It was Zimmerman being dumb and following the kid and then getting attacked out of the bushes. That's not starting a fight and losing it and then killing someone in supposed self defense.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:15 AM) btw I haven't been following the actual trial very closely, what is the concrete evidence that Martin initiated the physical confrontation? 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:14 AM) 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?" 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.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:12 AM) This case is going to be decided by what juror has the strongest will. If Im a juror in that case, I would be hammering away that turning a fist fight into a gun fight that kills someone deserves some punishment. Zimmerman/Martin perhaps both created a dangerous situation, 1 of them is dead, the other deserves something. Had they both just beaten the s*** out of each other, we never hear about this. But when you bring a gun to a fist fight, I think you need to use much more restraint and I would want to make that message clear. You will go to jail if you shoot an unarmed teenager over a fist fight. Mr. Juror, your job is to evaluate the facts based on the law, not what you believe the law should be. The Judge gets to do the sentencing right? If i'm a juror and I wanted Zimmerman to serve a little time, i'd be concerned that my option of finding him guilty of manslaughter still carries a possibility of 30 years for this.