Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 01:32 PM) What I think is happening with me, is that I am watching this short run series (Mad Men, GOT, SOA, Breaking Bad) when I watch them all at once to catch up they seem awesome then the time off is so great that I am expecting something that cannot be achieved and thus I am not happy with the show. This past February I watched GOT over a three week span and it was awesome then when I watched it weekly it was frustrating. My problem with it was nothing happened, and worse, various themes and plot developments were being repeated. Whoa, hey, Don's cheating? And he feels bad about it? Haven't seen that before. Whoa, hey, Don and the firm are in rut but manage to pull of a miracle and land a big client? Haven't seen that either. Hey, is that Don in California living it up? Totally new! When I say boring it's obviously relative to other shows on TV. It's still a good show with the potential to hit great status every now and again. And there are always great moments in the episodes even if the episodes themselves can be slow and boring. I just expect more. We have one season left. Let's get going on wrapping up the story. The finale was a great start to that.

Beaverton is still around?

QUOTE (MEANS @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 12:43 PM) this season was BORING for the most part, not as good as other seasons. +1. Boring, boring, boring, then excellent finale.

Anyone watch Under the Dome? My wife and I gave it a shot because a lot of the reviewers (like Sepinwall) said it was decent and had a chance to be good. I dunno, seemed really cheesy to me. It just has "network drama" written all over it. Could have been better on cable.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 09:32 AM) Stand Your Ground is an odd law if it can be applied in this context. Let's say that the facts are exactly as Zimmerman alleges. Zimmerman follows Martin. Martin gets mad and attacks Zimmerman. Zimmerman is getting his head slammed against the concrete, pulls the trigger and kills Martin. Here's my issue with this whole thing. Zimmerman clearly starts this entire encounter. But for his act of following Martin, no fight ensues, and Martin is still alive. Why should the guy whose action started the entire encounter get the benefit of SYG? Basically seems to ok the use of deadly force any time someone is losing a fight, regardless of who was at fault in starting the fight. That, to me, just does not seem like a just result. And why do we need SYG when there are already a number of instances in which self defense can be claimed? Edit: and the first paragraph is not what happened. Martin wasn't armed. Didn't just turn around and shoot someone. The better question for the first paragraph is that, if someone has been following you for 20 minutes, would that person be justified in confronting the follower? If my wife was out of a run and some creepy dude was following her for 20 minutes, I would hope if he approached her, she would be justified in pepper spraying his face. That whole convo was started by Balta who said Martin had every reason to defend himself and I think he or someone else brought up if he had a gun he could have used it. And i've been arguing since that he could not because he was not in fear of imminent death. And SYG doesn't apply if you instigate a fight and start losing. That may or may not be one of the reasons they're not using the SYG defense (yet) but to me tailing someone is different than starting a fight that you start to lose.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 29, 2013 -> 04:15 PM) Damn this thread is frustrating. I don't believe you for second, Jenks, if you say that someone following you all over the place for that duration of time isn't enough to think you are in imminent danger. What are you supposed to do? Roll the dice on the fact that this person isn't going to harm you, especially when he finally approaches you on foot to a very close distance? If that isn't incredibly threatening behavior, I don't know what the hell is, whether you knew he was packing or not. Since when does someone need a gun to kill you within seconds, especially at close range? It's threatening behavior and I wouldn't exactly feel great about it, but if you just turned around and shot that person would that be legit under stand your ground or self defense? No way. There's no way a jury would consider that a reasonable fear of imminent death/great bodily harm. And again, let's use the evidence we have which is Martin's statements to his friend. He's more pissed off about it than afraid.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 04:45 PM) I'd say that racists are in fact bad people but agree that it doesn't pertain to this case legally. That's an argument with people trying to justify or embrace his racism. Keep preachin'!

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 04:08 PM) You sir are too sensible. The only people who want to use race right now are those who are taking advantage of the prejudice that somehow black people are criminals. Not one person wants to address the fact that if you put 17 year old Soxbadger in Martin's place, half of these pro-Zimmerman people would be talking about how immigrants are killing white people. ha ha ha Well everyone knows Zimmerman is an illegal.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 02:22 PM) Well, yeah, I mean, if you ignore the exact points people make about why he was bad last night and just call it "for being too popular" then I guess you nailed it. I don't think being a homer for 15 seconds about Celtics-related topics really outweighs the other 3 hours of the draft. And that was a side point anyway.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 03:14 PM) Where did I ever say I would say that? You can say Zimmerman had a gun and you can say Martin ran. Posting on this board isnt a trial and Im pretty sure the rules of evidence dont apply to the arguments Im making on this board. Oh they do.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 03:08 PM) Im pretty sure Ive consistently said that no one has the facts because Martin is dead and the best way to prevent yourself from going to jail is to kill witness. And that's correct, and i've consistently added that you can't just make up facts and present them as evidence when you have no evidence to support those facts. You can't tell the jury Martin ran because he saw Zimmerman with a gun. Facts not in evidence. Sustained.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 03:03 PM) No this case was pegged in my mind as: "PERSON KILLED UNARMED BOY , HE COULD HAVE BEEN ANYONES SON" And to this day I still do not understand how people who are parents can accept what Zimmerman did. Not one parent would be okay with some random 28 year old man killing their unarmed child and saying: "Well it was late he was wearing a hoodie, what else am I supposed to do but follow and shoot him?" (edit) Its only the people who want to defend Zimmerman who generally want to make it a race issue. I already know that if it was a white suburban kid who had a backpack full of AP books how half of these peoples opinions would dramatically change. Hyporcites for the win. That's bulls***. Race was made an issue from the get go.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 03:01 PM) Im not sure where you are going with this. No part of the charge of murder, murder 2, manslaughter required Martin to know that there was or was not a gun. Burden of proof is only about the actual charge. You can speculate based on factual evidence. I cant prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Martin knew, but I can definitely in closing argue that: 1) Zimmerman acknowledged that Martin looked at him 2) After staring at Zimmerman, Martin ran. 3) That Zimmerman ran after Martin 4) That Zimmerman had a gun 5) That Martin ran because he thought his life was in danger I dont need to prove that. Its up to Zimmerman to prove that his actions were self defense, and I dont believe that Zimmerman can testify that when he ran after Martin, Zimmerman was unaware that Zimmerman had a gun. And that's different than your earlier claim that Martin ran because he knew Zimmerman had a gun BEFORE the confrontation.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 02:59 PM) This is false. He had a legitimate fear because an unknown man followed him for 20 minutes then came after him on foot. That's not a reason to take a shot by any reasonable standard, but in the world where "I'm glad that we get more and more examples of people having guns. Maybe people will stop f***ing with each other if they know there's a serious consequence waiting for them", you probably ought to assume the guy coming after you is armed and just take the shot. If you feel your life is in imminent danger, then go for it. Like Zimmerman, a jury of your peers will decide.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 02:55 PM) You do come off as a "gun nut" though No offense And i'm not even that much of a gun nut! I agree with more restrictions and all that. I just think from the get go this case was immediately pegged as an "OMG A WHITE (hispanic) PERSON KILLED A LITTLE BLACK BOY EATING SKITTLES. AMERICA, TREYVON COULD HAVE BEEN MY SON." It's incredibly sad and incredibly unfortunate, but there's another side to the story. IMO there's enough evidence to suggest that everything Zimmerman did was maybe not smart, but not totally and completely unreasonable given the circumstances. He was wrong to do what he did, but I don't know that he should get the however many multiple year sentence for 2nd degree murder because of it.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 02:51 PM) Why is it my burden? There is no evidence to suggest Zimmerman didnt kill Martin. So doesnt that mean its Zimmermans burden to prove that his actions were self defense and reasonable under the circumstances? (Discounting SYG) Isnt the burden on the party claiming an affirmative defense? You can't say Zimmerman was pointing his gun at Martin when you have no evidence to support that. If you're making the claim that Zimmerman had his gun out and created a fear in Martin of imminent death (giving a basis for him to use his own gun if he had one, which is what Balta originally claimed), it's your burden to prove it. I don't have to prove that he DIDN'T have the gun out. And yes, it absolutely is Zimmerman's burden to prove his actions were in self defense.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 02:47 PM) Hence why the only reasonable option is to keep nuts like Zimmerman and you from walking around the streets with guns. Suspension for name calling please.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 02:47 PM) But the guy with the gun picked the fight. Martin was running away, Zimmerman chased him. You keep conveniently forgetting that Martin tried to run away to start and Zimmerman escalated a simple situation by chasing. Had he just done nothing, no one gets hurt, no one goes to jail, no taxpayer money is wasted. There is literally no situation where what Zimmerman did, ends in a fairy tale. Its not like he saw Martin even breaking into a house or car, he literally was walking down the street. In no world does that give a normal citizen the right to follow with a gun. The second Zimmerman decided he was going to be a vigilante, is the second that someone was likely going to get seriously injured. And that decision occurred days/weeks/months before Martin stepped out of his house. Its time to be serious and live in a serious world. You are lying if you really want random people running around your neighborhood chasing teenagers with guns. Flat out lying, because you wouldnt accept it for a second. He could have run after him and still maintained 20-25 feet of distance. That's not escalating anything, that's just keeping your eye on someone you think is suspicious. I totally agree this should have all been avoided and that it's a sad story. But that doesn't equate to a guy going to jail for a long time over a mistake of trying to play cop a little too much.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 02:42 PM) If you think this statement is fair game...then show me some evidence that it wasn't? It would be your burden counselor. Otherwise we can make s*** up all day.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 02:39 PM) The only time they physically approached each other was during the seconds of the confrontation. Prior to that Zimmerman was in his vehicle. Unless he was waving the gun out of the window, the first time Martin could have seen that he was armed was during the confrontation, and by all accounts there were only a few seconds in there. There was never time to say "oh s*** this guy has a gun and is chasing me", by the time the gun could have been seen they were already right next to each other. He may well have seen that the guy was armed or realized during the confrontation, but only 2 people knew that...one who won't tell you and one who is dead. OK great, so he couldn't have simply attacked Zimmerman with his own gun prior to the confrontation as you originally claimed because he was not under fear of imminent death. I agree. And if you choose to pick a fight with someone you should be prepared for the worst. I'm glad that we get more and more examples of people having guns. Maybe people will stop f***ing with each other if they know there's a serious consequence waiting for them.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 02:38 PM) 1) Zimmerman is not a cop, he does not have a uniform, he is not in a squad car. If a police officer shot Martin after Martin hit him, we arent having this conversation. Police have authority that surpasses a normal citizen. 2) No you dont. No one has the right to chase me with a gun in my neighborhood. I guarantee if Zimmerman chased me in Lake County with a gun hed go to jail. 3) According to the law Martin is a minor. It is relevant because Martin, unlike Zimmerman, could not even legally have a gun. Therefore he could not even protect himself the same way as Zimmerman. Its not about taking advantage, its about the fact that children (under 18) are treated differently by the law. And generally adults have more responsibility to act "reasonable" than a child. I sincerely hope one day your kid is not chased by a man with a gun, I really do, because I would hate for you to have to tell your child how that man had every right to run after him, because well, he was just a kid walking on the street, and that gives someone the right to chase them with a gun. its a joke. Again, please show me evidence that the gun was known prior to its use. If Zimmerman is really running after Martin with a gun in the air, then I'd agree with you.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 02:37 PM) I hope I never have to walk through Jenks neighborhood... Especially if you're not white!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 02:34 PM) The only witness to that is dead. But we do have someone he was talking to and Martin never mentioned that. Pretty sure if I think my life is in imminent danger and i'm talking to someone on the phone i'm not going to say "man, this cracker is following me." I'm going to say "oh s***! this guy has a gun and is chasing me! I gotta call the cops!"

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 02:33 PM) Even if he made that mistake and didn't listen to the dispatcher...everyone would have lived if he hadn't been armed. You don't know that. What if Zimmerman hit that curb one time too many? People are killed all the time from fights that start off with no intent of death.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 02:28 PM) Yeah it does. If you are in your own neighborhood, see some suspicious guy with a gun and you start to run and he runs after you, what do you think is going to happen? I mean think about it. Imagine if your 17 year old son comes home and says "Some random guy chased me with a gun" Would your answer be like? Oh that seems reasonable, you should have stopped and talked to him. Is there evidence that Martin was aware of the gun?