This George Zimmerman thing

[Wrath of Dagon]

Excusable homicide was also in the judges instructions, although no one ever claimed it was excusable (i.e. unintentional). The judge has to include all parts of the law which may be relevant, it's up to the jury to determine what the facts are and which parts of the law apply.

[Gfted1]

 

What do you mean it favours who kills first? Surely it favours whoever is standing on 'their' ground?

 

Because in the event of no witnesses, if someone kills someone and can convince others that it was indeed an act of self-defense, SYG applies.

 

 

And of course the evidence has to support them.

[Zoraptor]

I don't follow your last point, Zor. What do you mean it favours who kills first? Surely it favours whoever is standing on 'their' ground?

It was Martin's ground as well, since he was a legitimate guest he had a right to be there. Maybe not at the initial contact (don't really know, reports are contradictory) but he was shot on the same row of houses he was staying at. I don't think anyone sensible thinks that Zim went out with the express purpose of gunning Martin down ie 'murder', just that he showed recklessness or provocation leading to the death, ie 'manslaughter'.

 

I went into the reasoning behind why killing someone was an advantage a couple of pages back- basically, Zimmerman has the advantage of the prosecution having to prove their case, and the advantage of not having to testify, and the advantage of not having the other party (Martin) being able to testify. If for example Martin has said that Zimmerman approached him again after hanging up, rather than the reverse then the whole story takes on a different light. Zimmerman would have disobeyed the dispatcher. If Martin had said that Zim had taken a swing at him, again the whole story changes as Martin has the right to stand his ground. But Martin cannot contradict anything Zim said, leaving the prosecution with the burden of having to prove that Zim lied with the only witness who could confirm that being dead, and Zim not subject to cross examination.

 

It's different in most other countries because self defence has to be proven by the person invoking it which makes testifying almost mandatory (albeit because the really obvious ones self defence cases wouldn't get to court in the first place)- the default is that a killing is unlawful unless the killer can prove that the force used was reasonable and there were no other alternatives. It's difficult to make a direct comparison to the UK though, as pistols and even knives cannot legally be carried there.

[Volourn]

"I don't think anyone sensible thinks that Zim went out with the express purpose of gunning Martin down ie 'murder'"

 

Actually, LOTS of people do that. Many think that Zimmerman was cruising around looking for black dudes to murder. Then again, those are same idiots who call Zimmerman a white racist to make this a white vs thing yeta re the same people who claim whites are racists against hispanics when it comes to immigration. ie. Those who think racism is a white only disease and blacks, hispanics, asians, and all other non whites can NEVER be racist not even against fellow minorities. L0L

[Meshugger]

Atleast in the media. Until i read some transcripts, saw the reenactment with the police and listened to the 911 call, my mental picture was that Zimmerman was patrolling around like a lose cannon, just waiting to blow the head of any black kid he would find. He wanted to kill someone that night, he had to.

 

Based on these allegations that have no basis, the media worked on axioms that they made up in their own heads and made them think that they are covering the next set of 'Mississippi Burning'. (

)

[Nepenthe]

 

 

 

What do you mean it favours who kills first? Surely it favours whoever is standing on 'their' ground?

Because in the event of no witnesses, if someone kills someone and can convince others that it was indeed an act of self-defense, SYG applies.

 

And of course the evidence has to support them.

I assume the prosecution has burden of proof for it, in which case the evidence shouldn't just be in contradiction.

[Walsingham]

I'm sorry, Zor. Maybe I'm just having a bad day, but i just can't sympathise with your take on it.

 

1) The prosecution in most murders has to contradict the word of the alleged murderer. SYG doesn't make that worse.

 

2) In situations where an intruder on property is shot/stabbed/waffle-ironed, and dies I think it's wrong that there should be a heavy burden on the defendant.

 

Although having said this,

 

3) I accept that this was an - in context - public area.

 

 

*Except in Scotland - interesting system.

[Wrath of Dagon]

To claim self defense, in most states, you have to show some evidence that it was self defense (because claiming self defense is an affirmative defense), although the bar is set low, and then the prosecution has to prove that it wasn't self defense. SYG doesn't change the burden of proof, it only drops the requirement of the duty to retreat to claim self defense. In Ohio to claim self defense, the defendant has to prove by preponderance of evidence that it was self-defense.

 

Edit: Here's another case of self-defense: http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/houston-gas-station-shooting-syg-or-not-break-it-down-with-aoj/

 

I guess you could say the woman should've retreated when she was first threatened, but why does she have to?

Edited July 27, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[Zoraptor]

I'm sorry, Zor. Maybe I'm just having a bad day, but i just can't sympathise with your take on it.

 

1) The prosecution in most murders has to contradict the word of the alleged murderer. SYG doesn't make that worse.

Even WoD agrees that it does- not to the extent I do though, of course. It's simple fact, not having a burden to retreat if practicable makes it easier to justify killing someone as you have an extra defence for the act, and if they're dead then they cannot contradict it. It's got nothing to do with sympathy, it's probable that both Martin and Zimmerman were idiots to greater or smaller degrees.

 

2) In situations where an intruder on property is shot/stabbed/waffle-ironed, and dies I think it's wrong that there should be a heavy burden on the defendant.

And that's why you don't think SYG makes it worse. But it's an opinion rooted in, er, opinion, not in fact.

[ravenshrike]

 

Thus proving you've ignored everything about this case and several very hepful links within the thread.

 

Item 1 - Zimmerman did not choose to approach Martin. Trys to follow having lost Martin for 20-30 seconds after being asked "where's he going" by the dispatcher and then stopping AFTER the dispatcher says "we don't need you to do that" in reference to his attempt to follow(neither of which have a relevence to the law as dispatch services only offer advice which reduces their personal liability). Between this point in the conversation and when according to the prosecution's star witness MARTIN confronts Zimmerman, 4 minutes pass. Last Z saw of M, he took off running. From where he took off running the house he was staying at was less than 200 yards away. That means that given where the debris field started, M came back looking for Z having had ample time to make it to his house and say... call the cops. Thus, any prospective burden of confrontation, even in German law, rests solely on M's shoulders.

Item 1: Yes Zim did, he got out of his car and followed him. We have no idea what Zimmerman did between hanging up the 911 call and the altercation, but he definitely had enough time to get back to his car- or to go off looking for that "****ing punk" that "always gets away". But despite it being "****ing cold" and raining he hung around an extra 2 minutes in- supposedly- exactly the same place...

 

Now, there's no proof Zim did decide to reconvene his pursuit. But Zim had opportunity to do so and was clearly motivated to do so as well, there's just no proof since the only other witness is dead. If he did, your whole argument reverses.

 

Item 2 - SYG law never had anything to do with the case. Never did. It was a controversy drummed up by anti-gun and race baiting **** to make the story seem more in favor of Martin.

 

Item 2: Oh ffs. Stand your ground is relevant, Zim just did not use it as an affirmed defence so there was no hearing on the matter. He still has the SYG provisions available though, to whit:

 

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony"

 

Yeah, it's a different text style and may be slightly difficult to read, because it's copied direct from the judge's instructions.

 

 

Item 3 - By the time Z pulled his gun and shot M, he had been on the ground screaming for help for 30-40 seconds. His face was being smashed in and head bashed against a concrete sidewalk. If he knew ANYTHING about head injuries at all he would know that if that continued serious injury or death had a pretty good chance of being the result. He had seen one guy come outside, but rather than pull the M off him, he just went back inside to call the cops. It wasn't until after all that occured that Z pulled his gun and shot M. Moreover, according to Z, because he was attempting to shimmy his head from the concrete to the grass the waistband of his shirt rode up and his gun in the IWB holster became visible to M, at which point M said "you're gonna die tonight MF" and attempted to go for the gun. Z then gets control of the gun and shoots once.

 He was so terrified of immediate injury he never even sought (nor needed) proper medical attention for the "smashed in" face and "bashed" head. And, of course, the still open question is who initiated the conflict and whether Martin was simply standing his ground and that being "attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself".

 

After all, Zim reaching for his gun- and arguably carrying one at all when pursuing a minor, on a dark night- denotes an intent to use deadly force as well. It's why SYG is so moronic, it gives an advantage to whoever it is draws first and kills the other.

 

 

Bzzt, wrong. To approach someone means to come close to them. Not merely to keep them within sight as Zimmerman was attempting. As for the judge's instructions, of course they included SYG. They also, as pointed out, included excusable homicide. However, since Z admitted to pulling the trigger purposefully, neither excusable homicide or manslaughter can apply. Since he was told by paramedics that he didn't have any signs of concussion afterwards and probably was not feeling any odd symptoms, of course he didn't go to the hospital. Without any ill feelings, what possible purpose could e have for giving himself a several thousand ER bill. Not to mention that continued attacks may have changed things significantly with regards to injury and the only person Z saw come out rand back inside. Then there's the fact that he had no way of knowing Trayvon was a minor, especially if he saw his gold teeth when Trayvon approached his vehicle. He looked anywhere between 16 and 22 in his actual recent pictures.

[alanschu]

 

 

However, since Z admitted to pulling the trigger purposefully, neither excusable homicide or manslaughter can apply.

 

How does purposefully pulling a trigger rule out "excusable homicide?"

[Zoraptor]

By the stated definition of excusable homicide included it is not applicable. It's an irrelevant objection though.

 

1) Manslaughter is specifically stated as being the lesser crime for 2nd degree murder by the judge and as a crime that should be considered in this case.

 

2) The SYG defence is mentioned directly as part of the instructions on what is defined as and to be considered self defence and thus justifiable homicide. It's clearly relevant and something expected to be considered considering everyone accepts Zim used a self defence, er, defence.

 

"JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE 

An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force. “Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

 

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

 

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty"

 

And, "George Zimmerman is not required to present evidence or prove anything."

 

It's pretty conclusive first hand evidence.

 

(Meh, the sizing on the copy paste job seems to be going berserk despite seeming OK in the WYSIWYG editor)

Edited July 28, 2013 by Zoraptor

[Longknife]

Were you aware that we have special sentences in the UK for 'racially aggravated' crimes? It's a relatively new development, and one which I feel represents the worst excesses of Parliament in this generation.

 

The problem is that our criminal justice system is stretched so thin that we have made prioritisation of certain crimes a priority in law. It's complete lunacy.

 

I'mma be brutally honest and say I tried my hardest to avoid learning ANYTHING about the UK legal system.

 

German Law students are expected to have SOME knowledge of a foreign legal system and given options of ones to study up on a bit, the UK system being amongst them, and I tend to tutor english for money, sometimes for lawyers, businesses and other niche groups where it's harder to find someone with experience in both english and german vocabulary for those areas.

 

Tutored several friends who chose UK's legal system as their little foreign subject matter, and it always ended in me basically doing a collaborative effort with them to try and actually learn it all, because we'd both be sitting there scratching our heads, second-guessing ourselves and wondering if my translations were somehow off because the system sounded so nonsensical and needlessly complex. :D

 

No offense, I mean obviously the system is working (or is it?), but yeah from my perspective and from a typical German perspective, the UK legal system seems like a nightmare, and I rue the days when a law student says they need my help translating and understanding the legal relations between the UK, Guernsey, Isle of Man etc.

 

Can I just confirm that the young man attacked Zimmerman?

 

 

What I don't understand is why it should matter.

That's part of my point: I don't understand ANYONE painting Trayvond as a thug or someone who deserved to die, and I especially don't understand the "Trayvond swung first" thing as an argument for why he's a thug.

 

  It honestly shouldn't matter, because what matters is the person's perception of the situation. The legal system seeks to punish and weed out individuals who are in some way a threat to society. In both Trayvond and Zimmerman's case, they're looking for if these two are a constant, potential threat to society. Trayvond swinging first BECAUSE he's aware he's being stalked and is nervous because of it is hardly a case for saying he's a dangerous individual, and he too would have a self-defense case. He swung under extremely specialized circumstances and we know he was aware he was being followed, to which he has every right to be worried, nervous or concerned.

 

I just find it incredibly ironic that Trayvond could've (quite reasonably) believed he needed to do so to defend himself from an inevitable confrontation and some are calling him a thug for it, but Zimmerman provoking such a confrontation and then proceeding to use a gun to resolve the issue is A-OK.  And again, this is assuming Trayvond actually swung first. Yes I know that's the story, but the story is based heavily on the defendant's testimony. Obviously that creates issues.

 

Of course I don't neccesarily know if this was Trayvond's thought process either, but my point is that the very people arguing Trayvond's a thug are failing to use the "innocent until proven guilty" mentality that led to Zimmerman being found not guilty. It's hypocricy, plain and simple. We don't know what exactly went down, nor will we ever because the only other guy with a stake in the matter is dead. For all we know his actions could've been incredibly reasonable to rash and violent, but it's hypocritical and unjust to sit there and brand him as a thug when we have no reason to believe so (other than the defendent's testimony, herpderp), confronting someone who's stalking you isn't exactly unreasonable and the same attitude of assuming he's a thug would've gotten Zimmerman a guilty verdict.

 

 

 

 

 

I think the big thing to take away from this case is that here, the burden of proof was moreso on the prosecution, not the defendant. Why? It's absolute nonsense, because if you were to walk into my apartment right now, find a dead body and I claimed "I used self defense, prove me wrong," how the HELL would you expect to do that? On the flip side, if the burden of proof is on me, then we should be able to find a weapon on the dead guy's body with DNA on it, the fact that he's on my property or not, etc etc.

 

It's an issue of "innocent until proven guilty" meets the burden of proof being on the prosecutor in the case of self-defense. You just have to ask yourself how the hell is ANYONE supposed to prove a defendant did NOT use self-defense is they're found next to a dead body and excessive force is allowed?

Edited July 28, 2013 by Longknife

[Wrath of Dagon]

The defendant in Florida does have to present some evidence of self-defense before he's allowed to claim self-defense in court :

the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida ruled that once a defendant in a criminal case has introduced proof that he acted in self-defense the jury is entitled to consider the defense, and the jury may not convict the defendant unless it finds beyond a reasonable that he did not act in self-defense

http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2012/04/zimmermans-low-burden-of-proof-on-the-issue-of-self-defense/

[Walsingham]

I'm a wee bit confused. You're saying it doesn't matter if M swung first?

 

I think it does. I think most courts would consider it important.

 

~

 

BTW as an aside I think it's helpful to use the letters as other people started doing before me. It helps me keep focussed on the debate as an academic exercise, rather than a replay of the trial.

 

Just wondered if anyone else found the same.

Edited July 28, 2013 by Walsingham

[Guard Dog]

Here is the next George Zimmerman thing. A man in New Orleans confronts a burglar who had climbed his fence into his yard and was apparently breaking into his car. The burglar, according to the homeowner, reached as if for a weapon so the home owner shot him. Cut and dry so far right? It turns out the burglar was a 14 year old kid who happened to be black and the homeowner happened to be white. Guess who has been arrested and is facing murder charges?

 

Of course the fact that the kid had a long criminal history, was caught in the act of breaking in on a fenced property, and the fact that the homeowner had no way to know it was a kid are interesting but not relevant facts to those who are writing this script. We'll see where this goes. From what I've read there are conflicting details. In my opinion though if someone breaks into you property with ill intent, they deserve to be shot.

 

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/marigny_homeowner_shooting.html#incart_m-rpt-2

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/29/homeowner-charged-with-attempted-murder-in-new-orleans-after-shooting-teen-he-says-he-thought-was-breaking-into-his-home/

[Elerond]

Here is the next George Zimmerman thing. A man in New Orleans confronts a burglar who had climbed his fence into his yard and was apparently breaking into his car. The burglar, according to the homeowner, reached as if for a weapon so the home owner shot him. Cut and dry so far right? It turns out the burglar was a 14 year old kid who happened to be black and the homeowner happened to be white. Guess who has been arrested and is facing murder charges?

 

Of course the fact that the kid had a long criminal history, was caught in the act of breaking in on a fenced property, and the fact that the homeowner had no way to know it was a kid are interesting but not relevant facts to those who are writing this script. We'll see where this goes. From what I've read there are conflicting details. In my opinion though if someone breaks into you property with ill intent, they deserve to be shot.

 

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/marigny_homeowner_shooting.html#incart_m-rpt-2

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/29/homeowner-charged-with-attempted-murder-in-new-orleans-after-shooting-teen-he-says-he-thought-was-breaking-into-his-home/

 

I have understood correctly it is illegal to use deadly force to protect you property in Lousiana, as such is only allowed if someone threatens your life our tries to invade your home. So defendant needs to make jury to belive that he really thought that his life was in danger, which is made even harder by fact that person that he shot was only 14 years old.

 

But I would not parallel this with Martin-Zimmerman case as circumstances are very different.

[kgambit]

I have understood correctly it is illegal to use deadly force to protect you property in Lousiana, as such is only allowed if someone threatens your life our tries to invade your home. So defendant needs to make jury to belive that he really thought that his life was in danger, which is made even harder by fact that person that he shot was only 14 years old.

 

But I would not parallel this with Martin-Zimmerman case as circumstances are very different.

 

 

Without any attempt to prejudge the case, I simply offer the following information:

 

Pertinent laws under Louisana's Castle Doctrine 

 

RS 14:19

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78336

 

§19. Use of force or violence in defense

 

A. The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person's lawful possession, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense, and that this Section shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide.

 

B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of force or violence was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:

 

(1) The person against whom the force or violence was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

 

(2) The person who used force or violence knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

 

C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using force or violence as provided for in this Section and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

 

D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used force or violence in defense of his person or property had a reasonable belief that force or violence was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a forcible offense or to prevent the unlawful entry.

 

Acts 2006, No. 141, §1.

 

 

RS 14:20

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78338

 

 

§20. Justifiable homicide

 

A. A homicide is justifiable:

 

(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.

 

(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.

 

(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.

 

(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle.

 

(b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.

 

B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:

 

(1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

 

(2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

 

C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

 

D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.

 

Added by Acts 1976, No. 655, §1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 392, §1; Acts 1983, No. 234, §1; Acts 1993, No. 516, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1378, §1; Acts 2003, No. 660, §1; Acts 2006, No. 141, §1.

 

RS 9:2800.19

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=408383

 

 

§2800.19. Limitation of liability for use of force in defense of certain crimes

 

A. A person who uses reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or his property in accordance with R.S. 14:19 or 20 is immune from civil action for the use of reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence.

 

B. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses to the defendant in any civil action if the court finds that the defendant is immune from suit in accordance with Subsection A of this Section.

 

Acts 2006, No. 786, §1.

 

 

Edited July 30, 2013 by kgambit

[alanschu]

 

 

It turns out the burglar was a 14 year old kid who happened to be black and the homeowner happened to be white. Guess who has been arrested and is facing murder charges?

 

I'm assuming your point is that it's somewhat shocking that an arrest happened, right?

 

Seriously, playing up the race card, as if a black man shooting a white man would be the type of thing that historically was a non-issue in the United States?

 

If your opinion is that there's extra pressure to arrest a white man that shoots a black man today, the most empathy you'll get from me is "I guess it sucks that the pendulum is swinging the other way now?"  If this is reality now (the extreme over representation of black people in the prison system makes me skeptical, however), then I hope it self corrects relatively quickly, but at least now you have some perspective of what it was like being on the other side for a few centuries.

[Gfted1]

Don't do the crime if you cant do the time.

[Volourn]

"He would steal -- he was a professional thief, sure," David Coulter said. "But he would never pick up a gun, not in a million years. He was too scared to aim a gun at the grass, let alone aim it at a person. No way. Before he'll ever pick up a gun, he'll be your friend first.

"He's still a little boy," the brother said. "Who pulls a trigger on a 14-year-old? What if it was your little brother or your sister? How would you feel?"

 

How would the home owner know this? He doesn't know the intruder perosnally.

 

 

"If your opinion is that there's extra pressure to arrest a white man that shoots a black man today, the most empathy you'll get from me is "I guess it sucks that the pendulum is swinging the other way now?"  If this is reality now (the extreme over representation of black people in the prison system makes me skeptical, however), then I hope it self corrects relatively quickly, but at least now you have some perspective of what it was like being on the other side for a few centuries."
 

What a dumb opinion. And, an opinion only a racist would have have. because, racism existed in the past it's okay thatr acism exists now? LMAO

 

Racism - IN ALL FORMS NO MATTER WHO IT IS AGAISNT - should eb fought against. Yet, you defend it. That is evil.

[Guard Dog]

 

It turns out the burglar was a 14 year old kid who happened to be black and the homeowner happened to be white. Guess who has been arrested and is facing murder charges?

 

I'm assuming your point is that it's somewhat shocking that an arrest happened, right?

 

Seriously, playing up the race card, as if a black man shooting a white man would be the type of thing that historically was a non-issue in the United States?

 

If your opinion is that there's extra pressure to arrest a white man that shoots a black man today, the most empathy you'll get from me is "I guess it sucks that the pendulum is swinging the other way now?"  If this is reality now (the extreme over representation of black people in the prison system makes me skeptical, however), then I hope it self corrects relatively quickly, but at least now you have some perspective of what it was like being on the other side for a few centuries.

 

No I'm not actually surprised he was arrested since there seems to be some conflict with his story and an eyewitness account. I was not trying to "play the race card" as you so venomously put it. And yes there are a lot of black faces in US prisons. I'm sure they are all perfectly innocent angels locked up only because they were black right? You know better than that. Crime goes hand in hand with poverty and a large percentage of black Americans are below the poverty line.

 

Don't even get me started on poverty. You will not like what I have to say. Nobody chooses to be poor but they DO choose to STAY that way.

 

Now in this case there may be a criminal act here, there may not. But in my book you come on my property uninvited will ill intent against my person or possessions you better be prepared for a dirt nap.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

As someone who was born poor and was lucky enough to rise into the lower ranks of the middle class(due to the luck of my father), I would argue that the vast majority of poor people do not have control over being poor. With real wages being stagnant and living off minimum wage jobs being incredibly difficult(google McBudget reaction) if you are born poor you will need to get a full scholarship, a well-paying job, and avoid any unexpected hardships(car breaking down, illness, pregnancy, etc.) to have a good chance of climbing put of poverty. Otherwise, you should have had the sense to choose better parents.

Edited July 30, 2013 by KaineParker

[alanschu]

 

 

I was not trying to "play the race card" as you so venomously put it.

 

I have to ask why you bothered pointing it out then.  Since you certainly seemed to be stressing the issue that a black man was shot by a white person.

 

 

 

 

I'm sure they are all perfectly innocent angels locked up only because they were black right?

 

No, they most likely were guilty.  Evidently you don't actually understand the actual issue with the over representation.  As a white person, I have absolutely no doubts that I would be more likely considered to *get away* with a crime simply based on the color of my skin.  ****, I literally saw a situation where 3 white people and a Filipino applied for work Visas in Canada, and the 3 white people were literally given theirs that day, while the Filipino was told it would come in the mail.  So sometimes you just straight up get discrimination, whether conscious or subconscious.  (To the credit of the 3 white people, when they found out they actually spoke up and said it was bull****.  Though it was the first time that my Filipino friend ever had a situation where she said "this is something that... actually feels wrong...."  Before that she couldn't identify any situations that would make her think the color of her skin had any effect on her interactions... but that one was one that she struggled rationalizing away as something else.  Fortunately after the colleagues spoke up, she was given her Visa just like the other Canadian citizens).  But enough about anecdotes.  I don't believe that Innocent people aren't tossed in prisons because they are a minority, though I find your assumption that that must be how I feel particularly telling.  To use your own words, you know better than that.

 

I bet when I tell you that New York's stop and frisk finds a larger percentage of white people with drugs and weapons you assume that I'm concluding that white people are a larger threat (as opposed to the more likely situation, which is that this particular policy could very well be targeting black people more than is actually necessary, whereas the white people that ARE checked more likely fit a more generalized description and activities of someone that is doing something shady).

 

I'm sure that Guard Dog, however, would have no issues with a bunch of police officers coming up and asking to frisk him because they have reasonable grounds that you're engaging in illegal activity.  Now imagine that you're getting frisked more frequently simply because some statistics state that the color of your skin is more highly correlated with doing sketchy things.  Sounds like real awesomesauce doesn't it?  I'm sure it won't help fuel any sort of vindictiveness, or even motivate people to call out crusades simply because a black person was killed by a white person and that's so much more worthy of attention than a white guy being killed by a white guy, or any other permutation you wish to create.  A man killed a man, but that wasn't what you said.

 

 

 

 

You know better than that. Crime goes hand in hand with poverty and a large percentage of black Americans are below the poverty line.

 

(Note: certain *types* of crime go hand in hand with poverty.)  You want to know what else is highly correlated with wealth?  Quality of legal representation.  This is what people refer to a "institutional racism."  It's not that people are explicitly racist.  But when you get people that are less capable of obtaining quality legal counsel, you're going to find yourself with people that are less capable of obtaining an equivalent level of legal representation that has an equivalent stake in helping his or her client to the best of his or her ability.

 

 

 

 

 

Don't even get me started on poverty. You will not like what I have to say. Nobody chooses to be poor but they DO choose to STAY that way.

 

Try me.  There's plenty of people that are lazy bastards that want handouts and feel that it's a convenient excuse for "the man" to hold them down.  There's plenty of people that DO come up from downtrodden, poor families that end up being successful as well.  As with all things in life, a bit of luck helps, and the people that do work hard tend to afford themselves greater opportunities for some good luck to happen.  And as any successful businessman says, it takes money to make money.  Which, we can of course, interpret as "it takes capital" by which I'm sure you and I will agree, our hardwork and ambition is a type of capital that we can convert into wealth (hence how wealth is created).

 

However, I've seen people (white, black, or whatever) that have busted their ass and still remain not particularly well off.  Because it's not *just* hard work.  Understanding where and how to apply one's effort is also important.  I doubt I need to talk to you about the importance of networking, because no matter the color of your skin some level of nepotism will always come up.  I've seen great employees come and go because they weren't good at selling themselves.  I learned that, for the good of the company and to have quality coworkers, I need to make sure that I still speak up and call out those people, because frankly... and I'm sure this is no surprise to you, sometimes work that isn't outstandingly exceptional (but still of high quality) can get lost in the mix when things are busy.

 

This is why, despite my conservative leanings, I do support things like education and health, because those are investments directly into the human capital of a country.  Poor people are highly correlated with poorer education and poorer health.  If you create a system that creates barriers, then you're going to start relying on hoping that the parents of many of these kids are the hard working, ambitious types, as their primary role models if they aren't able to get a quality education.  I'd prefer to not take my chances in that regard, and frankly I don't care how hardworking and motivated a child is, they are going to be ostensibly impressionable and unable to get the same opportunities as adults, simply due to not being age of the majority.

 

Pure hardwork is useful, but being purely someone that feels "if I work hard, I'll eventually get my due" is also a great way for someone to be exploited.  People need to be cognizant of the best ways to apply their effort, and sometimes it's just not that obvious.  Especially when you start getting in generational or even culture gaps.  My Dad recently had to close down his business, and it was laughable how poor his resume and cover letter were.  Fortunately I asked to see his resume and was able to provide some immediate feedback, but if I hadn't followed up on his job hunt he may have remained ignorant that the issue wasn't an over saturation of applicants, but just that he wasn't doing a good enough job of selling himself.

 

Same with health.  Yes, here in Canada we get people that "abuse the system" and go in and get every little thing checked.  The cost billed to the provincial health care provider is often a $60-$100 payment or so, which some poorer people are certainly going to be unable to justify paying.  However, when that person has an unchecked condition that, if caught earlier would have not only been treatable, but would have incurred significantly less cost than the stay in emergency ended up costing.  Now unless I am mistaken, US hospitals are not allowed to prevent emergency care on the basis of whether or not the patient can afford treatment, when payment cannot be obtained, hospitals have to swallow the cost.  They may have insurance or something to cover the upfront costs, but it's still a cost they have to bear, which as reasonably economically minded individuals like you and I realize, will often still be passed on to those that DO have insurance.  I mean, how many of us know someone that got absolutely boned in a car insurance claim because the other party didn't have coverage, so you have no choice but to put that claim on you.  It ****ing blows when that happens.

 

I'd rather people "abuse the system" at a double digit cost, than be neglectful (and to be honest, in Canada people are still neglectful due to general fear of seeing a physician anyways) and see the costs be much more extreme than they actually are.

 

Never mind that poor health of a population in general is just bad, because most people are employees that feed into our capitalist machine, and when they're sick they make other people sick, are more prone to mistakes, and in general can lead to all sorts of badness.  It's why I also appreciate employers that offer compensation for sick days.  Sure, I may be a pure sunk cost that day that I'm getting an eye infection checked out, but at least I didn't spread pink eye throughout and office of 400+ people.  We actually WERE hit with norovirus outbreak one time, and basically the Dragon Age team was effectively told to put themselves under quarantine because ME3 was in finaling and the cost of any sort of delay due to an outbreak of illness would have been extreme.  I guess game development is a bit like health care in that sense: finding serious issues at the end of development is exponentially more expensive than early in the cycle.

 

 

 

 

Now in this case there may be a criminal act here, there may not. But in my book you come on my property uninvited will ill intent against my person or possessions you better be prepared for a dirt nap.

 

Then just say that.  Keep the colour of their skin out of it.  Because I don't believe that you'd bother mentioning it unless you think that it's somehow relevant.

 

 

Anyways, that's my rant.  Feel free to unload on me.

[Guard Dog]

Race is a factor in this case only because of the comparisons to the Zimmerman case. The same people who turned THAT into a debacle are now descending on this one. To wit, Nancy Grace started on this tonight. Now if we accept the facts at face value there is less of a case for murder here than with Zimmerman because the shooting happened on his own private property. Yes the victim was 14 but there is no way for the homeowner to know that. All he knows is that some stranger has invaded his property and might be reaching for a weapon when confronted. To me that is an open and shut case. Once again that is only if all the facts can be accepted at face value.

 

Now if there is reason to believe his story is untrue that is a whole horse of another color. But if he is being prosecuted to mollify the political activists who cry racism for a living as happened with Zimmerman then we have a problem.

 

And your insinuation about the shoe being on the other foot is just absurd.

 

And just to be clear on my position of the Stop and Frisk Law, I think the passage of that should have been ample justification for armed insurrection ending with firing squads or ropes for the governor and state legislature. Every day the damned governments at every level intrude on our liberty and tell us it's for our own good. And everyone just seems to accept that.  "Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither and will have neither"