This George Zimmerman thing

[Volourn]

"If you want to get angry at the Alexander case, get angry at the minimum sentencing law as it allows prosecutors to play judge and jury."
 

That's a different issue. She should have been found not guilty of attenmtped mruder.  She didn't try to murder anyone. t worst it should have been child endarment and unlawful use of a gun. AT WORST.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

He couldn't have been at Martin's house since he didn't even know he lived in the neighborhood, let alone where his house was, and from him talking to the police we know he couldn't have run after Martin, so he wouldn't be able to see him in the dark until they encountered again at the sidewalk T.

If he had two free minutes, he could easily have got to Martin's house and back (there's no evidence he did though) since that is what everyone agrees Martin did, with a break to talk to his girlfriend at or around his house. When you only have one living witness and it's the guy accused it's very difficult to establish the truth about such things, but it certainly appears to be fact that Zimmerman had ample time, and opportunity, to get back to his car to wait for the police but it was only a few yards from where he had stopped where the incident occurred despite the weather conditions being unpleasant enough to warrant comment. It may not be fact but it is very likely that if Zimmerman simply returned to his vehicle, even at a slow pace, and waited for police then the last part of the incident would not have happened.

 

We know Z was returning to his vehicle since that's where the fight happened, but unless he made it all the way and stayed in the car and Martin wasn't already waiting for him after Z finished talking to the police dispatcher the confrontation would've still happened.

 

If Zimmerman had been poking around further and still looking for Martin- which seems pretty likely to me given Zimmerman's obvious agitation, and provides a reason why he didn't go back to his warm dry truck- then Martin's feeling of being stalked by a creepy dude has more justification, with or without anything else Z may have said or done. The defence narrative was not proven to be false, but at the same time it was also not proven to be any sort of absolute truth either and will naturally seek to omit anything that puts Z in a potentially negative light, which would include things like trying to find Martin after being asked/ told not to in that missing two minutes.

Even if Z was looking for Martin for those entire 4 minutes, there's almost no chance he would've found him in the darkness, thus Martin wouldn't have seen him, and couldn't feel he was being stalked because of it. Besides, if M did see Z before 4 minutes were up, he'd probably mention that to his friend and the confrontation would likely start at that moment instead of them both heading towards Z's car.

 

Edit: Besides Z told police dispatcher on the phone he was heading towards the back entrance (E), why would he lie at that point?

Edited July 17, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[ravenshrike]

 

Moreover, warning shots are illegal.

 

So the legal system actually does encourage people to actually shoot other humans in that situation then? (serious question)

 

Shooting other people is illegal as well.  There can be justifications and mitigation for it though, as evidenced in the Zimmerman trial.  Harping on this makes it sound like it's okay to shoot another person in self defense, but not to fire a warning shot in the same situation.  Or, in other words, that the legal system implicitly encourages one to actually potentially kill another human being rather than the alternative.  Because that's the way it looks.  Saying "Firing a warning shot is illegal" doesn't do much since firing a fatal shot is also illegal.

 

You can dispute whether self-defense was applicable (a position I actually lean towards now, as I have read more information), but if it was, is firing a warning shot still illegal, while a fatal shot not?

 

 

 

If you want to get angry at the Alexander case, get angry at the minimum sentencing law as it allows prosecutors to play judge and jury.

 

But you're right, it's an excellent example of how minimum sentencing is often absurd.

 

If the situation is serious enough to discharge your firearm, it is serious enough to shoot the person. Not to mention warning shots generally ignore rules 2 and 4. Never let the muzzle cover something you are not willing to destroy and Always be sure of your target. When you fire a warning shot, the situation should be more than serious enough that you won't be paying close attention to where you are firing the warning shot because to do so means taking your attention off the threat. That is bad gun handling.

[Zoraptor]

Even if Z was looking for Martin for those entire 4 minutes, there's almost no chance he would've found him in the darkness, thus Martin wouldn't have seen him, and couldn't feel he was being stalked because of it.

You said Z had a flashlight. That is pretty easy to see, in the darkness and all.

 

Besides Z told police dispatcher on the phone he was heading towards the back entrance (E), why would he lie at that point?

 

Because he'd been told not to follow and it's generally a Bad Idea to not follow police instruction- especially if you end up shooting someone?

 

Going by the timeline you linked to that has Martin arriving home at roughly 2.40 of the call after a 30 second jog, then spending a few minutes talking, then walking back.

 

Going by wikipedia's timeline to clarify matters there's a (minimum) 2.20 minutes between Z hanging up and Martin's phone going dead, and it ought to take Z maybe 30s to walk back to his vehicle, at most. It's pretty much inescapable from that that Z didn't go straight back to his vehicle after hanging up. That isn't direct evidence that Z followed Martin further than he admitted- though the gf's testimony suggests that Martin felt that, at least- but if he took the stand you'd guarantee the prosecution would want to know what he was doing for that time and why he wasn't back at his car earlier.

[alanschu]

If the situation is serious enough to discharge your firearm, it is serious enough to shoot the person. Not to mention warning shots generally ignore rules 2 and 4. Never let the muzzle cover something you are not willing to destroy and Always be sure of your target. When you fire a warning shot, the situation should be more than serious enough that you won't be paying close attention to where you are firing the warning shot because to do so means taking your attention off the threat. That is bad gun handling.

 

So even if a warning should would successfully deter them, you feel it's best to kill the target individual.  You probably could have just said "yes" to my question.  Never mind that circumstances apply.  A person is walking aggressively towards you from 20m away with a weapon threatening your life and you're cornered (or live in Flordia) with a firearm.  I would expect any person that is not "bad at handling a gun" to effectively be able to fire a warning shot without "taking his attention off the threat" (especially since both armed forces and police service employ warning shots themselves) and without endangering himself in the process.  It's different if the person is on top of you beating the tar out of you... I wouldn't have expected someone like Zimmerman to fire a warning shot in his situation.

 

Further, I think your expectation of someone in a situation where they feel lethal force may be required executing the most rational judgment is awfully high expectations.

 

Nevermind a situation where if someone DOES shoot to kill, but just happens to miss, yet effectively deters the assailaint from pursuing lethal action and causing them to withdraw.  In the world of ravenshrike, this person is more culpable because they did not kill a human being and is more deserving of reprimand.  Because that's the position you have been conveying to me.

 

If the attitude of "if a warning shot works, then the situation wasn't serious enough" is a bit more explict way of saying "Kill the other human being, because you'll be less likely to be punished."  Better to kill someone when a warning shot could have been safely done to yourself and saved a life, because once you kill the person it's your word against no one's.

Edited July 17, 2013 by alanschu

[Walsingham]

I have to agree that 'warning shots' are a dangerous fiction Hollywood should answer for. In statues of golden bulls or something.

 

However, I'd like to zoom in on this point about race. Isn't the real issue which keeps being mentioned that the dead man was black? And isn't the newsworthiness of that issue to do with the issues surrounding colour in the USA? Underachievement, drugs, incarceration rates and so on.

 

I personally take the view that anti-black racism in the US isn't the same as the educated in kind I'm more familiar with through apartheid South Africa, or even the five pints of lager racism that bubbles up in English pubs. I think it's an emergent property of a culture with strong Darwinian tendencies and that frequently judges on appearances. Black people in the US are poor, so they get judged as poor.

 

And I swear I had a point, but I've forgotten it.

[alanschu]

 

 

However, I'd like to zoom in on this point about race. Isn't the real issue which keeps being mentioned that the dead man was black? And isn't the newsworthiness of that issue to do with the issues surrounding colour in the USA? Underachievement, drugs, incarceration rates and so on.

 

On some level it brings it under scrutiny.  I do find, in my own experiences, there can be institutional levels of racism that maybe aren't even intentionally malevolent, but if you have human beings making decisions, people will make assumptions.

 

Just as an anecdote, a friend of mine applied for some Visa or something.  She's Filipino, and was informed that she was approved and that she'd be receiving the card (or whatever) through the mail.  In talking with the 3 other people that were also there for some Visas, who were white, she learned that they had all received their cards right then and there.  For *some* reason, there was an extra impetus to do things strictly by the book in her case, which is mostly just bizarre.  (The people she was with were actually shocked, and went back and mentioned that it was inconsistent and not really fair.  Although my friend was grateful, the experience did leave her feeling a bit embarrassed.

 

Coming back to the justice system, that prisons and jails, and people involved in the Criminal Justice System in general, are significantly over represented, it may mean that there is some level of systemic discrimination.  This doesn't mean people being bad human beings and going "LOL, you're black so I will toss you in prison."  But more of the subtle nature, where people play into stereotypes.  For instance, New York City's Stop and Search Law shows that, on average, more white people are found with weapons than racial minorities.  This doesn't so much mean that white people actually carry more weapons, but probably means that racial minorities are more likely to be assessed as being likely to be carrying a weapon.  While only the super shady white guys are actually checked.

 

That said, however, simply because there IS a racial component to a case, doesn't mean that it plays a factor.  The Alexander case being juxtaposed (and misrepresented) to the Zimmerman case accents it somewhat, but it's difficult to prove that had Martin been white, Zimmerman would have received a different verdict.

[Nepenthe]

I have to agree that 'warning shots' are a dangerous fiction Hollywood should answer for. In statues of golden bulls or something.

 

Eh, Finnish Police ROE require a warning shot, when possible.

 

Of course, then we get to the point of whether amateurs are able to assess the situation in the same way as professionals and then to the fact that if they can't, why should they be able to carry something they can't use safely.

[ShadySands]

I have to agree that 'warning shots' are a dangerous fiction Hollywood should answer for. In statues of golden bulls or something.

 

I don't know about what others do but we are told to fire warning shots into the ground since if you fire into the air you never know where it will come down

 

However, I'd like to zoom in on this point about race. Isn't the real issue which keeps being mentioned that the dead man was black? And isn't the newsworthiness of that issue to do with the issues surrounding colour in the USA? Underachievement, drugs, incarceration rates and so on.

 

I wouldn't dare deny that there is still a lot of racial inequality in the US but it's definitely played up for ratings and votes. It also relates into what we were discussing in one of the police threads with popular culture and media which reinforces and glamorizes stereotypes and criminal behavior, lack of quality education and little to no emphasis placed on it, little chance for upward movement, etc. When people feel that the system is stacked against them they are more willing to see injustice around every corner and don't get me wrong, what happened was a tragedy, but if they were the same color this wouldn't be news

 

That's a good (but still pretty bad) enough of a segue for me to post this I think

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=TG4f9zR5yzY

Edited July 17, 2013 by ShadySands

[alanschu]

I love Louis CK.

 

That is all.

[Gfted1]

Regarding prison demographics, unless you feel there are police squads that roam the streets indiscriminately rounding up minorities and framing them with evidence, (almost) every incarcerated person has actually committed a crime. Shocking, right?

 

Now you will no doubt now argue that the sentences are unfair, and there is merit to that, but (almost) nobody is incarcerated simply for being a minority.

[Volourn]

Louis CK is funny but that video shows a down side of the anti white stance in modern world. It is stating clearly that it is okay to be racist against white people. If a white person is murdered, raped, or otherwise hurt... big deal. They were white so they aNd it coming 'cause, hey, at least they were white. L0LZ

[Hurlshort]

Louis CK is funny but that video shows a down side of the anti white stance in modern world. It is stating clearly that it is okay to be racist against white people. If a white person is murdered, raped, or otherwise hurt... big deal. They were white so they aNd it coming 'cause, hey, at least they were white. L0LZ

 

Just because the media doesn't blow up a story, doesn't mean you don't get help from law enforcement.  

[alanschu]

 

 

Regarding prison demographics, unless you feel there are police squads that roam the streets indiscriminately rounding up minorities and framing them with evidence, (almost) every incarcerated person has actually committed a crime. Shocking, right?

 

They did commit a crime, yes (barring outright foul play, which for the purposes of this I am hoping is minimal).  Many, many, MANY MANY people commit crimes and get away with it.  There's the idea of the Dark Figure of Crime.  It spawns out from the idea of challenges about reporting crime rates, and such notions as "If no one ever reported any crimes, the crime rate would go down."

 

 

 

 

Now you will no doubt now argue that the sentences are unfair, and there is merit to that, but (almost) nobody is incarcerated simply for being a minority.

 

No one here suggested such a thing.

 

 

From my previous post even:

 

 

For instance, New York City's Stop and Search Law shows that, on average, more white people are found with weapons than racial minorities.  This doesn't so much mean that white people actually carry more weapons, but probably means that racial minorities are more likely to be assessed as being likely to be carrying a weapon.  While only the super shady white guys are actually checked.

 

So while they may not be incarcerated simply by being a minority, unless we feel that white people are actually more likely to carry weapons, there something at play here.  It need not specifically be racial either.  There are also large racial divides for education levels and socioeconomic status, which are also correlated with criminal activity.  It's why there was some controversy over Pennsylvania cutting funding for public schooling while investing in prisons (although, based on this article there was some level of misinformation that went viral).

 

Much like how, when police officers start abusing their powers (as brought up in other threads the past month), I do feel that it is important to be mindful as to why incarceration rates differ, to certainly make sure foul play is mitigated as much as possible.  It could also go to show that investment in other avenues than purely reactive, punitive measures may also have impacts on crime rates and the like.

[Volourn]

"Just because the media doesn't blow up a story, doesn't mean you don't get help from law enforcement. "

 

I';m not talking about legal help. I'm talking about the typical blaisse attitude that CK illustrates (in a comedic way) in his routine. The idea that anything negative that happens to whites is deserved because of 'past sins' is beyond ridiculous. It is racist. And, when I say racist, I don't mean 'reverse racist' which is a made up word that doesn't even make sense.

 

I have never treated someone differently based on race nor should I be shamed into feeling guilty because of what others did. no more than blacks should be ahsmed that  blacks in the past were selling each other  as slaves for money. No more should a son or daughter be punished for the crimes of their parents.

 

Plus, as far as race goes, Zimmerman isn't white no matter how people spin it. He is hispanic... but, that doesn't work for the story. He has to be a white guy... yet, when it comes to immigration story people paint republicans as racist towards hispanics... Talk abotu having it both way.

 

Bottom line here is Zimmerman should ahve been found guilty since it is obvious he was aat best criminally negligent. Both him and Martin were in the wrong that night. Martin paid the ultimate price.Zimmerman should pay soem price as well. But, I don't believe that racism really played a aprt in it. And, if it did, it cna be argued that Martin was the racist and a homophobe to boot. L0L

[ravenshrike]

That said, however, simply because there IS a racial component to a case, doesn't mean that it plays a factor.  The Alexander case being juxtaposed (and misrepresented) to the Zimmerman case accents it somewhat, but it's difficult to prove that had Martin been white, Zimmerman would have received a different verdict.

 

In what way did I misrepresent the Alexander case. Please enlighten me. Was I wrong in saying the father and children were physically near each other when shot at by the mother? Or when I said the bullet went through the kitchen wall and into the living room ceiling? Or when I said she had already retreated thus negating any advantage the SYG law gave her in the initial confrontation? Where EXACTLY have I misrepresented the Alexander case?

 

For instance, New York City's Stop and Search Law shows that, on average, more white people are found with weapons than racial minorities.  This doesn't so much mean that white people actually carry more weapons, but probably means that racial minorities are more likely to be assessed as being likely to be carrying a weapon.  While only the super shady white guys are actually checked.

 

So while they may not be incarcerated simply by being a minority, unless we feel that white people are actually more likely to carry weapons, there something at play here.  It need not specifically be racial either.  There are also large racial divides for education levels and socioeconomic status, which are also correlated with criminal activity.  It's why there was some controversy over Pennsylvania cutting funding for public schooling while investing in prisons (although, based on this article there was some level of misinformation that went viral).

 

Much like how, when police officers start abusing their powers (as brought up in other threads the past month), I do feel that it is important to be mindful as to why incarceration rates differ, to certainly make sure foul play is mitigated as much as possible.  It could also go to show that investment in other avenues than purely reactive, punitive measures may also have impacts on crime rates and the like.

 

Were the Stop and Frisk incidents plotted by general location? And then those general locations with the highest number of guns found surveyed for average number of whites vs blacks? Not necessarily the cause of the data disparities, but a possible one.

 

Bottom line here is Zimmerman should ahve been found guilty since it is obvious he was aat best criminally negligent. Both him and Martin were in the wrong that night. Martin paid the ultimate price.Zimmerman should pay soem price as well. But, I don't believe that racism really played a aprt in it. And, if it did, it cna be argued that Martin was the racist and a homophobe to boot. L0L

In order for criminal negligence to be applicable, a reasonable person would have had to foresee that the most likely scenario following their actions was that Martin would double back and start to beat the **** out of them, 40 seconds later see their gun, and then attempt to grab the gun and try to kill the reasonable person with it forcing the reasonable person to shoot them instead.

[Volourn]

Zimmerman was not acting reasonably that night.  Deal with it.

[ravenshrike]

Zimmerman was not acting reasonably that night.  Deal with it.

Which has jack all to do with the charge of CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. Being unreasonable is not in and of itself against the law. If it was over 3/4 of the US would at one point or another be in jail.

[alanschu]

In what way did I misrepresent the Alexander case. Please enlighten me. Was I wrong in saying the father and children were physically near each other when shot at by the mother? Or when I said the bullet went through the kitchen wall and into the living room ceiling? Or when I said she had already retreated thus negating any advantage the SYG law gave her in the initial confrontation? Where EXACTLY have I misrepresented the Alexander case?

 

You didn't.  The media did.  As you pointed out.  Zimmerman has nothing to do with Stand Your Ground, but Alexander was, and it went viral that it was just like Zimmerman's case.

 

I suggest not being quite so adversarial in how you read into posts, however.  At no point did I refer to you in that post, nor was it in response to something that you said, and was frankly on a different tangent for the thread (racial implications).  Because we had a disagreement on some things in this thread doesn't mean that all my posts are anti-ravenshrike.  I only brought up Alexander because it was ALSO a case with racial implications, and due to the misrepresentation people feel the situations are similar, people were concluding "Oh, a black person is punished but when a black is killed by a non-black, it's a valid defense."

 

Unless you feel that the media has not represented Alexander's case in comparison to Zimmerman's...

 

In fact, based on the things you pointed out, I actually stated in one post I made to you that I'm less inclined to feel that Alexander's case for self-defense is actually valid.  I suppose I didn't explicitly state "You're right, you have provided an insight to cause me to investigate this more thoroughly and I agree that Alexander's case details were not what I originally thought," but to make it clear, you can definitely conclude that you won that aspect of the discussion.  I concede the point regarding Alexander's presumed innocence (although I disagree with the charge of attempted murder) in the situation.

Edited July 17, 2013 by alanschu

[Tsuga C]

This is the kind of result that you get sometimes when you enact idiotic machismo-driven policy like Florida's "stand your ground" law.

There's absolutely nothing idiotic about citizens retaining their God given, Constitutionally enumerated Second Amendment right to defend themselves outside of their home. If I'm legally allowed to be in location x on public property, then there's no legitimate reason that I should have to tuck tail and run away when criminal lowlifes threaten myself or my companions. Time for you to re-read "A Nation of Cowards" by Jeffrey Snyder.

 

Michigan has had a Castle Doctrine law since 2006 and we haven't had a rash of questionable shootings and neither have the other states that have enacted similar laws. Under this law, you have no obligation to retreat in your home or on the street if offered violence so long as you are not the one committing a crime. Lend your ears to Michigan state Senator Rick Jones as he and Frank Beckmann discuss Eric Holder's nannystate ramblings and our own Castle Doctrine law.

 

Self-defense is the first law of nature, period. I have a CPL and wouldn't hesitate to defend myself as I consider it a moral obligation to do so. I'm a Citizen, not a Subject. Flee or cower as you see fit, Enoch, but don't you dare presume to infringe upon my rights.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Tsuga C

[alanschu]

Big tangent, since I always see this, but what does God have to do with the rights bestowed upon citizens of a country by the men writing some stuff down in the Second Amendment?

Edited July 17, 2013 by alanschu

[Malcador]

Lose a point for not mentioning 'Don't Tread on Me'

[Raithe]

Actually, I know my knowledge of American History is a bit ropey at times, but I seem to recall some mention that references to "God" didn't actually turn up in the constitution when it was originally written? That they were more slipped in some years later.

Hm. now it's going to niggle away at my mind while I try to remember where that worked its way into my memory.

 

And I kind of thought they were written as "Guiding Principles" not "Carved in Stone Tablet Commandments"

[Calax]

Big tangent, since I always see this, but what does God have to do with the rights bestowed upon citizens of a country by the men writing some stuff down in the Second Amendment?

Well apparently it's god's amendment given that it's the only one that will be defended tooth and nail to exist entirely unmolested, while every other one has provisios on when it can be suspended.

[Tsuga C]

Big tangent, since I always see this, but what does God have to do with the rights bestowed upon citizens of a country by the men writing some stuff down in the Second Amendment?

The founding documents as penned by the Founding Fathers, including the Bill of Rights, were (and still are) considered merely an enumeration of our Natural Rights as bestowed by Nature or Nature's God. Human tyrants may have denied some or most of these rights to their subjects throughout recorded history, but that did not erase them from the human spirit. They have existed since the dawn of our sapience and are not considered as being dependent upon the founding documents. An understanding and appreciation of this helps define what it is to be an American.