Racisms talk

[Zanchief]

Also the Jury was given these specific instructions with regards to SYG. Self-defense and SYG in Florida are one in the same. There's no need to us SYG in a self-defense case, since it's implicit.

Zimmerman had "no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force" if he reasonably feared for his life or great bodily harm.

[Menelvir]

If self-defense laws protect anyone, including those who instigate conflicts, then there's no real limit to who uses it. Someone walks into a bank with a gun, a victim pulls a gun on the criminal and gets shot by the person out of self-defense. The criminal feared for his life, and took fatal measures to preserve it. Doesn't the law have to look at the circumstance of the crime? He endangered himself by engaging someone in a fight, and decided to use deadly force to resolve the conflict. That doesn't seem to be text book self-defense to me, and if it's the case, murder is pretty much legal given a very broad use of it.

This is either a case where the law does need to be changed or the law as written was not followed. I believe it's the second, and the circumstances or why is debatable.

I think you make an excellent point regarding the circumstances surrounding an incident where self-defense might be claimed by a person while committing a criminal act (robbing a bank). I am fairly certain that self-defense does not apply in cases where a person is committing an unlawful act. But on the other hand, it seems to me that walking into a bank with a gun (or the act of drawing a gun while in a bank) is a pretty clear indicator that the person so doing is intending to commit a crime, especially if there are other indicators (wearing a ski mask, their general behavior, body language, etc.).

The specific circumstances in the TM/GZ case that led to the physical encounter seem (to me) to be significantly blurrier, and I reject the notion that there's a very simple solution to this problem (i.e. get rid of the law, problem solved) -- which is the sense I'm getting from those portrayed in the media calling for its dissolution.

[Zanchief]

The specific circumstances in the TM/GZ case that led to the physical encounter seem (to me) to be significantly blurrier, and I reject the notion that there's a very simple solution to this problem (i.e. get rid of the law, problem solved) -- which is the sense I'm getting from those portrayed in the media calling for its dissolution.

Well that's not my opinion, in regards to the dissolution of the law.

I suppose if the jury's opinion is simply that there was not enough evidence to determine that Zimmerman instigated the conflict and not Martin (the lone Juror who has spoken to the media has said she believes Martin instigated the conflict), therefor they couldn't prosecute him given the only tangible fact they knew is that martin beat the shit out of Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself. I get that. I this seems a little less...upsetting. But I still can't shake the fact that if the situations were reversed and Martin had a gun and was following an affluent member of the community and a fight broke and he defended himself, this case would not have gotten an ounce of media exposure, as Martin would be in jail for 25 years and no one would care. This is just speculation though, but I think that is what's upsetting people. The double standard. We've given Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt, but would we have if the situation were reversed and the thrice expelled punk kid pulled a gun on someone who was beating on him he was getting stalked? I just don't see it happening. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

But to your point I suppose that is separate from this case, and we should levy those arguments against those jurors and those lawyers and not these ones. Bah, I'm with Lyion. I just sick of hearing about this thing. I think everyone needs to move on. Zimmerman hasn't gotten off scot-free. He'll be sleeping with one eye open for the rest of his life. That's punishment enough.

[Menelvir]

What I specifically want to avoid are knee-jerk, poorly considered reactions rooted in political motivations.

That's why I think it's important to discuss it.

I don't discount the idea that SYG may (in the minds of some) foster a sense of irresponsibility -- That is, because SYG is in place, I no longer have to take responsibility for my actions.

I think that would be a wrong view to hold, but obviously it doesn't mean that some won't try to view it in that kind of twisted fashion. If it could be shown that this is indeed the case, and that self-defense is being claimed in an ever-increasing number of wrongful deaths, then I think it would be necessary to revise or amend self-defense laws.

I also think that in the majority of real-life situations that might involve self-defense, there isn't the luxury of time to consider that the action I take in response to an aggressor is going to land me in jail.

But I still can't shake the fact that if the situations were reversed and Martin had a gun and was following an affluent member of the community and a fight broke and he defended himself, this case would not have gotten an ounce of media exposure, as Martin would be in jail for 25 years and no one would care. This is just speculation though, but I think that is what's upsetting people. The double standard. We've given Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt, but would we have if the situation were reversed and the thrice expelled punk kid pulled a gun on someone who was beating on him he was getting stalked? I just don't see it happening.

I agree with you here regarding the double standard, and I believe that careful examination of our judicial system coupled with continuous vigilance, are necessary to eradicate racial bias wherever it is found. It poisons, clouds, obfuscates, and makes all situations worse.

[Harrison]

I see Jay gets his news from chain letters on Facebook, lol.

http://www.mrcolionnoir.com/news/so-thi ... -20-years/

Just read the court documents about what happened.

She didn't live in the house where these shots were fired. She left the house and returned with the weapon. etc.

You can't compare this to Zimmerman, who defended himself from a violent man actively beating his skull into the pavement.

[Zanchief]

What's the difference between her going to get her weapon and confronting her boyfriend and Zimmerman having a gun and confronting Martin? Legally speaking of course. Everyone has made it pretty clear that the circumstances involved in how Zimmerman got himself into the situation he was in is irrelevant. Once Martin was attacking him, he was within his right to defend himself. Isn't the other woman afforded the same right?

[Harrison]

What's the difference between her going to get her weapon and confronting her boyfriend and Zimmerman having a gun and confronting Martin?

This question is pretty much a full explanation into why you shouldn't comment on this entire thing.

You even asking it, shows how little you understand.

Leaving the situation and returning with a weapon as opposed to being actively pummeled into the pavement? Is this a real question?

[Zanchief]

I'm just going to go ahead and pretend like you're an adult if you don't mind.

Legally speaking, what's the difference? In the Zimmerman case, it was made very clear that his pursuit of Martin, although reckless, was ultimately irrelevant, and only the fact that at the time Zimmerman drew and fired his gun, he was defending his life. This means that all the circumstance which you find makes the situation very different was irrelevant. This lady (don't know her name) through either reckless or moronic life decisions, put herself in a situation where she felt her life was in mortal danger. So how does this case differ? I'm genuinely curious about the answer, although I'm not sure you're the person to give it to me.

[Harrison]

She was never touched. She LEFT THE SITUATION and then returned with the weapon. The situations aren't even remotely similar, or relevant to each other. It's apples and oranges.



Seriously, is this a difficult concept that only a select few individuals are capable of grasping? You may want to choose a better battleground than facebook chain letters spread by mouthbreathers on the internet clicking share inbetween rounds of their Farmville clicks.

[Tuggan]

i don't care enough to look into the details, but 20 years is fucking insane for a "crime" without a victim.

[Tuggan]

also unfortunate as it may be, i agree with harrison. this story doesn't have dick all to do with the martin murder.

[Zanchief]

She was never touched. She LEFT THE SITUATION and then returned with the weapon. The situations aren't even remotely similar, or relevant to each other. It's apples and oranges.



Seriously, is this a difficult concept that only a select few individuals are capable of grasping? You may want to choose a better battleground than facebook chain letters spread by mouthbreathers on the internet clicking share inbetween rounds of their Farmville clicks.

Every now and then I like to give you the benefit of the doubt. Never does me any good, but at least I can say I tried.

[Drem]

i don't care enough to look into the details, but 20 years is fucking insane for a "crime" without a victim.

That's kinda the point. Yet in a crime with a victim, the aggressor walks free. WTG Florida

[Drem]

Who here has a college degree?
High school diploma?
and is named Harrison?
Get a GED yet?
and you guys wonder why his arguments aren't coherent and he resorts to raging?

[brinstar]

zan raises a fair question, and it's telling that his question is being mocked rather than considered legitimately

1. GZ verdict shows that circumstance is irrelevant - regardless of how you got into a situation, if you are in fear for your life you may defend yourself with lethal force. is that not the precedent set? this lady was cornered in the bathroom OF HER OWN HOME by someone against whom she had a restraining order and was told "if i can't have you no one can". are you telling us that she shouldn't have been in fear for her life? he had knocked her around in the past, hence the restraining order - it's not fair to say "she wasn't touched" without adding "this time". and why is lady going into her garage to get a gun (not exactly "leaving the situation" btw) different from GZ getting out of his truck? both actions constitute clearly reckless escalation of situations that might otherwise have ended uneventfully.

2. why is it so impossible to see the correlation between the two cases? does self-defense require physical contact? should she have tried picking a fight (like GZ) and let him knock her around a bit first just so she could blast him? her actions were reckless and i would not bat an eye if she had been prosecuted for discharging a firearm, but i don't see how it's assault.

3. also if you're going to argue that guns are for self-defense, didn't she do exactly what she was supposed to? if a burglar breaks into your home and you confront him with a gun and tell him to leave, and he refuses, what's the next step?

try responding without insults, if you want to be taken seriously

[leah]

3. also if you're going to argue that guns are for self-defense, didn't she do exactly what she was supposed to? if a burglar breaks into your home and you confront him with a gun and tell him to leave, and he refuses, what's the next step?

not an answer to this question, but it made me think of a story: one of my best friends had an incident like this when she was still living at home with her family in colorado. a methed-up guy mistook their family home for his dealer's house and tried to break in, and her dad brought out his handgun and yelled through the front door "i have a firearm, and if you continue to break into my house, i will shoot you." and then the guy smashed the window next to the door to reach in for the doorknob so mick shot him in the arm! he ran off then i guess and the cops just followed the trail of blood and arrested him. anyway that seems to illustrate this third question pretty well, yes? mostly it's just a cool story. i'm well-documented as not being a huge fan of guns but that's a pretty great example of defending yourself responsibly with a firearm imo.

[Menelvir]

After reading a bit more about the woman's case, I don't really see many similarities.

If the threat to your life is imminent, it is unreasonable to expect that you can willingly leave the situation (remove yourself from the source of the immediate threat) in order to obtain a weapon (by going out to your car), then choose to re-enter the situation (by re-entering the house), re-exposing yourself to the threat, attempt the use of deadly force (by discharging the weapon), and expect that the law will see this as self-defense.

If she had the opportunity to get to her car, it is reasonable to assume at that point, she was able to retreat safely, and that she could have driven away.

Once you've retreated, if you then go back, that is a willful decision to re-enter the situation where you're claiming there was a threat.

If she'd been armed while she was in the house, and he knocked her to the floor and started hitting her, I'm thinking that the law would consider that a singular situation - if at that point she reasonably feared her life was in imminent danger, she might then have been justified in discharging the weapon (and coincidentally killing her assailant).

If Zimmerman was on the ground getting beaten, got up and ran to his truck, retrieved a weapon, and shot Martin, that might have produced a different outcome (depending on particulars). But the general assumption would be that if he could get back to his truck safely, that he could retreat safely from the situation and use of deadly force at that point would not be legally justified.

There are always going to be particulars for any given case that a court will review with a very high degree of scrutiny.

[Tossica]

About 10 years ago I was at a small after bar gathering at a friends house. 2 very large, drunk assholes walked up to the house and attempted to join the party. They were told it was a private party, no one knew them and they should go home. There was an altercation, a couple punches were thrown with the owner of the house and one of his friends, the two ran off to their car saying "We're going to get our gats!". The owner of the house went to the safe and got out his handgun, just in case. About 20 minutes later we heard tires screeching out front and about 10 seconds later the front door was kicked in, a girl near the door was struck with something, blood sprayed and she was knocked across the room as they tried to fight their way in to the house. There was a glass table we were playing poker on that was smashed along with a few other pieces of furniture, etc. A buddy grabbed a beer bottle and struck one of them in the head and we all pushed them out the front door and down the steps. We then heard 4 shots ring out and assumed they were shooting in to the house so we all hit the deck.

The friend of the owner had apparently picked up the handgun at some point and was out on the back deck when the assault started. He came around front and shot both of the violent home invaders dead on the front lawn as they stumbled backwards down the stairs. He was protecting his friends from what we all thought were 2 thugs, armed with "gats". Apparently they only had hammers but none of us knew that. In all the breaking glass and commotion in the house, the friend had thought they had killed or beaten us all and were on their way out of the house so he shot them both.

He was charged with 2 counts of 2nd degree murder and was convicted and sentenced to 20 years for manslaughter. Had the homeowner done the shooting, things may have been different but the friend thought the homeowner was dead or incapacitated inside and did what he thought he had to do.

I had to spend 2 weeks in court and had to testify in a double homicide case. It was the most surreal experience of my life.

The friend spent 7 years in prison and was let out on good behavior. He made a horrible choice to use the homeowners weapon to shoot those 2 guys but in a way, the dude is a hero and there are 2 less scumbags walking the streets today and for that I'm thankful.

[Zanchief]

We don't know the particulars though. We're assuming. Maybe she had unresolved business and went to get her firearm for protection. Returned to a situation that although unstable, wasn't at the time life threatening. Similar to Zimmerman, she had the opportunity to leave a potentially dangerous situation, but chose to put herself in harms way. The situation may have only become volatile afterwards, as it did with Zimmerman. She had no legal imperative to make a smart decision, just as Zimmerman didn't either. All that matters was that at one point she felt threatened and took drastic action, which in her case didn't even involve taking someones life.

[leah]

About 10 years ago I was at a small after bar gathering at a friends house. 2 very large, drunk assholes walked up to the house and attempted to join the party. They were told it was a private party, no one knew them and they should go home. There was an altercation, a couple punches were thrown with the owner of the house and one of his friends, the two ran off to their car saying "We're going to get our gats!". The owner of the house went to the safe and got out his handgun, just in case. About 20 minutes later we heard tires screeching out front and about 10 seconds later the front door was kicked in, a girl near the door was struck with something, blood sprayed and she was knocked across the room as they tried to fight their way in to the house. There was a glass table we were playing poker on that was smashed along with a few other pieces of furniture, etc. A buddy grabbed a beer bottle and struck one of them in the head and we all pushed them out the front door and down the steps. We then heard 4 shots ring out and assumed they were shooting in to the house so we all hit the deck.

The friend of the owner had apparently picked up the handgun at some point and was out on the back deck when the assault started. He came around front and shot both of the violent home invaders dead on the front lawn as they stumbled backwards down the stairs. He was protecting his friends from what we all thought were 2 thugs, armed with "gats". Apparently they only had hammers but none of us knew that. In all the breaking glass and commotion in the house, the friend had thought they had killed or beaten us all and were on their way out of the house so he shot them both.

He was charged with 2 counts of 2nd degree murder and was convicted and sentenced to 20 years for manslaughter. Had the homeowner done the shooting, things may have been different but the friend thought the homeowner was dead or incapacitated inside and did what he thought he had to do.

I had to spend 2 weeks in court and had to testify in a double homicide case. It was the most surreal experience of my life.

The friend spent 7 years in prison and was let out on good behavior. He made a horrible choice to use the homeowners weapon to shoot those 2 guys but in a way, the dude is a hero and there are 2 less scumbags walking the streets today and for that I'm thankful.

damn.

[Tikker]

.

[Tossica]

The friend spent 7 years in prison and was let out on good behavior. He made a horrible choice to use the homeowners weapon to shoot those 2 guys but in a way, the dude is a hero and there are 2 less scumbags walking the streets today and for that I'm thankful.

I know what you're saying, and I mostly agree, but since he shot/killed them AFTER he thought they'd already ganked your friends, he totally deserved the jail time


like, if he'd busted in mid fight and pwned them, he'd probably get a medal

Yeah. I guess my point is, if you kill someone, there should be a penalty of some sort unless there was absolutely no other option. Zimmerman had the option to stay in his car, not follow the kid, not draw his gun, etc.

[Menelvir]

We don't know the particulars though. We're assuming. Maybe she had unresolved business and went to get her firearm for protection. Returned to a situation that although unstable, wasn't at the time life threatening.

If she willingly returned to a situation that she knew was unstable, WITH a firearm, that begins to smack of premeditation, or at the very least, intent to do harm.

It's not using your head.

If that is the way it went down, I can't say I condone or agree with her choice of actions.

If you're not armed, you don't leave a situation, arm yourself, and then go back to the situation you just left, especially if the situation was already unstable.

[leah]

We don't know the particulars though. We're assuming. Maybe she had unresolved business and went to get her firearm for protection. Returned to a situation that although unstable, wasn't at the time life threatening.

If she willingly returned to a situation that she knew was unstable, WITH a firearm, that begins to smack of premeditation, or at the very least, intent to do harm.

It's not using your head.

If that is the way it went down, I can't say I condone or agree with her choice of actions.

If you're not armed, you don't leave a situation, arm yourself, and then go back to the situation you just left, especially if the situation was already unstable.

even with all of that, though, 20 years?? still seems excessive.

[Tossica]

I'm sure she deserves some punishment, yeah. 20 years? Give me a fucking break. If it was a white woman, there would be an outpouring of support and whatnot.