George Zimmerman found Not Guilty.
- Thread starter Saturnine Pariah
- Start date
people in florida are not worse than anywhere else, it's some of these laws. the syg law is too open for abuse of firearms or recklessness by whoever chooses to use them as well as the sentences don't match the crime.
Florida Is Not an Accident
People don't elect governors like Jeb Bush or Rick Scott on accident.
People don't elect a legislature that passes these sorts of stupid laws on accident.
And when people have known for years that something is wrong, they don't fail to fix the problem on accident.
This is Florida.
George Zimmerman? The guy who lied to the court, hid his money and passport? Mark O'Mara, the lawyer who says if Zimmerman had only had the privilege of being born black, he never would have been arrested?
Yeah, this is the face of Florida.
If Michael Dunn is convicted, SYG has failed its purpose.
And they don't create that kind of clusterdiddle by accident.
This is Florida.
Birch said:
People don't elect governors like Jeb Bush or Rick Scott on accident.
People don't elect a legislature that passes these sorts of stupid laws on accident.
And when people have known for years that something is wrong, they don't fail to fix the problem on accident.
This is Florida.
George Zimmerman? The guy who lied to the court, hid his money and passport? Mark O'Mara, the lawyer who says if Zimmerman had only had the privilege of being born black, he never would have been arrested?
Yeah, this is the face of Florida.
If Michael Dunn is convicted, SYG has failed its purpose.
And they don't create that kind of clusterdiddle by accident.
This is Florida.
i bet every state has screwed up laws in its legislature, it's just florida's turn to exposure of them. i guess what i am saying is the legislature isn't representative of the population as it's from all over and it has much more larger liberal elements and factions than many other states, surprisingly. i suppose you could just put the blame on the multitudes of senior citizens.
America's Wang in the Context of Social Disease
Well, of course every state has stupid shit on its books. But come on, dude.
Look, Florida is the place where the courts would rather put a minor female in the custody of a male convicted murderer and accused child molester than a lesbian, on the grounds that the teenage girl is safer with her convicted murderer and accused child molester of a father than she would be with her lesbian mother.
Florida is the place where juries acquit rapists because of a woman's skirt.
And Florida is a place that deliberately passed this kind of law. SYG is unnecessary. The difference between SYG and self-defense is that under SYG, yes, the fact of someone's blackness or other nonwhite attribute becomes justification for killing. Without it, you need a real, substantial reason to kill someone.
This has been going on for years. You know, it's kind of like Arizona. You know? I mean, sure, there are good people in Florida, just like there are good people in Arizona, or Texas, or Louisiana, or North Carolina, or Indiana, or any other state whose government represents such vicious hatred.
But it's been going on for years.
Think of Arizona. Okay, you know, back when they said no to MLK Day, the excuse was libertarianism; how dare the gov'mint tell Ar'zonie what t'do!
Yet, it's how many years later, and they still haven't changed? Still a bunch of paranoid racists running the show down there? Yeah, we get the hint.
Bottom line: The next time the South wants to secede, we'll trade them Virginia for Arizona (as Virginians will stay with the federal contracts driving the state economy instead of vote to be on the front line of the New War Between the States) and demand they take Florida with them. And then say get the fuck out. Sure, we'll take the refugees. But these states never wanted to be American, anyway. They wanted the prestige, and the privilege. But they refuse the responsibilities.
And when it's time? You bet you'll see a massive liberal direct action to help racial and ethnic minorities, the poor, and other refugees back to safe, American soil. We won't leave them behind, but it's time cut our losses.
Even with the Republicans of thirty years ago, some progress was possible.
We cannot work toward a better United States, a more perfect union, as long as we must continue to defer to these fucking morons who reject that better quality of life, and denounce the idea of a more perfect union.
Really, though, it was only a few years ago that Florida conservatives showed their fear of black people by offering them oral sex for money.
The downward spiral would shocking, except for the fact that we are talking about Florida, here.
Birch said:
Well, of course every state has stupid shit on its books. But come on, dude.
Look, Florida is the place where the courts would rather put a minor female in the custody of a male convicted murderer and accused child molester than a lesbian, on the grounds that the teenage girl is safer with her convicted murderer and accused child molester of a father than she would be with her lesbian mother.
Florida is the place where juries acquit rapists because of a woman's skirt.
And Florida is a place that deliberately passed this kind of law. SYG is unnecessary. The difference between SYG and self-defense is that under SYG, yes, the fact of someone's blackness or other nonwhite attribute becomes justification for killing. Without it, you need a real, substantial reason to kill someone.
This has been going on for years. You know, it's kind of like Arizona. You know? I mean, sure, there are good people in Florida, just like there are good people in Arizona, or Texas, or Louisiana, or North Carolina, or Indiana, or any other state whose government represents such vicious hatred.
But it's been going on for years.
Think of Arizona. Okay, you know, back when they said no to MLK Day, the excuse was libertarianism; how dare the gov'mint tell Ar'zonie what t'do!
Yet, it's how many years later, and they still haven't changed? Still a bunch of paranoid racists running the show down there? Yeah, we get the hint.
Bottom line: The next time the South wants to secede, we'll trade them Virginia for Arizona (as Virginians will stay with the federal contracts driving the state economy instead of vote to be on the front line of the New War Between the States) and demand they take Florida with them. And then say get the fuck out. Sure, we'll take the refugees. But these states never wanted to be American, anyway. They wanted the prestige, and the privilege. But they refuse the responsibilities.
And when it's time? You bet you'll see a massive liberal direct action to help racial and ethnic minorities, the poor, and other refugees back to safe, American soil. We won't leave them behind, but it's time cut our losses.
Even with the Republicans of thirty years ago, some progress was possible.
We cannot work toward a better United States, a more perfect union, as long as we must continue to defer to these fucking morons who reject that better quality of life, and denounce the idea of a more perfect union.
Really, though, it was only a few years ago that Florida conservatives showed their fear of black people by offering them oral sex for money.
The downward spiral would shocking, except for the fact that we are talking about Florida, here.
Shit man, where do I start?
So what? That deals with the phone call and after the phone call. Clearly Zimmerman had been following him long enough before the phonecall to:
Get an impression of race and gender.
Be able to give the police an accurate discussion of what Martin was wearing.
Get the impression that he was on drugs.
So one dimensional in yoru thinking.
Of course it doesn't, doing so would be incriminating. Same reason why the defense lawyers forbade him from saying anything. Anything he could say would be incriminating.
So what? You think any of this disproves clustering? The inate human tendency of people to gather with like minded people, or people of similar ethnicity or cultural background (or whatever).
Here's how powerful the "stand your ground" defense is.
Just bring your gun along, and you are the toughest guy in town.
Location details: Hot Shotz Bar in New Port Richey, Pasco County, on March 29, 2008
What happened: Max Wesley Horn Jr., 46, shot and killed Joseph Martell, 34, after an argument outside a bar during the annual Chasco Fiesta in New Port Richey. Martell had exchanged words with friends of Horn's during the day, and they encountered each other later that night when Martell emerged from Hot Shotz and, according to Horn, threatened his sister-in-law. Horn lifted his shirt to show a gun in his waistband and said he would shoot Martell, who was dragged away to another bar. He returned shortly. Witnesses gave differering accounts of what happened next. Some say Martell punched Horn. Others didn't see a punch. Horn fired at Martell six times until the gun jammed.
The outcome: Horn was charged with second-degree murder. He claimed immunity under the stand your ground statute, but a judge denied that claim. He went to trial and was acquitted.
Case decision made by: Jury
Max Wesley Horn Jnr.
He even sounds like someone from the old Wild West.
The Zimmerman case would never have come to trial if there hadn't been such an outrage.
It is a clear example of "standing your ground", with many precedents.
I said before that I thought he might have been found guilty of manslaughter,
if that had been the charge. Now I doubt it.
Under Arizona law, he acted within his rights.
Look at this SYG case. A boy stabbed to death for being a nasty bully. Killer never even went to trial.
Location details: School bus stop in Golden Gate Estates, Collier County, on Jan. 24, 2011
What happened: Jorge Saavedra, 14, fatally stabbed Dylan Nuno, 16, at a school bus stop. Saavedra had gotten off the bus early trying to avoid a fight. Testimony showed that Saavedra, who claimed Nuno bullied him and teased him about his learning disabilities, was trying to get away from Nuno and a group of his friends when he was punched in the back of the head. Witnesses said he continued to try to get away. But soon he took out a pocketknife and stabbed Nuno 12 times. One of the thrusts nicked Nuno's heart. Both boys were students at Palmetto Ridge High School.
The outcome: The judge granted immunity under "stand your ground." "The defendant was in a place where he had a right to be and was not acting unlawfully," Collier County Circuit Judge Lauren Brodie wrote. "He had more than enough reason to believe he was in danger of death or great bodily harm."
Investigating agency: Collier County Sheriff
Case decision made by: Judge
Stabbed him twelve times? Sounds reasonable to me.
(This is not a photoshop concoction. This is a real photo)
To see all of them http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases
@Tiassa
I haven't looked through them all.
I doubt that there are many very Black on very White SYG acquittals,
but they are all shades in between.
Just bring your gun along, and you are the toughest guy in town.
Location details: Hot Shotz Bar in New Port Richey, Pasco County, on March 29, 2008
What happened: Max Wesley Horn Jr., 46, shot and killed Joseph Martell, 34, after an argument outside a bar during the annual Chasco Fiesta in New Port Richey. Martell had exchanged words with friends of Horn's during the day, and they encountered each other later that night when Martell emerged from Hot Shotz and, according to Horn, threatened his sister-in-law. Horn lifted his shirt to show a gun in his waistband and said he would shoot Martell, who was dragged away to another bar. He returned shortly. Witnesses gave differering accounts of what happened next. Some say Martell punched Horn. Others didn't see a punch. Horn fired at Martell six times until the gun jammed.
The outcome: Horn was charged with second-degree murder. He claimed immunity under the stand your ground statute, but a judge denied that claim. He went to trial and was acquitted.
Case decision made by: Jury
Max Wesley Horn Jnr.
He even sounds like someone from the old Wild West.
The Zimmerman case would never have come to trial if there hadn't been such an outrage.
It is a clear example of "standing your ground", with many precedents.
I said before that I thought he might have been found guilty of manslaughter,
if that had been the charge. Now I doubt it.
Under Arizona law, he acted within his rights.
Look at this SYG case. A boy stabbed to death for being a nasty bully. Killer never even went to trial.
Location details: School bus stop in Golden Gate Estates, Collier County, on Jan. 24, 2011
What happened: Jorge Saavedra, 14, fatally stabbed Dylan Nuno, 16, at a school bus stop. Saavedra had gotten off the bus early trying to avoid a fight. Testimony showed that Saavedra, who claimed Nuno bullied him and teased him about his learning disabilities, was trying to get away from Nuno and a group of his friends when he was punched in the back of the head. Witnesses said he continued to try to get away. But soon he took out a pocketknife and stabbed Nuno 12 times. One of the thrusts nicked Nuno's heart. Both boys were students at Palmetto Ridge High School.
The outcome: The judge granted immunity under "stand your ground." "The defendant was in a place where he had a right to be and was not acting unlawfully," Collier County Circuit Judge Lauren Brodie wrote. "He had more than enough reason to believe he was in danger of death or great bodily harm."
Investigating agency: Collier County Sheriff
Case decision made by: Judge
Stabbed him twelve times? Sounds reasonable to me.
(This is not a photoshop concoction. This is a real photo)
To see all of them http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases
@Tiassa
I haven't looked through them all.
I doubt that there are many very Black on very White SYG acquittals,
but they are all shades in between.
Last edited:
@Kwhil
Are you sure it wasn't me that said it?
Are you sure it wasn't me that said it?
kwhilborn;
I don't think you are fabricating facts, necessarily, but you are connecting dots that are simply not there...to justify the acquittal of GZ.
The reason racism has been front and center with this case, is that had TM been a white man walking through the neighborhood…we most likely wouldn't be having this discussion.
I’m not overlooking that TM seemed to be involved with a bad crowd, and was doing illegal activities…but, he wasn’t doing anything illegal on the night in question. No matter what GZ says, TM wasn't doing anything illegal. Should we go around following everyone we suspect who might be up to no good? I’d be busy all day long, then. So would you. I don’t know the mind of GZ, but his story wasn’t consistent, and I can’t help but wonder if he provoked TM, and then shot him when he couldn’t protect himself.
You shouldn’t be permitted to follow someone for NO REASON, provoke a fight, and then…shoot the person when things get out of hand.
I can’t presume to know if GZ honestly felt afraid for his life. I will say, he didn’t shoot immediately. I don’t believe it was a calculated diabolical scheme to shoot TM.
But, being a reckless vigilante wannabe should be against the law. GZ acted recklessly…he started the perfect storm, and when it got to be too much, he shot TM.
It’s not an easy case by any means…but, I just encourage you to review your stance, and see that you are connecting dots that are simply not there, to make an acquittal look justified. That’s all.
Edit to add >> This is why cities and townships have a police force…to handle suspicious activity. GZ couldn’t HANDLE the situation at hand; a trained police officer would have been able to detain TM, if that would have been necessary, without using lethal force. (since TM had no weapon on him) This is what you are missing. GZ put himself in a situation HE COULDN’T HANDLE, AND HAD NO BUSINESS BEING IN. Then he used a weapon on an unarmed man. THAT’S THE POINT OF THIS WHOLE THING. The neighborhood watch person can and should only be permitted to do so much. GZ is not a trained police officer and acted recklessly. It’s safe to assume, that if you own a gun, and your life is threatened, you should have the right to shoot your attacker. But, imagine if we had a police force that acted like GZ? Can you imagine that? They are TRAINED to handle things that GZ had no business ‘handling.’ That’s a huge part of this case to, barring the race issue. He was specifically encouraged to not pursue TM. But, GZ did anyway. He was reckless, he killed an unarmed teenager who was not doing anything illegal, and he will have to live with that fact for the rest of his life. Perhaps no amount of jail time will ever compare to the enormous guilt that hopefully he does feel, over taking a life, needlessly.
I don't think you are fabricating facts, necessarily, but you are connecting dots that are simply not there...to justify the acquittal of GZ.
The reason racism has been front and center with this case, is that had TM been a white man walking through the neighborhood…we most likely wouldn't be having this discussion.
I’m not overlooking that TM seemed to be involved with a bad crowd, and was doing illegal activities…but, he wasn’t doing anything illegal on the night in question. No matter what GZ says, TM wasn't doing anything illegal. Should we go around following everyone we suspect who might be up to no good? I’d be busy all day long, then. So would you. I don’t know the mind of GZ, but his story wasn’t consistent, and I can’t help but wonder if he provoked TM, and then shot him when he couldn’t protect himself.
You shouldn’t be permitted to follow someone for NO REASON, provoke a fight, and then…shoot the person when things get out of hand.
I can’t presume to know if GZ honestly felt afraid for his life. I will say, he didn’t shoot immediately. I don’t believe it was a calculated diabolical scheme to shoot TM.
But, being a reckless vigilante wannabe should be against the law. GZ acted recklessly…he started the perfect storm, and when it got to be too much, he shot TM.
It’s not an easy case by any means…but, I just encourage you to review your stance, and see that you are connecting dots that are simply not there, to make an acquittal look justified. That’s all.
Edit to add >> This is why cities and townships have a police force…to handle suspicious activity. GZ couldn’t HANDLE the situation at hand; a trained police officer would have been able to detain TM, if that would have been necessary, without using lethal force. (since TM had no weapon on him) This is what you are missing. GZ put himself in a situation HE COULDN’T HANDLE, AND HAD NO BUSINESS BEING IN. Then he used a weapon on an unarmed man. THAT’S THE POINT OF THIS WHOLE THING. The neighborhood watch person can and should only be permitted to do so much. GZ is not a trained police officer and acted recklessly. It’s safe to assume, that if you own a gun, and your life is threatened, you should have the right to shoot your attacker. But, imagine if we had a police force that acted like GZ? Can you imagine that? They are TRAINED to handle things that GZ had no business ‘handling.’ That’s a huge part of this case to, barring the race issue. He was specifically encouraged to not pursue TM. But, GZ did anyway. He was reckless, he killed an unarmed teenager who was not doing anything illegal, and he will have to live with that fact for the rest of his life. Perhaps no amount of jail time will ever compare to the enormous guilt that hopefully he does feel, over taking a life, needlessly.
GZ should have been convicted of this:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/involuntary+manslaughter
He acted recklessly, without the malicious intent to kill someone, but did. The fact that he could act outrageously reckless as he did, kill someone, and get off...is unreal. UNREAL.
It would be tantamount to me, getting into my car...driving down to the city at night, (and let's say I'm armed) and start following people I deem as suspicious. Things go awry, and I shoot them.
That's the police force's job, not mine. Neighborhood watch should be that you 'watch' the neighborhood and YOU REPORT suspicious activity to the police, and once you do...you go home, or you stay put. You let the police force do its job.
So to me, GZ deserved to be convicted of involuntary manslaughter. He created the storm, he was reckless...
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/involuntary+manslaughter
He acted recklessly, without the malicious intent to kill someone, but did. The fact that he could act outrageously reckless as he did, kill someone, and get off...is unreal. UNREAL.
It would be tantamount to me, getting into my car...driving down to the city at night, (and let's say I'm armed) and start following people I deem as suspicious. Things go awry, and I shoot them.
That's the police force's job, not mine. Neighborhood watch should be that you 'watch' the neighborhood and YOU REPORT suspicious activity to the police, and once you do...you go home, or you stay put. You let the police force do its job.
So to me, GZ deserved to be convicted of involuntary manslaughter. He created the storm, he was reckless...
You are opposing a law which allowed a person to enact that precise scenario.
Zimmerman did it, and was acquitted.
There's no law against following someone who looks suspicious.
The police Zimmerman contacted on the night said "We don't need to to do that".
Those words were not chosen casually.
It was his choice whether he continued or not.
If they attack you, even by throwing a punch, you can shoot or stab them.
Under Arizona law the jury made the right decision.
What do you think of the case below of the schoolboy,
who brought a knife to school and stabbed a bully with it twelve times?
So clear a case of SYG, that the judge threw the case out of court.
Read some of the other cases. It is madness.
Zimmerman did it, and was acquitted.
There's no law against following someone who looks suspicious.
The police Zimmerman contacted on the night said "We don't need to to do that".
Those words were not chosen casually.
It was his choice whether he continued or not.
If they attack you, even by throwing a punch, you can shoot or stab them.
Under Arizona law the jury made the right decision.
What do you think of the case below of the schoolboy,
who brought a knife to school and stabbed a bully with it twelve times?
So clear a case of SYG, that the judge threw the case out of court.
Read some of the other cases. It is madness.
captain;
involuntary manslaughter purports that if you in your act of recklessness, killed someone...you should be held accountable. Following someone with no malicious intent, isn’t illegal. But, acting in a reckless way, behaving like the town vigilante ...and provoking altercations with unarmed people…is against the law. GZ did just that.
involuntary manslaughter purports that if you in your act of recklessness, killed someone...you should be held accountable. Following someone with no malicious intent, isn’t illegal. But, acting in a reckless way, behaving like the town vigilante ...and provoking altercations with unarmed people…is against the law. GZ did just that.
While I agree that Zimmerman was reckless in a colloquial sense, since following someone is not illegal and carrying a gun is not illegal, it is not reckless in a legal sense.
After all, we might consider, for example, bumping into someone on the street or spilling a drink on someone to be "reckless", but not as a precipitating event to manslaughter.
Zimmerman was acquitted because when Martin attacked him, Zimmerman wasn't doing anything illegal.
After all, we might consider, for example, bumping into someone on the street or spilling a drink on someone to be "reckless", but not as a precipitating event to manslaughter.
Zimmerman was acquitted because when Martin attacked him, Zimmerman wasn't doing anything illegal.
Bells
Staff member
Neither was Martin when he was followed and then chased by Zimmerman.
I notice no one has given Martin the right to stand his ground. Then again, that claim seems to be reserved for only particular people.
and when Zimmerman followed Martin...Martin wasn't doing anything illegal to warrant being followed.
That's an excellent point. The presumption throughout this case has been that Zimmerman was attacked first. How do we know this? How do we know Zimmerman didn't provoke the altercation? Because Zimmerman says so? lol
Precisely. This is why this thread should be moved to the philosophy forum.
@wegs
Again, you are correct.
There are no witnesses, therefore no reason to disbelieve Zimmerman.
If Zimmerman attacked Martin, then Martin could legally have stood his ground and killed him.
I don't know if any black person has unsuccessfully tried this defense in a case where a white person started the fight.
If so, then the justice system is corrupt. As the SYG law is itself corrupt, I wouldn't be surprised.
Have a look through the cases and see if you can find any.
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases
Again, you are correct.
There are no witnesses, therefore no reason to disbelieve Zimmerman.
If Zimmerman attacked Martin, then Martin could legally have stood his ground and killed him.
I don't know if any black person has unsuccessfully tried this defense in a case where a white person started the fight.
If so, then the justice system is corrupt. As the SYG law is itself corrupt, I wouldn't be surprised.
Have a look through the cases and see if you can find any.
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases
you are trying to equate what he did to innocently bumping into someone on the street. if the law was just he should be rotting in prison for some time for what he did.
he was reckless only in "colloquial?" excuse me? come again? wtf?
gz defied police to not follow, gz was locked and loaded and ready which is not what neighborhood watch does, gz violated neighborhood watch rules and protocol, gz even by his own account (he had several) stated he tried to apprehend and detain. "colloquial" my a@@.
you can't trust the public as per this example
Zimmerman's guilt or innocence is a question of law, not philosophy.
If you want to discuss whether the law is fair, or moral, that might be a philosophical question.
If you want to discuss whether the law is fair, or moral, that might be a philosophical question.